Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

a reply to: deadlyhope

I'm telling you that everyone gets bashed for one reason or another. It doesn't mean you're anti-(that group) just because you bash some of them.

The only difference between you and me is that I wouldn't decriminalize drugs (that's incredibly crazy), I would give all the same benefits of married men and women to gays by way of civil unions since that's what the whole fuss was about to begin with, and I would express that abortions should only be performed for rape victims and mothers whose lives could be lost during birth.

To a liberal, that means I hate gays, I hate women, and I hate, uh, drug addicts?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: DanDanDat
As for our constitution; it doesn’t have a single word about Gay Marriage in it. There for any inference that it speaks to Gay Marriage is just an interpretation.

The constitution doesn't have a single word about marriage in it at all, gay or otherwise. It just talks about how laws will apply to ALL citizens equally. Marriage is a law and gay people are citizens. Pretty simple.

That is correct the constitution doesn't have a single word about marriage; that it speaks to marriage at all is just an interpretation.

Another interpretation could be that because the constitution doesn't have a single word about marriage in it makes an issue for states to decide on their own.

Those that accept the second interpretation aren’t ignorant by default because their interpretation differs from the one held up by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS itself held a different interpretation a decade ago; it changed its interpretation when a majority of states became more tolerant and accepting of gay marriage in the past decade. It may very well change its interpretation again if Americans became less tolerant in the future for some reason.

a reply to: DanDanDat

You do know that the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was based on the Virginia v. Loving ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans, right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What?? Why in the hell would I think it should be illegal??? Remember, this was all about benefits and getting things that married couples get. Instead of changing definitions and all the things that belong to the joining or divorcing of a man and a woman, I would have implemented all of those benefits into civil unions. I really don't see how that would make me, or anyone else, an anti-gay extremist.

a reply to: LSU0408

Yea yea I get it. The "civil unions" argument again huh? I guess you support Segregation too huh? Because that is what you are advocating when you talk about civil unions.

See? This is easy. Research history of intolerance and debunking most modern arguments for legalized discrimination is really easy. Just look up how those silly arguments were debunked and refuted when they were used against other demographics.

a reply to: LSU0408

When it comes to drugs, the biggest problems we have is the way on drugs.. Addictions that are jailed instead of rehabilitated, drugs are unregulated and unsafe. There's arguments supporting that these moves would lessen all these problems we have with drugs, lessen problems with gangs, etc.

A woman has a right to her health, I agree that a woman should be able to get an abortion in the case of rape, or threaten of life.. But she also has the right to privacy. Are you going to ask each and every woman exactly why she wants an abortion, basically interrogating her about an already tough decision? I vote no.. Just allow abortions, and protect the rights of those seeking one.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You really don't know the difference between being tolerant of gay people and being intolerant of people that oppose gay marriage to the point of calling them an anti-gay extremist?

Am I an anti-gay extremist just because I don't support "gay marriage" even though I'm not intolerant of gay people?

Extremist: a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Yeah, lol, totally describes someone who simply supports civil unions over gay marriages.

If you believe that, you're too hypersensitive and caught up in your feelings.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

I think I'm being honest because of the way I practice my beliefs. I apply them personally, and practice then in my own life because it's what I deem as best for my life. I don't believe I am a source of truth and knowledge or anything, I don't follow an organized religion, and don't deem my personal beliefs and stances as applicable to all.

Being spiritual and having morals does not mean being judgemental and believing others need to be like me..

Anyways thanks for coming by

But what I think you are missing is that “Not following an organized religion” and “Being spiritual but not judgemental” is your belief system; and you would apply those beliefs to your decision making.

You say you don’t believe others need to be like you. But you started this thread by listing all the categories of people who are ignorant because they don’t “believe” in the same things you do.

To be clear I don’t find fault in your approach here – its only human.

Your beliefs may make you more tolerant of others; it may give you the ability hold the opinion that other people’s needs are equal to your own; but it is still your beliefs that bring you to this point. Other people with a different set of beliefs may not find it as easy to set aside their own needs to accommodate others; this doesn’t by default make them ignorant; they like you are just following their beliefs.

a reply to: LSU0408

You really don't know the difference between being tolerant of gay people and being intolerant of people that oppose gay marriage to the point of calling them an anti-gay extremist?

