Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Gay Marriage


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#1 Captain Rhett Butler

Captain Rhett Butler

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:18 PM

Whre did all the discussion go? I do enjoy the excellent moderation on this site.

The idiots calling the shots on this board usually edit my remarks or split them off. That won't change my view though. Gay marriage should not be legal.

It is unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to arguing against gay marriage. If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized.

Opposition to gay marriage has such a negative connotation because advocates have successfully framed the issue as one of equal rights. By this logic, if you oppose gay marriage, you are opposed to equal rights for everyone. They claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to marry whomever they desire, including members of the same sex. To forbid this would, in their minds, be discrimination. But do all people have the right to marry whomever they want already, with the exception of same-sex couples? No; states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.

Why is marriage regulated by the government at all? In fact, not only are there restrictions on certain types of marriages, but there are incentives for heterosexuals (not falling into the categories above) to marry. Why should the government encourage — through tax breaks and other benefits — some types of marriages while banning others? The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of American society. It is certainly to America’s advantage to have citizens, so there exists a compelling state interest justifying government subsidization of heterosexual marriage. The banned types of marriage are similarly rationalized; offspring from family members who marry are significantly more likely to be sterile, thus unable to continue the proliferation of society, or otherwise impaired. It is therefore not in the interest of government to encourage these types of marriages.

It should be obvious, by this point, which category gay marriage falls into. Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. At this point, many would argue that the happiness of same-sex couples would be enhanced by gay marriage, thus providing a compelling interest. This, in fact, is not the case. The government has already shown through prohibiting certain types of marriage that it does not view enhanced happiness as a compelling enough interest to encourage marriage of any kind. After all, if “enhanced happiness” was a compelling interest, it could be used to justify government subsidization of chocolate, which is proven to increase happiness through the release of certain endorphins. In fact, one could argue that the government should subsidize anything and everything that makes someone happy. Thus, “enhanced happiness” can clearly not be considered a compelling enough interest to justify the recognition and, therefore, subsidization of gay marriage.

While same-sex couples certainly cannot reproduce themselves, artificial insemination for lesbians would be an option. Or it might be argued that the government should subsidize gay marriages to make it easier to adopt. Despite neither arguments of these being good enough reasons to justify legalizing any of the types of banned marriages discussed earlier, it bears discussing. Regarding families where the father is absent, research by University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis has shown that, “greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy.” This is relevant to the debate around same-sex marriage because, in lesbian couples, any daughter would certainly be growing up apart from their biological father, thus increasing the risk of these unfortunate effects.

Further evidence on the importance of having both a mother and father is provided by Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby, who points out that “mothers, on average, may have somewhat stronger parental ‘instincts’ when it comes to responding to young infants.” In male gay couples, this is by definition not the case. An increasing body of evidence shows that it is indeed more advantageous for children to grow up having both a mother and a father. Once again, we cannot put the “enhanced happiness” that same-sex couples would get from raising a child above the well-being of that child.

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 2 states “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
  • Starr & Dru's Nana likes this
I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely.
(Rhett Butler speaking to Miss Scarlett)

#2 NC-17

NC-17

    loud pipes save lives

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,086 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

The idiots calling the shots on this board usually edit my remarks or split them off. That won't change my view though. Gay marriage should not be legal.

It is unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to arguing against gay marriage. If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized.

Opposition to gay marriage has such a negative connotation because advocates have successfully framed the issue as one of equal rights. By this logic, if you oppose gay marriage, you are opposed to equal rights for everyone. They claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to marry whomever they desire, including members of the same sex. To forbid this would, in their minds, be discrimination. But do all people have the right to marry whomever they want already, with the exception of same-sex couples? No; states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.

Why is marriage regulated by the government at all? In fact, not only are there restrictions on certain types of marriages, but there are incentives for heterosexuals (not falling into the categories above) to marry. Why should the government encourage — through tax breaks and other benefits — some types of marriages while banning others? The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of American society. It is certainly to America’s advantage to have citizens, so there exists a compelling state interest justifying government subsidization of heterosexual marriage. The banned types of marriage are similarly rationalized; offspring from family members who marry are significantly more likely to be sterile, thus unable to continue the proliferation of society, or otherwise impaired. It is therefore not in the interest of government to encourage these types of marriages.

