Alabama judge to oppose"tyranny" of gay marriage

[Misty Moonsilver]

Fireweed_honey

Misty Moonsilver

Hell Rides With GSK

Misty Moonsilver

And how would people know if they were having sex unless they made a big deal about it? I don't like to hear about ANYONE'S sex life. And there are countless stupid laws that aren't enforced. Come on.

Ever hear of "swatting"? It's sort of like that. Call the cops, tell them you heard gunshots, let them do the rest.

Need more proof that they can arrest even wuthout it? Ask the police in East Baton Rogue; they were pretty confident all you need is to catch them soliciting for sex with each other and boom.

Oh yea, and ask the gays there if those laws aren't enforced.

No....wtf. I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone gay being arrested for having sex.
But again, I don't want to know about anyone's sex life. Straight, gay, whatever. Now explain if there were two men doing it, and someone called the police at that moment to say they heard gunshots--HOW would that person know they were having sex unless they were completely loud and obnoxious about it. Which in that case would STILL count as just a noise complaint. You make it sound like people were calling the police whenever they heard some gay folks gettin' it on. That's a little far fetched.

I have heard of people being arrested for gay sex. Granted, this was from like the 60's or 70's, and it wasn't in their homes. An uncle of mine by marriage used to get arrested a lot for soliciting sex (or full on sex acts) to other men in rest stop restrooms. He'd be arrested for soliciting a police officer, taken to the nearest jail, and call his wife. He'd tell her, "It wasn't me they were really after, honey. It was some other guy and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yeah, no one was shocked when he came out of the closet and went to live with his boyfriend.

I've never heard of people being arrested in their homes. Though, to be fair, I think that uncle's arrests were a mixture of prostitution charges and gay sex. They would probably arrest anyone for the same thing if they was hanging out at rest stop restrooms soliciting sex.

Aw come on now. If he was doing it in public, of course he would get arrested. Straight couples get in trouble for that all the time.... You just choose to believe that it was because of the gay thing.....That's like if I went outside butt naked and police arrested me and I said it was because I'm black lol Well and yea I think in one of my posts, I mentioned that no one would care as much in the 21st century.

[Fireweed_honey]

Misty Moonsilver

Fireweed_honey

Misty Moonsilver

Hell Rides With GSK

Misty Moonsilver

And how would people know if they were having sex unless they made a big deal about it? I don't like to hear about ANYONE'S sex life. And there are countless stupid laws that aren't enforced. Come on.

Ever hear of "swatting"? It's sort of like that. Call the cops, tell them you heard gunshots, let them do the rest.

Need more proof that they can arrest even wuthout it? Ask the police in East Baton Rogue; they were pretty confident all you need is to catch them soliciting for sex with each other and boom.

Oh yea, and ask the gays there if those laws aren't enforced.

No....wtf. I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone gay being arrested for having sex.
But again, I don't want to know about anyone's sex life. Straight, gay, whatever. Now explain if there were two men doing it, and someone called the police at that moment to say they heard gunshots--HOW would that person know they were having sex unless they were completely loud and obnoxious about it. Which in that case would STILL count as just a noise complaint. You make it sound like people were calling the police whenever they heard some gay folks gettin' it on. That's a little far fetched.

I have heard of people being arrested for gay sex. Granted, this was from like the 60's or 70's, and it wasn't in their homes. An uncle of mine by marriage used to get arrested a lot for soliciting sex (or full on sex acts) to other men in rest stop restrooms. He'd be arrested for soliciting a police officer, taken to the nearest jail, and call his wife. He'd tell her, "It wasn't me they were really after, honey. It was some other guy and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yeah, no one was shocked when he came out of the closet and went to live with his boyfriend.

I've never heard of people being arrested in their homes. Though, to be fair, I think that uncle's arrests were a mixture of prostitution charges and gay sex. They would probably arrest anyone for the same thing if they was hanging out at rest stop restrooms soliciting sex.

