Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

reply to post by ollncasino


Yes, they were. Especially in the Southern states, but in the north as well. Detroit was the most segregated city in the USA, without Jim Crowe laws even being active there.

De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States. Northern segregation was generally de facto, with patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Hell, look at this thread with your pet going on and on about 31 states

My "pet"? May I ask what the heck you are talking about? I represent myself not other posters here. I was suggesting that had the tables been turned and 31 states voted on a referendum to SUPPORT gay marriage they would have all been more than happy to accept it. And you KNOW it's true!

Apologies..
You are a thinking conservative.
I tend to assume unthinking conservatives simply follow the lead of any thinking conservatives.
my bad.

Incidentally, I think this is a simple constitutional issue..such public voting on constitutional issues is absurd.
Things I personally may be in favor of, even if a bunch of people agree with me, is not necessarily what I would want passed.
I want the removal of churches and in their place, establishments of science are erected (as an example).

I defer to the constitution quite a lot...and am a bit of a traditionalist, even though I think its a living constitution verses a static one...but any additions must enhance our society and rights of our people verses detract.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Exactly!

We'll end up like Afghanistan - - - and a bunch of idealistic tribes - - - all vying for power.

As opposed to being government ruled and all marching together in forced lockstep? No thank you. I prefer a civil society where we all live and let live.

Speaking of history, homosexuals have dominated entire civilizations, and in those civilizations heterosexuals were considered second-class citizens. Pederasty and pedophilia ruled during the Golden Age of Pericles, when philosophers were kings and the kings were a couple of queens named Plato and Socrates. Solon, the statesman and lawmaker (638-558 B.C.) engaged a series of gay lovers and drew up laws to protect the institution of pederasty. And you can bet that Aristotle did more than teach cosmology to Alexander the Great. In those days, and even in some quarters these days, little boys were sex objects.

Pompeii was one of the most hedonistic cultures in the glory days of the Roman Empire, kind of a sublime vacation spot where both gays and straights went to sow their oats. But Pompeii had the misfortune of being located at the base of a volcano named Vesuvius. The city was frozen in lava, and the excavations reveal a culture that devoted equal attention to the preferences of homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Pompeii’s bisexual brothels were vividly and lavishly illustrated, and into its cobblestone streets were carved the “flying phalluses” pointing directly to the entrances of the palaces of pleasure.

Nature is against homosexuality and brought destruction on entire city of pompeii

Wiki

History

The truth behind the Destruction of the city of pompeii

reply to post by SaturnFX


Thank you for your civil and deft response. I am not too keen on activist interpretation of the Constitution, especially coming from activist judges bent on activating a particular agenda.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Annee

 

The only problem that part (in the eyes of their God part) is that sometimes they want to be married against what their God wants. Yes, yes, I know, you don't believe in Him.

The bible is interrupted.

I've read many far more intelligent interpretations of the parts that some claim is about homosexuality.

reply to post by iIuminaIi


Wow, do you seriously think nature or in that any other force punished pompeii for housing a large amount of

homosexuals? LOL I personally believe it had more to do with building a freaking city on and around mt. vesuvius.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Thank you for your civil and deft response. I am not too keen on activist interpretation of the Constitution, especially coming from activist judges bent on activating a particular agenda.

Such as re-establishing corporations as people, and allowing secret donations to political campaigns?

Activism happens on both sides of the aisle...but, if it is going to happen, I would rather the activism happen in favor of the people than of the tyrannical corporations (whom cut both ways incidently)

Anything that has a split vote in the scotus down partisan lines is an issue that should immediately be taken away from the scotus and a restructuring to occur to remove partisan elements...we have a sc that is more concerned with party than long term law and effects. Long after the death of them, the republican and democratic partys, their decisions will remain. Its tragic when they use todays political debates to influence their theoretical ruthless and technical rulings. I can think of no higher grounds for treason if proven it was truely activism verses interpretation.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Exactly!

We'll end up like Afghanistan - - - and a bunch of idealistic tribes - - - all vying for power.

As opposed to being government ruled and all marching together in forced lockstep? No thank you.

E Pluribus Unum

I prefer a civil society where we all live and let live

Good luck with that idealism.

Originally posted by Procession101
reply to post by iIuminaIi

 

Wow, do you seriously think nature or in that any other force punished pompeii for housing a large amount of

homosexuals? LOL I personally believe it had more to do with building a freaking city on and around mt. vesuvius.

Man, they must have been going hard at it to start a volcano. the vibrations required alone...to move the earth...


so, ya...consider this Procession: This is actually reality. There are literally people walking around amongst you that think like this.
mind boggling, isn't it.
and...and...they have an equal vote.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Activism happens on both sides of the aisle...but, if it is going to happen, I would rather the activism happen in favor of the people than of the tyrannical corporations (whom cut both ways incidently)

That is why I worded my post carefully so as not to implicate one side or the other.

reply to post by Annee


Is not the official US motto... I prefer the preamble to the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
and...and...they have an equal vote.

edit on 23-5-2012 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

Quite frightening if you stop to think about it that.

No wonder the world is headed down the toilet bowl huh.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Domo1
Also, can you explain to me (and the tone is not meant to be nasty I am genuinely interested) what bothers you about gay people calling it marriage?

Historically, legally and religiously marriage has meant a legal union between a women and a man. Not two men.

Can you explain to me why the historical, legal and religious meanings of the word 'marriage' should be changed to include same sex unions?


"But the NAACP board, which has struggled with the issue over the years, approved the resolution supporting marriage equality by what was reported to be a nearly unanimous vote. Gay marriage is also supported by such lions of the civil rights movement as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. John Lewis [D-Ga.], and former NAACP chairman Julian Bond --- all of whom draw a direct line between the battle waged by black Americans in the 1960's and the battle being waged by gay Americans today.

It is possible to make this linkage while at the same time acknowledging that no two liberation struggles are exactly the same. Important distinctions --- for example, the fact that only black people were enslaved --- should not obscure the principle that equal protection under the law means just that.

Lewis, who still bears the scars he recieved while marching from Selma to Montgomery, once wrote: 'I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and bigotry.'

In his statement, Jealous emphasized that the NAACP is talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The group affirmed its recognition of 'the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.' No church should be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. But the local justice of the peace should have to view a gay couple as being no different from a heterosexual couple."

Quote's taken from: The NAACP's Bold Move, Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, Tuesday, May 22, 2012

BLUNT