It should be obvious, by this point, which category gay marriage falls into. Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. At this point, many would argue that the happiness of same-sex couples would be enhanced by gay marriage, thus providing a compelling interest. This, in fact, is not the case. The government has already shown through prohibiting certain types of marriage that it does not view enhanced happiness as a compelling enough interest to encourage marriage of any kind. After all, if “enhanced happiness” was a compelling interest, it could be used to justify government subsidization of chocolate, which is proven to increase happiness through the release of certain endorphins. In fact, one could argue that the government should subsidize anything and everything that makes someone happy. Thus, “enhanced happiness” can clearly not be considered a compelling enough interest to justify the recognition and, therefore, subsidization of gay marriage.

While same-sex couples certainly cannot reproduce themselves, artificial insemination for lesbians would be an option. Or it might be argued that the government should subsidize gay marriages to make it easier to adopt. Despite neither arguments of these being good enough reasons to justify legalizing any of the types of banned marriages discussed earlier, it bears discussing. Regarding families where the father is absent, research by University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis has shown that, “greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy.” This is relevant to the debate around same-sex marriage because, in lesbian couples, any daughter would certainly be growing up apart from their biological father, thus increasing the risk of these unfortunate effects.

Further evidence on the importance of having both a mother and father is provided by Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby, who points out that “mothers, on average, may have somewhat stronger parental ‘instincts’ when it comes to responding to young infants.” In male gay couples, this is by definition not the case. An increasing body of evidence shows that it is indeed more advantageous for children to grow up having both a mother and a father. Once again, we cannot put the “enhanced happiness” that same-sex couples would get from raising a child above the well-being of that child.

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 2 states “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”



Meh. I respectfully disagree with your position.

#3 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:05 PM

I agree with one thing mentioned above; If you oppose same-sex marriage on this board, you're promptly attacked and called bigot, hateful, etc. A lot of people oppose SSM for moral, economic, or societal reasons; and do so with nothing but love in their hearts.

It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion in such a climate.
  • soccermom, SPORTS SOURCE and gog8tors like this

#4 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:12 PM

I agree with one thing mentioned above; If you oppose same-sex marriage on this board, you're promptly attacked and called bigot, hateful, etc. A lot of people oppose SSM for moral, economic, or societal reasons; and do so with nothing but love in their hearts.

It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion in such a climate.

Same was said of interracial marriage with the same reasons. No difference between the two issues. You're right that out is impossible to have a meaningful conversation. 50 years from now history will judge this issue and its opposition.
  • jenilyn likes this
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#5 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:32 PM

Same was said of interracial marriage with the same reasons. No difference between the two issues. You're right that out is impossible to have a meaningful conversation. 50 years from now history will judge this issue and its opposition.


Nope. Apples and oranges. Racism is a civil rights issue. SSM is not. And don't even start trying to claim otherwise or I will prove you wrong again like I already have several times before.

Your remark about "history judging those who oppose" was uncalled for. You just showed who the truly hateful is.

I don't deny that SSM will probably become legal all over at some point. I can see the handwriting on the wall too. What I do object to is people like you who make it a political issue and vilify anyone who believes differently than you do.
  • mrshoward and really gone from here like this

#6 Perry Mason

Perry Mason

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:40 PM

Nope. Apples and oranges. Racism is a civil rights issue. SSM is not. And don't even start trying to claim otherwise or I will prove you wrong again like I already have several times before.

Your remark about "history judging those who oppose" was uncalled for. You just showed who the truly hateful is.

I don't deny that SSM will probably become legal all over at some point. I can see the handwriting on the wall too. What I do object to is people like you who make it a political issue and vilify anyone who believes differently than you do.

PROVE IT TO ME

I see it as a Civil Rights issue. Their rights ARE being denied.
  • Mrs. Avalon, mrnn and jenilyn like this

#7 hurstrsq

hurstrsq

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages.


Perhaps heterosexual marriage should be illegal - we seem to be the ones producing the gay babies.
  • Monkeytail, Blondiega1, ebar and 2 others like this

#8 Hello Sarah?

Hello Sarah?

    Paulding Com member

  • Mayberry Sheriff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:43 PM

The post was split because it was not on topic. This is a reminder that public complaints about moderation will result in bullets.