Aw come on now. If he was doing it in public, of course he would get arrested. Straight couples get in trouble for that all the time.... You just choose to believe that it was because of the gay thing.....That's like if I went outside butt naked and police arrested me and I said it was because I'm black lol Well and yea I think in one of my posts, I mentioned that no one would care as much in the 21st century.

I did address that. Read the bold. This was the only case I knew of the police arresting a man for gay sex. I even said, it was not in his home. I admitted it was prostitution. It was my only example. I did not say it was only because of gay sex. Please read what people actually post.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Alexander J Luthor

Bokee Gngr

Misty Moonsilver

I love how there are sooo many things happening right now but gaia posters post any.little.update on gay marriage. The majority of state of Alabama obviously likes this man. Votes matter. Each state is different and as long as no one is hurting gay people, there is nothing wrong with doing what's right for their state. Why is tolerance such a one way street with liberals? Can we agree with disagree?

I agree with this in that it should be a state issue. If the majority of the state is voting against it...to the point of putting it in their constitution then forcing the state to go along with bigger liberal states is wrong.

And forcing liberal states to go along with conservative states if they ever got the upper hand would be totally acceptable- oh wait. They're already trying to do that with abortion. Because someone's irrelevant rights are more important than another's. That's what you're ******** doing.

Tell you what. Let's call gay marriage civil union. And since a church marriage is recognized by God and NOT the state, then you don't get any of the goddamn government perks; shared tax filing, tax exemptions, getting work leave to take care of a spouse or family member, sponsoring a spouse during immigration, getting social security survivor benefits, using joint means to qualify for programs like Medicaid and getting a family insurance plan, Marriage will also be replaced by Civil Unions on government forms and other such documents, meaning that your subject to fraud charges and other such penalties for inaccurately describing your relationship. And let's not forget that your "relationship" won't be recognized in other states, nor will you be able to file for divorce in states that don't recognize your status, you'll have to put twice the effort into constructing your wills and estates, which will come in handy when your spouse's family has the right to make life or death decisions instead of you.

Go ahead and keep talking about tolerance and how no one is hurting gay people since Jim Crow isn't standing between you and the courthouse. "Separate but Equal" my a**.

First of all, I've been for that civil union idea from the very beginning, mailing it to all married couples, and letting any that are legal adults sign said contracts as they wish and calling it a day.
But... as has already been pointed out, attempting to latch onto Jim Crow laws and such as part of the gay issue? Can YOU spot a gay?
How about an asian or african american or another minority? Big damn difference.
As for the anti-abortion issue? The other side of the coin is the liberal states and their law groups constantly shoving abortion down anti-abortion state's throats is cool with you?
That cat swings in a circle so smack everyone.

[Misty Moonsilver]

Fireweed_honey

Misty Moonsilver

Fireweed_honey

Misty Moonsilver

Hell Rides With GSK

Misty Moonsilver

And how would people know if they were having sex unless they made a big deal about it? I don't like to hear about ANYONE'S sex life. And there are countless stupid laws that aren't enforced. Come on.

Ever hear of "swatting"? It's sort of like that. Call the cops, tell them you heard gunshots, let them do the rest.

Need more proof that they can arrest even wuthout it? Ask the police in East Baton Rogue; they were pretty confident all you need is to catch them soliciting for sex with each other and boom.

Oh yea, and ask the gays there if those laws aren't enforced.

No....wtf. I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone gay being arrested for having sex.
But again, I don't want to know about anyone's sex life. Straight, gay, whatever. Now explain if there were two men doing it, and someone called the police at that moment to say they heard gunshots--HOW would that person know they were having sex unless they were completely loud and obnoxious about it. Which in that case would STILL count as just a noise complaint. You make it sound like people were calling the police whenever they heard some gay folks gettin' it on. That's a little far fetched.

I have heard of people being arrested for gay sex. Granted, this was from like the 60's or 70's, and it wasn't in their homes. An uncle of mine by marriage used to get arrested a lot for soliciting sex (or full on sex acts) to other men in rest stop restrooms. He'd be arrested for soliciting a police officer, taken to the nearest jail, and call his wife. He'd tell her, "It wasn't me they were really after, honey. It was some other guy and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yeah, no one was shocked when he came out of the closet and went to live with his boyfriend.