Are you tolerant of gay people? If yes, cool. (I'm not gay, by the way.)

Do you oppose gay marriage? If yes, why? (Isn't that anti-gay extremism?) It is at the very least a non-sequitor......

But......what do you care if gays can get married and share the same social benefits of other married people?
Does it threaten you somehow?

If extremism is simply being intolerant, then there are many "extremists" here on ATS.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DanDanDat

You do know that the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was based on the Virginia v. Loving ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans, right?

You do realize that interracial and gay are not the same thing, I would hope. That's like arguing for the rights of apples because of houses. Maybe if it was gay black and white couples, that would be usable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Gays wanted the same rights and benefits, under a civil union, that men and women got in a marriage. You have the worst arguments. Segregation? Really? Please stop trying to compare gay people to entire ethnic races.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: LSU0408

When it comes to drugs, the biggest problems we have is the way on drugs.. Addictions that are jailed instead of rehabilitated, drugs are unregulated and unsafe. There's arguments supporting that these moves would lessen all these problems we have with drugs, lessen problems with gangs, etc.

A woman has a right to her health, I agree that a woman should be able to get an abortion in the case of rape, or threaten of life.. But she also has the right to privacy. Are you going to ask each and every woman exactly why she wants an abortion, basically interrogating her about an already tough decision? I vote no.. Just allow abortions, and protect the rights of those seeking one.

Too many people either go back to jail after they get released (on drug charges) and too many people get back on drugs after rehabs. I can understand decriminalizing some drugs, but not the heavy, hard hitters like heroin and coc aine.

I wouldn't question a woman about her reasons. That's a loophole they could get around, and there will always be loopholes like that when it comes to abortion.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't. That's just it. I don't hate gays, I don't disagree with them being united as one and receiving the same rights and benefits as a married couple, I believe the rules should have been changed for civil unions, not redefining marriage. But it's all over now and I'm not bitching about it, just stating my opinion. And I'm definitely not an extremists. Lol.

And thanks for making it a point to make sure I knew that you weren't gay. It was never assumed in the first place.

a reply to: LSU0408

I can understand decriminalizing some drugs,

which ones?
Pot? Alcohol? Tobacco?

but not the heavy, hard hitters like heroin and coc aine.

No one is pushing for those being "decriminalized".....

I'm starting to see - Conservatives think:

the Civil War didn't have much to do with slavery, cuz those southern boys treated their slaves like kings;

being a citizen who is gay does not deserve equal treatment under the laws as being a citizen who is black (or white)

a marriage license has to be called something different for a gay couple because God said so, and church and state are apparently NOT supposed to be separate.

Got it.

a reply to: LSU0408

Why make someone need to use loop holes? Loop holes should be discouraged, and instead laws ( including tax laws...) should be more firm in my opinion.

I'm slightly conflicted on drugs because I don't know enough about it. I'm sure Krazy could explain this situation better than myself but everything I've read, drugs would actually be less of a problem if we dicriminalized them. Think prohibition and it's detrimental effects.. Apply it to drugs.

Forget ignorance!

I'm seeing people intolerant of anyone else with a different opinion!

What the hell happened to "agree to disagree"?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DanDanDat

You do know that the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was based on the Virginia v. Loving ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans, right?

Yes I do; and like the Virginia v. Loving ruling the SCOTUS saw a sea change in the way states where viewing civil rights and drafted their interpretation of the constitution to match.

Make no mistake the SCOTUS is a political body; they decide what cases they will see and what they will reject (aside from making their rulings based on their individual opinions which are rarely in lock step). Had Obergefell v. Hodges came before the court ten years ago they would have refused to hear it.
As late as 2013 the court refused to hear Hollingsworth ET AL. v. Perry which could have resulted in the same outcome as Obergefell v. Hodges. What the SCOTUS did in 2013 however was strike down key sections of DOMA. They were testing the waters; they were not ready to go all the way on Gay Marriage yet. They made the DOMA ruling sat back and watched the countries reaction; then ruled the way they did on Obergefell v. Hodges.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'd say lesser amounts of marijuana and the less powerful prescription pills. I'm not too entirely versed on drugs since I've never messed with any other than Vyvanse and Adipex. I'm laid back so I do appreciate a dopamine neurotransmitter rush from time to time. But I get it legally.