Lock and load.

Sarah
http://www.paulding.com/ads/mayberryrack.swf

Anyone may nominate another for a bullet
through the report this post button appearing to the left bottom of each post.

If you're crying wolf, or reporting maliciously, you may just get shot yourself...
the popo can get trigger happy when they're over-worked.


#9 hurstrsq

hurstrsq

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:46 PM

The post was split because it was not on topic. This is a reminder that public complaints about moderation will result in bullets.

Lock and load.

Sarah



Moderation on this site sucks ass. Can't even have a trucking discussion without you all screwing it up.

EDITED TO REMOVE VULGARITY

Edited by Hello Sarah?, 03 March 2013 - 09:08 PM.

  • mrshoward and Captain Rhett Butler like this

#10 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

PROVE IT TO ME

I see it as a Civil Rights issue. Their rights ARE being denied.


Easy

If it was, the SCOTUS would have struck down laws preventing it.

You see...no one is being denied the right to marry, only who and when they can marry. The SCOTUS supports the state's right to regulate marriage. The states restrict marriage in many ways. EX in some states: Legal age without parental consent, marriage between close blood relatives, marriage of mentally incompetent people, polygamy, and marriage of two people of the same-sex. SO long as an individuals civil rights are not being violated, the state has the right to regulate it.

Even Zoo has admitted this is correct from a legal standpoint.

#11 Danaerys

Danaerys

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:03 PM

Easy

If it was, the SCOTUS would have struck down laws preventing it.

You see...no one is being denied the right to marry, only who and when they can marry. The SCOTUS supports the state's right to regulate marriage. The states restrict marriage in many ways. EX in some states: Legal age without parental consent, marriage between close blood relatives, marriage of mentally incompetent people, polygamy, and marriage of two people of the same-sex. SO long as an individuals civil rights are not being violated, the state has the right to regulate it.

Even Zoo has admitted this is correct from a legal standpoint.


The question begs to be answered who the heck has the right to dictate who a legal consenting adult can marry as long as it is another legal consenting adult or adults. BTW, I don't give a darn what religion you are or what religion you subscribe to. The idea of marriage was around before institution of religion and it will be around after the fall of religion. There should be checks:

Check 1: Are you an adult? Yes? Move to Check 2. No? Process ends.
Check 2: Are you consenting? Yes? Move to Check 3. No? Process ends.
Check 3: Is your partner or partners an adult? Yes? Move to Check 4. No? Process ends.
Check 4: Is your partner or partners consenting? Yes? Marry. No? Process ends.

Honestly, it really is that simple.

Edited by Danaerys, 03 March 2013 - 09:04 PM.

  • SPORTS SOURCE and Mrs. Avalon like this

#12 Hello Sarah?

Hello Sarah?

    Paulding Com member

  • Mayberry Sheriff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:07 PM

Moderation on this site sucks ass. Can't even have a trucking discussion without you all screwing it up.
EDITED BY HELLO SARAH



Bogey sighted!

Target locked!

Splash one! Splash one!

Stay with me, Goose.

Permission to buzz the tower?


name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

Edited by Hello Sarah?, 03 March 2013 - 09:07 PM.

http://www.paulding.com/ads/mayberryrack.swf

Anyone may nominate another for a bullet
through the report this post button appearing to the left bottom of each post.

If you're crying wolf, or reporting maliciously, you may just get shot yourself...
the popo can get trigger happy when they're over-worked.


#13 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

The question begs to be answered who the heck has the right to dictate who a legal consenting adult can marry as long as it is another legal consenting adult or adults. BTW, I don't give a darn what religion you are or what religion you subscribe to. The idea of marriage was around before institution of religion and it will be around after the fall of religion. There should be checks:

Check 1: Are you an adult? Yes? Move to Check 2. No? Process ends.
Check 2: Are you consenting? Yes? Move to Check 3. No? Process ends.
Check 3: Is your partner or partners an adult? Yes? Move to Check 4. No? Process ends.
Check 4: Is your partner or partners consenting? Yes? Marry. No? Process ends.

Honestly, it really is that simple.


I didn't mention religion.