I've never heard of people being arrested in their homes. Though, to be fair, I think that uncle's arrests were a mixture of prostitution charges and gay sex. They would probably arrest anyone for the same thing if they was hanging out at rest stop restrooms soliciting sex.

Aw come on now. If he was doing it in public, of course he would get arrested. Straight couples get in trouble for that all the time.... You just choose to believe that it was because of the gay thing.....That's like if I went outside butt naked and police arrested me and I said it was because I'm black lol Well and yea I think in one of my posts, I mentioned that no one would care as much in the 21st century.

I did address that. Read the bold. This was the only case I knew of the police arresting a man for gay sex. I even said, it was not in his home. I admitted it was prostitution. It was my only example. I did not say it was only because of gay sex. Please read what people actually post.

WOW I was trying to be civil. I did read your stupid post and even replied despite the fact that it was ******** pointless and you added nothing to the conversation. None of it was relevant. Like damn.

[Misty Moonsilver]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Alexander J Luthor

Bokee Gngr

Misty Moonsilver

I love how there are sooo many things happening right now but gaia posters post any.little.update on gay marriage. The majority of state of Alabama obviously likes this man. Votes matter. Each state is different and as long as no one is hurting gay people, there is nothing wrong with doing what's right for their state. Why is tolerance such a one way street with liberals? Can we agree with disagree?

I agree with this in that it should be a state issue. If the majority of the state is voting against it...to the point of putting it in their constitution then forcing the state to go along with bigger liberal states is wrong.

And forcing liberal states to go along with conservative states if they ever got the upper hand would be totally acceptable- oh wait. They're already trying to do that with abortion. Because someone's irrelevant rights are more important than another's. That's what you're ******** doing.

Tell you what. Let's call gay marriage civil union. And since a church marriage is recognized by God and NOT the state, then you don't get any of the goddamn government perks; shared tax filing, tax exemptions, getting work leave to take care of a spouse or family member, sponsoring a spouse during immigration, getting social security survivor benefits, using joint means to qualify for programs like Medicaid and getting a family insurance plan, Marriage will also be replaced by Civil Unions on government forms and other such documents, meaning that your subject to fraud charges and other such penalties for inaccurately describing your relationship. And let's not forget that your "relationship" won't be recognized in other states, nor will you be able to file for divorce in states that don't recognize your status, you'll have to put twice the effort into constructing your wills and estates, which will come in handy when your spouse's family has the right to make life or death decisions instead of you.

Go ahead and keep talking about tolerance and how no one is hurting gay people since Jim Crow isn't standing between you and the courthouse. "Separate but Equal" my a**.

First of all, I've been for that civil union idea from the very beginning, mailing it to all married couples, and letting any that are legal adults sign said contracts as they wish and calling it a day.
But... as has already been pointed out, attempting to latch onto Jim Crow laws and such as part of the gay issue? Can YOU spot a gay?
How about an asian or african american or another minority? Big damn difference.
As for the anti-abortion issue? The other side of the coin is the liberal states and their law groups constantly shoving abortion down anti-abortion state's throats is cool with you?
That cat swings in a circle so smack everyone.

Ha! Don't bother. These people are brain dead when it comes to the FACT that sexuality is different from racial background/heritage. They think that somehow they can compare gays not getting married to segregation, not being able to own anything, and being considered only a fraction of a person.

[The Peppermint Bunny]

Misty Moonsilver

Old Blue Collar Joe

Alexander J Luthor

Bokee Gngr

Misty Moonsilver

I love how there are sooo many things happening right now but gaia posters post any.little.update on gay marriage. The majority of state of Alabama obviously likes this man. Votes matter. Each state is different and as long as no one is hurting gay people, there is nothing wrong with doing what's right for their state. Why is tolerance such a one way street with liberals? Can we agree with disagree?

I agree with this in that it should be a state issue. If the majority of the state is voting against it...to the point of putting it in their constitution then forcing the state to go along with bigger liberal states is wrong.