Typically, it is decided either by the voters of a state in a referendum, or the general assembly determines a state's laws regarding marriage. I prefer the referendum route so the voters decide it.

#14 Danaerys

Danaerys

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:16 PM

I didn't mention religion.


Typically, it is decided either by the voters of a state in a referendum, or the general assembly determines a state's laws regarding marriage. I prefer the referendum route so the voters decide it.


I figured I would nip it in the bud for anyone trying to go that route. While I prefer a referendum and let the voters decided, the problem with that is the majority infringes on the rights of the minority and that isn't right either. Not to mention you have to remember the majority of voters are idiots any way.

Edited by Danaerys, 03 March 2013 - 09:17 PM.


#15 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:20 PM

I figured I would nip it in the bud for anyone trying to go that route. While I prefer a referendum and let the voters decided, the problem with that is the majority infringes on the rights of the minority and that isn't right either. Not to mention you have to remember the majority of voters are idiots any way.


I can't argue with your last sentence. :rofl:

#16 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:32 PM

I figured I would nip it in the bud for anyone trying to go that route. While I prefer a referendum and let the voters decided, the problem with that is the majority infringes on the rights of the minority and that isn't right either. Not to mention you have to remember the majority of voters are idiots any way.


Just ignore the guy., His arguments are entirely bigoted and he has no idea about the history nor the legal arguments were ruled as racist and bigoted many years ago. Jut ignore him and let history judge his arguments for what they are.
  • SPORTS SOURCE likes this
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#17 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:37 PM

Just ignore the guy., His arguments are entirely bigoted and he has no idea about the history nor the legal arguments were ruled as racist and bigoted many years ago. Jut ignore him and let history judge his arguments for what they are.


Notice, Danaerys, that Zoo cannot disprove my statements. So instead, "she" attacks me and uses diversion and spin tactics.
  • Starr & Dru's Nana, mrshoward, Captain Rhett Butler and 2 others like this

#18 Danaerys

Danaerys

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:32 PM

Just ignore the guy., His arguments are entirely bigoted and he has no idea about the history nor the legal arguments were ruled as racist and bigoted many years ago. Jut ignore him and let history judge his arguments for what they are.


Why would I ignore him when we are having a nice discussion? Do you have anything to add to my simplistic way?

Edited by Danaerys, 03 March 2013 - 10:32 PM.

  • Captain Rhett Butler likes this

#19 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:36 PM

Why would I ignore him when we are having a nice discussion? Do you have anything to add to my simplistic way?


Engage if you wish but it is futile.

He is making the same arguments as was heard in the American South in the 1960s that said anyone may marry whomever they want as long as they are of the same race. The argument is the same and the outcome will be also.

Loving v VA. My link



Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion fromMcLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."




Edited by zoocrew, 03 March 2013 - 10:38 PM.

People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#20 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,038 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:41 PM

Engage if you wish but it is futile.


Hmmmmm, similar things have been said about a discussion with you.
So does that mean that you are the other side of the same coin?
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#21 zoocrew

zoocrew

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,977 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

Hmmmmm, similar things have been said about a discussion with you.
So does that mean that you are the other side of the same coin?


Normally I simply chose not to engage unless there is an actual topic and with someone who wishes to have a discussion.

In this case, I'll respond because I need to clarify, while keeping my standards high.

When I do respond, it is with credentialed sources and research, not emotions nor unsubstantiated opinion.

Anything less is simply an indulgence in the lower stanines of the proletariat's cognitive ability, an endeavor that is not worth the effort.
People. Planet. Profits. In that order.

#22 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,038 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:50 PM

Normally I simply chose not to engage unless there is an actual topic and with someone who wishes to have a discussion.

In this case, I'll respond because I need to clarify, while keeping my standards high.

When I do respond, it is with credentialed sources and research, not emotions nor unsubstantiated opinion.

Anything less is simply an indulgence in the lower stanines of the proletariat's cognitive ability, an endeavor that is not worth the effort.


Short answer, yes.
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#23 Starr & Dru's Nana

Starr & Dru's Nana

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,205 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:54 PM

Posted ImagePosted Image

Normally I simply chose not to engage unless there is an actual topic and with someone who wishes to have a discussion.



In loving memory of Mason (December 1, 2001 to December 9, 2001) and Ashley  Jr. (December 1, 2001 to December 2, 2001

 

n7C4m5.png

 

KBZ8m5.png


#24 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:57 PM

Engage if you wish but it is futile.

He is making the same arguments as was heard in the American South in the 1960s that said anyone may marry whomever they want as long as they are of the same race. The argument is the same and the outcome will be also.

Loving v VA. My link







Translation...


Guard Dad is 100% factually accurate and because of that I cannot refute his posts. Therefore, I will use diversionary tactics and spin to compare this issue with one involving race in order to invoke an emotional response instead of one based on logic and fact.
  • Captain Rhett Butler likes this

#25 Guard dad

Guard dad

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,287 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:02 PM

Normally I simply chose not to engage unless there is an actual topic and with someone who wishes to have a discussion.

In this case, I'll respond because I need to clarify, while keeping my standards high.

When I do respond, it is with credentialed sources and research, not emotions nor unsubstantiated opinion.

Anything less is simply an indulgence in the lower stanines of the proletariat's cognitive ability, an endeavor that is not worth the effort.


Your only standards are those of whoever pays you to post this propaganda.

But please carry on, we all know what you are and it's all good because you've become a liability for the very group that employs you. I suspect they will remedy that before long.

#26 CeilingFan

CeilingFan

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:10 PM

The post was split because it was not on topic. This is a reminder that public complaints about moderation will result in bullets.

Lock and load.

Sarah


Off topic here for a moment, but is it really appropriate for a moderator, of all people, to threaten to shoot people? Sheesh. The rest of us would have gotten banned for such a comment, and rightly so. There is no excuse for threatening people, I don't care what your title is on this forum. :blink:

#27 Deputy Rafe Hollister

Deputy Rafe Hollister

    Paulding Com member

  • Mayberry Sheriff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:14 PM

Please refer to the PCOM Rules for information on bullets. Rule 9.
---
9. Violations may result in you getting a Bullet. The deputies may also reward you with a "Mayberry." Bullets are "over par" or positive numbers below your screen name. Mayberries are "under par" or negatives below your screen name. Only you can see these. Bullets are bad. Mayberries are good. When the bullet count gets to three (3), there is a three (3) day suspension. Four (4) bullets will mean five (5) days off. Five (5) bullets equals eight (8) days of no posting. Six (6) will mean a fourteen (14) day suspension. When seven (7) bullets are reached, that's a twenty-one (21) day barring from p.com. Eight bullets (8) would be getting serious: a thirty (30) day vacation. Nine (9) bullets would mean we have to do something to seriously get your attention to calm down, so it is a sixty (60) day freeze of posting ability. If someone manages to get to ten (10) bullets, just consider that a permanent barring from paulding.com. No more. Won't see you again. Forget it. You're outta here. Gone. Bye-bye.
---
Singing away the blues

http://www.paulding.com/ads/mayberryrack.swf

#28 Hello Sarah?

Hello Sarah?

    Paulding Com member

  • Mayberry Sheriff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:16 PM

Thank you, Rafe! I didn't see this until now since there was no report about it.
http://www.paulding.com/ads/mayberryrack.swf

Anyone may nominate another for a bullet
through the report this post button appearing to the left bottom of each post.

If you're crying wolf, or reporting maliciously, you may just get shot yourself...
the popo can get trigger happy when they're over-worked.


#29 CeilingFan

CeilingFan

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:22 PM

Thank you, Rafe! I didn't see this until now since there was no report about it.


Report about what, my comment? It was an innocent question about what looked to be a threat. My apologies.

And thanks for the bullets or berries or whatever they are. I see I have four of them under my name. Guess I've had "reports" before, huh? Whatever.

Now back to your regularly scheduled gay marriage debate...

#30 Hello Sarah?

Hello Sarah?

    Paulding Com member

  • Mayberry Sheriff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:25 PM

If you received a bullet in the past, you would have also gotten a PM about it. The system requires you get the PM with the bullet. If you have 4 bullets, you would have been notified for each one.

Hope this helps.

Sarah
http://www.paulding.com/ads/mayberryrack.swf

Anyone may nominate another for a bullet
through the report this post button appearing to the left bottom of each post.

If you're crying wolf, or reporting maliciously, you may just get shot yourself...
the popo can get trigger happy when they're over-worked.