And forcing liberal states to go along with conservative states if they ever got the upper hand would be totally acceptable- oh wait. They're already trying to do that with abortion. Because someone's irrelevant rights are more important than another's. That's what you're ******** doing.

Tell you what. Let's call gay marriage civil union. And since a church marriage is recognized by God and NOT the state, then you don't get any of the goddamn government perks; shared tax filing, tax exemptions, getting work leave to take care of a spouse or family member, sponsoring a spouse during immigration, getting social security survivor benefits, using joint means to qualify for programs like Medicaid and getting a family insurance plan, Marriage will also be replaced by Civil Unions on government forms and other such documents, meaning that your subject to fraud charges and other such penalties for inaccurately describing your relationship. And let's not forget that your "relationship" won't be recognized in other states, nor will you be able to file for divorce in states that don't recognize your status, you'll have to put twice the effort into constructing your wills and estates, which will come in handy when your spouse's family has the right to make life or death decisions instead of you.

Go ahead and keep talking about tolerance and how no one is hurting gay people since Jim Crow isn't standing between you and the courthouse. "Separate but Equal" my a**.

First of all, I've been for that civil union idea from the very beginning, mailing it to all married couples, and letting any that are legal adults sign said contracts as they wish and calling it a day.
But... as has already been pointed out, attempting to latch onto Jim Crow laws and such as part of the gay issue? Can YOU spot a gay?
How about an asian or african american or another minority? Big damn difference.
As for the anti-abortion issue? The other side of the coin is the liberal states and their law groups constantly shoving abortion down anti-abortion state's throats is cool with you?
That cat swings in a circle so smack everyone.

Ha! Don't bother. These people are brain dead when it comes to the FACT that sexuality is different from racial background/heritage. They think that somehow they can compare gays not getting married to segregation, not being able to own anything, and being considered only a fraction of a person.

Again, why are you making this a contest?

[King Shining Heaven]

Kaltros

The OP's title is misleading. The tyranny isn't gay marriage itself, but the subversion of democracy in order to promote gay marriage.

Originally, the title was going to be same as it is on the webpage, but that was impossible to put the entire title in.

[King Shining Heaven]

Misty Moonsilver

Ringoringa

Misty Moonsilver

I love how there are sooo many things happening right now but gaia posters post any.little.update on gay marriage. The majority of state of Alabama obviously likes this man. Votes matter. Each state is different and as long as no one is hurting gay people, there is nothing wrong with doing what's right for their state. Why is tolerance such a one way street with liberals? Can we agree with disagree?

Yeah! And while we're at it, so as long as no one is hurting interracial couples, there's nothing wrong with banning that, too, amirite? After all, popular opinion has been incredibly against such things in the past, and still is in a lot of southern areas. Why is tolerance such a one way street, you guys? I should be free to impose my beliefs on other people over matters that don't impact me in the slightest! Why, first you have blacks marrying whites, and then you have people marrying dogs! We must cease the tyranny of interracial marriage at once!

Again, someone trying to compare race, heritage and ethnicity to a state of mind. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not something you can see touch or hear--its a concept--an idea.
I can make something think I'm gay one day and be straight the next. I can NEVER hide my brown skin, curly hair or features. My cousin married a man and had a baby. 17 years later she's dating a woman. People can't TELL her she is gay. But they can tell her that she's black. I hate that I have to explain that race and sexuality are different. When were gays enslaved and taken from their country? Told that they are property or that they were not a whole person because of their skin color? Not allowed to vote? Lynched on sight because of their skin color? How many gays were forced to work in a field? Where are the signs that says "gays" and "straights"?

I agree with this. Even though I support gay rights, issues about sexuality and race are inherently different.

[BlackShadow03]

Misty Moonsilver

Fireweed_honey

Misty Moonsilver

Hell Rides With GSK

Misty Moonsilver

And how would people know if they were having sex unless they made a big deal about it? I don't like to hear about ANYONE'S sex life. And there are countless stupid laws that aren't enforced. Come on.

Ever hear of "swatting"? It's sort of like that. Call the cops, tell them you heard gunshots, let them do the rest.

Need more proof that they can arrest even wuthout it? Ask the police in East Baton Rogue; they were pretty confident all you need is to catch them soliciting for sex with each other and boom.

Oh yea, and ask the gays there if those laws aren't enforced.

No....wtf. I have NEVER EVER heard of anyone gay being arrested for having sex.
But again, I don't want to know about anyone's sex life. Straight, gay, whatever. Now explain if there were two men doing it, and someone called the police at that moment to say they heard gunshots--HOW would that person know they were having sex unless they were completely loud and obnoxious about it. Which in that case would STILL count as just a noise complaint. You make it sound like people were calling the police whenever they heard some gay folks gettin' it on. That's a little far fetched.

I have heard of people being arrested for gay sex. Granted, this was from like the 60's or 70's, and it wasn't in their homes. An uncle of mine by marriage used to get arrested a lot for soliciting sex (or full on sex acts) to other men in rest stop restrooms. He'd be arrested for soliciting a police officer, taken to the nearest jail, and call his wife. He'd tell her, "It wasn't me they were really after, honey. It was some other guy and I was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yeah, no one was shocked when he came out of the closet and went to live with his boyfriend.

I've never heard of people being arrested in their homes. Though, to be fair, I think that uncle's arrests were a mixture of prostitution charges and gay sex. They would probably arrest anyone for the same thing if they was hanging out at rest stop restrooms soliciting sex.

Aw come on now. If he was doing it in public, of course he would get arrested. Straight couples get in trouble for that all the time.... You just choose to believe that it was because of the gay thing.....That's like if I went outside butt naked and police arrested me and I said it was because I'm black lol Well and yea I think in one of my posts, I mentioned that no one would care as much in the 21st century.

Oh, no. They weren't likely having sex IN the truck stop bathroom, but rather arranging to go have sex somewhere else. Heterosexuals do that all the time....in public even. Usually in a bar.

So it's not like if you were running around outside naked, but rather being arrested for talking to someone about going home to walk around your living room naked......then being arrested by an undercover officer for indecent exposure (while fully clothed).

[Bokee Gngr]

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

The Daario Naharis

Bokee Gngr

I agree with this in that it should be a state issue. If the majority of the state is voting against it...to the point of putting it in their constitution then forcing the state to go along with bigger liberal states is wrong.

So you are A-Okay with Democracy as tyranny of the majority?

If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him to the corn well gosh golly jee wiz, are you going to just go along with those big liberal states that say we can't sacrifice people to the corn?

The problem with the "But the majority voted that way...." idea is that, unless you want to take democracy to a really ******** up extreme, the majority cannot vote to undermine the rights of the minority.

Overall, I'm just going to be glad I live in a country where we tend to go by that fine, fine statement delivered by one of our old Prime Ministers.

The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

I didn't say i would go along with it. I said that the state should have the right to vote on and make their own laws to govern their own states. If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him then I would (A) be in the 1% who voted against it (B) warn Tim of the incoming so he can move if he choses to and (C) relocate to a state that shares my views more if possible. However, we're not speaking of human sacrifice we're speaking of marriage and whether or not states should have the right to choose for themselves what their laws are. If we are to take your human sacrifice into the mix than it is only fair to ask you that if the state voted to sacrifice Tim than do you think it is also fair that they should go to a state against it and demand that they let them use their field to do so?

Who says you're allowed to leave a state planning your demise? Or that you're financially able to? Or that anyone else would attempt to help you, in fear that they might be targeted next as a sympathizer?

Do you find this so far-fetched? I am only asking questions leveled to people who suddenly found their home hostile. Do you believe the Jews were free to leave Germany after the Final Solution was in play? Do you think the South Vietnamese were financially able to pack up and move when the Viet-Cong rolled through? Do you think there were many peasants that would hide or help a former French aristocrat during the French Revolution (particularly the part simply known as the Reign of Terror), when tens of thousands of people were beheaded?

You failed to answer my question. Should those who are for this be able to go to a state that opposes it and force them to let them use their fields? Where did any of your listed places vote? Did people vote to have the Viet-cong roll through? Did people vote to have the reign of terror? Did people vote to have people beheaded? How many Jews and non-Jews voted for their state to be able to do that? Where do you find that any of your mentions above were voted for in a democratic way and that any state of those countries opposed it and some for it to the point that they had parades to raise awareness of any of this? You're taking countries run in different ways in different times of history and trying to make them the same as voting, America, and the like. Doesn't work that way. Again, please answer my question...should those states that say opposed Tim being taken and killed be forced to let those that voted to legalize it do so on their land?

Was those horrific times and places caused by a vote? No. But was it suddenly the new majority opinion? Yes. Just because they didn't put their opinions and actions to an actual vote before the executions doesn't mean it wouldn't have won out.

As for your question: I think you're asking if it's right for another state to interfere with a different state's vote and summary execution of a man named "Tim"? That's not a question of "should", but "would"......as such, I can't answer that. But I can remind you that we ARE talking about the United States. Fighting in wars that oftentimes have no bearing on our day-to-day lives is kind of our thing. And, yeah.....that's a dozen conflicts we stuck our noses in, or even started, because we didn't like what one of them was doing. I can find more if I have the time. Of course, if you're interested in how the individual states would treat eachother or how they would act, look no further than the Articles of Confederation. Anyone who thinks that each State needs to be treated like an individual country hasn't read up on the time during the Articles. It was so bad, we created our current Federal government as the better alternative.

What I am asking you still do not answer. Should the states that voted against human sacrifice be forced to let those that voted for it use their land.

[Bokee Gngr]

Alexander J Luthor

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

The Daario Naharis

Bokee Gngr

I agree with this in that it should be a state issue. If the majority of the state is voting against it...to the point of putting it in their constitution then forcing the state to go along with bigger liberal states is wrong.

So you are A-Okay with Democracy as tyranny of the majority?

If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him to the corn well gosh golly jee wiz, are you going to just go along with those big liberal states that say we can't sacrifice people to the corn?

The problem with the "But the majority voted that way...." idea is that, unless you want to take democracy to a really ******** up extreme, the majority cannot vote to undermine the rights of the minority.

Overall, I'm just going to be glad I live in a country where we tend to go by that fine, fine statement delivered by one of our old Prime Ministers.

The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

I didn't say i would go along with it. I said that the state should have the right to vote on and make their own laws to govern their own states. If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him then I would (A) be in the 1% who voted against it (B) warn Tim of the incoming so he can move if he choses to and (C) relocate to a state that shares my views more if possible. However, we're not speaking of human sacrifice we're speaking of marriage and whether or not states should have the right to choose for themselves what their laws are. If we are to take your human sacrifice into the mix than it is only fair to ask you that if the state voted to sacrifice Tim than do you think it is also fair that they should go to a state against it and demand that they let them use their field to do so?

Who says you're allowed to leave a state planning your demise? Or that you're financially able to? Or that anyone else would attempt to help you, in fear that they might be targeted next as a sympathizer?

Do you find this so far-fetched? I am only asking questions leveled to people who suddenly found their home hostile. Do you believe the Jews were free to leave Germany after the Final Solution was in play? Do you think the South Vietnamese were financially able to pack up and move when the Viet-Cong rolled through? Do you think there were many peasants that would hide or help a former French aristocrat during the French Revolution (particularly the part simply known as the Reign of Terror), when tens of thousands of people were beheaded?

You failed to answer my question. Should those who are for this be able to go to a state that opposes it and force them to let them use their fields? Where did any of your listed places vote? Did people vote to have the Viet-cong roll through? Did people vote to have the reign of terror? Did people vote to have people beheaded? How many Jews and non-Jews voted for their state to be able to do that? Where do you find that any of your mentions above were voted for in a democratic way and that any state of those countries opposed it and some for it to the point that they had parades to raise awareness of any of this? You're taking countries run in different ways in different times of history and trying to make them the same as voting, America, and the like. Doesn't work that way. Again, please answer my question...should those states that say opposed Tim being taken and killed be forced to let those that voted to legalize it do so on their land?

How's about everyone stop quick and realize that we're LITERALLY comparing gay marriage to human sacrifice.

Also, your "you can't compare time and space" argument is null since you took the bait of sacrificing Tim in the first place.

If you will go back to the first post concerning Tim I did not take any bait and I have still not received an answer to the question I asked

[The Peppermint Bunny]

Young King under Heaven

Misty Moonsilver

Ringoringa

Misty Moonsilver

I love how there are sooo many things happening right now but gaia posters post any.little.update on gay marriage. The majority of state of Alabama obviously likes this man. Votes matter. Each state is different and as long as no one is hurting gay people, there is nothing wrong with doing what's right for their state. Why is tolerance such a one way street with liberals? Can we agree with disagree?

Yeah! And while we're at it, so as long as no one is hurting interracial couples, there's nothing wrong with banning that, too, amirite? After all, popular opinion has been incredibly against such things in the past, and still is in a lot of southern areas. Why is tolerance such a one way street, you guys? I should be free to impose my beliefs on other people over matters that don't impact me in the slightest! Why, first you have blacks marrying whites, and then you have people marrying dogs! We must cease the tyranny of interracial marriage at once!

Again, someone trying to compare race, heritage and ethnicity to a state of mind. Let me clarify. Sexuality is not something you can see touch or hear--its a concept--an idea.
I can make something think I'm gay one day and be straight the next. I can NEVER hide my brown skin, curly hair or features. My cousin married a man and had a baby. 17 years later she's dating a woman. People can't TELL her she is gay. But they can tell her that she's black. I hate that I have to explain that race and sexuality are different. When were gays enslaved and taken from their country? Told that they are property or that they were not a whole person because of their skin color? Not allowed to vote? Lynched on sight because of their skin color? How many gays were forced to work in a field? Where are the signs that says "gays" and "straights"?

I agree with this. Even though I support gay rights, issues about sexuality and race are inherently different.

Not really. Being beaten and abused by your family for being gay is not that much different than racial hate crimes. Not being able to see a dying parent in the hospital, because they are not legally married to the other parent is not that different than blacks and whites not being able to marry. Businesses being allowed to fire gay employees is not that much different either.

[BlackShadow03]

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

I didn't say i would go along with it. I said that the state should have the right to vote on and make their own laws to govern their own states. If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him then I would (A) be in the 1% who voted against it (B) warn Tim of the incoming so he can move if he choses to and (C) relocate to a state that shares my views more if possible. However, we're not speaking of human sacrifice we're speaking of marriage and whether or not states should have the right to choose for themselves what their laws are. If we are to take your human sacrifice into the mix than it is only fair to ask you that if the state voted to sacrifice Tim than do you think it is also fair that they should go to a state against it and demand that they let them use their field to do so?

Who says you're allowed to leave a state planning your demise? Or that you're financially able to? Or that anyone else would attempt to help you, in fear that they might be targeted next as a sympathizer?

Do you find this so far-fetched? I am only asking questions leveled to people who suddenly found their home hostile. Do you believe the Jews were free to leave Germany after the Final Solution was in play? Do you think the South Vietnamese were financially able to pack up and move when the Viet-Cong rolled through? Do you think there were many peasants that would hide or help a former French aristocrat during the French Revolution (particularly the part simply known as the Reign of Terror), when tens of thousands of people were beheaded?

You failed to answer my question. Should those who are for this be able to go to a state that opposes it and force them to let them use their fields? Where did any of your listed places vote? Did people vote to have the Viet-cong roll through? Did people vote to have the reign of terror? Did people vote to have people beheaded? How many Jews and non-Jews voted for their state to be able to do that? Where do you find that any of your mentions above were voted for in a democratic way and that any state of those countries opposed it and some for it to the point that they had parades to raise awareness of any of this? You're taking countries run in different ways in different times of history and trying to make them the same as voting, America, and the like. Doesn't work that way. Again, please answer my question...should those states that say opposed Tim being taken and killed be forced to let those that voted to legalize it do so on their land?

Was those horrific times and places caused by a vote? No. But was it suddenly the new majority opinion? Yes. Just because they didn't put their opinions and actions to an actual vote before the executions doesn't mean it wouldn't have won out.

As for your question: I think you're asking if it's right for another state to interfere with a different state's vote and summary execution of a man named "Tim"? That's not a question of "should", but "would"......as such, I can't answer that. But I can remind you that we ARE talking about the United States. Fighting in wars that oftentimes have no bearing on our day-to-day lives is kind of our thing. And, yeah.....that's a dozen conflicts we stuck our noses in, or even started, because we didn't like what one of them was doing. I can find more if I have the time. Of course, if you're interested in how the individual states would treat eachother or how they would act, look no further than the Articles of Confederation. Anyone who thinks that each State needs to be treated like an individual country hasn't read up on the time during the Articles. It was so bad, we created our current Federal government as the better alternative.

What I am asking you still do not answer. Should the states that voted against human sacrifice be forced to let those that voted for it use their land.

Bold for emphasis.

[Bokee Gngr]

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

BlackShadow03

Bokee Gngr

I didn't say i would go along with it. I said that the state should have the right to vote on and make their own laws to govern their own states. If 99.99% of the state was voting to grab Tim from his house at night and sacrifice him then I would (A) be in the 1% who voted against it (B) warn Tim of the incoming so he can move if he choses to and (C) relocate to a state that shares my views more if possible. However, we're not speaking of human sacrifice we're speaking of marriage and whether or not states should have the right to choose for themselves what their laws are. If we are to take your human sacrifice into the mix than it is only fair to ask you that if the state voted to sacrifice Tim than do you think it is also fair that they should go to a state against it and demand that they let them use their field to do so?

Who says you're allowed to leave a state planning your demise? Or that you're financially able to? Or that anyone else would attempt to help you, in fear that they might be targeted next as a sympathizer?

Do you find this so far-fetched? I am only asking questions leveled to people who suddenly found their home hostile. Do you believe the Jews were free to leave Germany after the Final Solution was in play? Do you think the South Vietnamese were financially able to pack up and move when the Viet-Cong rolled through? Do you think there were many peasants that would hide or help a former French aristocrat during the French Revolution (particularly the part simply known as the Reign of Terror), when tens of thousands of people were beheaded?

You failed to answer my question. Should those who are for this be able to go to a state that opposes it and force them to let them use their fields? Where did any of your listed places vote? Did people vote to have the Viet-cong roll through? Did people vote to have the reign of terror? Did people vote to have people beheaded? How many Jews and non-Jews voted for their state to be able to do that? Where do you find that any of your mentions above were voted for in a democratic way and that any state of those countries opposed it and some for it to the point that they had parades to raise awareness of any of this? You're taking countries run in different ways in different times of history and trying to make them the same as voting, America, and the like. Doesn't work that way. Again, please answer my question...should those states that say opposed Tim being taken and killed be forced to let those that voted to legalize it do so on their land?

Was those horrific times and places caused by a vote? No. But was it suddenly the new majority opinion? Yes. Just because they didn't put their opinions and actions to an actual vote before the executions doesn't mean it wouldn't have won out.

As for your question: I think you're asking if it's right for another state to interfere with a different state's vote and summary execution of a man named "Tim"? That's not a question of "should", but "would"......as such, I can't answer that. But I can remind you that we ARE talking about the United States. Fighting in wars that oftentimes have no bearing on our day-to-day lives is kind of our thing. And, yeah.....that's a dozen conflicts we stuck our noses in, or even started, because we didn't like what one of them was doing. I can find more if I have the time. Of course, if you're interested in how the individual states would treat eachother or how they would act, look no further than the Articles of Confederation. Anyone who thinks that each State needs to be treated like an individual country hasn't read up on the time during the Articles. It was so bad, we created our current Federal government as the better alternative.

What I am asking you still do not answer. Should the states that voted against human sacrifice be forced to let those that voted for it use their land.

Bold for emphasis.

You failed to answer the question. Care to answer it or at least be upfront as to why you are not? Do YOU believe that states that voted against it should be forced by those that voted for it to let them do it on their lands?