#31 Perry Mason

Perry Mason

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:40 PM

Easy

If it was, the SCOTUS would have struck down laws preventing it.

You see...no one is being denied the right to marry, only who and when they can marry. The SCOTUS supports the state's right to regulate marriage. The states restrict marriage in many ways. EX in some states: Legal age without parental consent, marriage between close blood relatives, marriage of mentally incompetent people, polygamy, and marriage of two people of the same-sex. SO long as an individuals civil rights are not being violated, the state has the right to regulate it.

Even Zoo has admitted this is correct from a legal standpoint.


My point EXACTLY!! To deny someone the right to marry WHO they want to marry is a violation of their civil rights.

#32 Glassdogs

Glassdogs

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,068 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:18 AM

My point EXACTLY!! To deny someone the right to marry WHO they want to marry is a violation of their civil rights.


Well, hell. I didn't know I had a civil "right" to marry Demi Moore. Where do I file the complaint?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".


#33 ~Chester~

~Chester~

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,844 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:42 AM

I can not understand why some people insist on telling others how to live their life simply because they do not agree with the way the other person lives their own life.
  • SPORTS SOURCE likes this

#34 TJB

TJB

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,134 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:20 AM

Clint Eastwood, a conservative, on gay marriage


http://dangerousmind...on_gay_marriage

#35 Captain Rhett Butler

Captain Rhett Butler

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:55 AM

I can not understand why some people insist on telling others how to live their life simply because they do not agree with the way the other person lives their own life.

Should it be legal then to marry your own sister or daughter? I don't think so...imagine the government outlawing this...oh the humanity! This topic is about gay marriage. Those who oppose it are laughed at and labeled as narrow minded or bigoted, someone on this board tried to even play the race card, well I oppose gay marriage. period. Laugh at me all night long, I still won't change my mind.
I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely.
(Rhett Butler speaking to Miss Scarlett)

#36 Danaerys

Danaerys

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:35 AM

Should it be legal then to marry your own sister or daughter? I don't think so...imagine the government outlawing this...oh the humanity! This topic is about gay marriage. Those who oppose it are laughed at and labeled as narrow minded or bigoted, someone on this board tried to even play the race card, well I oppose gay marriage. period. Laugh at me all night long, I still won't change my mind.


I honestly don't care if someone marries their sister or daughter as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults. I may not agree with marrying your sister or daughter. But as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults, it is none of my damn business who you marry or who you shack up with.

#37 jenilyn

jenilyn

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,446 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:39 AM

I honestly don't care if someone marries their sister or daughter as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults. I may not agree with marrying your sister or daughter. But as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults, it is none of my damn business who you marry or who you shack up with.

I agree.
No man ever stands taller than when he kneels to help another.

If they laugh at you because you're different, laugh at them because they're all the same.

#38 momof 3

momof 3

    Super Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,401 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:45 AM

Off topic here for a moment, but is it really appropriate for a moderator, of all people, to threaten to shoot people? Sheesh. The rest of us would have gotten banned for such a comment, and rightly so. There is no excuse for threatening people, I don't care what your title is on this forum. :blink:

You're kidding, right? A bullet is a negative mark you get on Pcom when you violate the rules. No threats were made, look in the rules.

#39 Starr & Dru's Nana

Starr & Dru's Nana

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,205 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:58 AM

Obviously you have never been the victim of or the parent of a victim of incest.

I honestly don't care if someone marries their sister or daughter as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults. I may not agree with marrying your sister or daughter. But as long as all parties involved are legal, consenting adults, it is none of my damn business who you marry or who you shack up with.


In loving memory of Mason (December 1, 2001 to December 9, 2001) and Ashley  Jr. (December 1, 2001 to December 2, 2001

 

n7C4m5.png

 

KBZ8m5.png


#40 Danaerys

Danaerys

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 08:05 AM

Obviously you have never been the victim of or the parent of a victim of incest.


Hun, I was raped by my brother in 5th grade and told I was lying. As such nothing was done about it. (I lived in constant fear throughout middle school and High school) It took me oh almost 20 years to come to terms with it. So now do you have anything else to add to this?

Edited by Danaerys, 04 March 2013 - 08:06 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics