Gay marriage (2 Viewers)

[Koya]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views. Just as if you are a clergyman and you feel that it should be prohibited to marry an interracial couple, you should have that right as well, if we are talking about marriage as religious. To them, marriage is sacred and they should not be forced to go against their religion. Hell, if the KKK is allowed to (and SHOULD be allowed to) certain rights and freedoms, so should clergy or folk who don't want to reside over a ceremony that, to them, is far more than just hard legal realities.

Don't intermingle gov't legal rights of marriage AND the religious / ceremonial / spiritual / other meanings of marriage.

Gov't can give the former via a union and folks can get their religious / other bonds of marriage in the private realm.

If you are a civil official you don't get to pick and choose. You either follow the law or move on. You don't get to view the law through your personal prism and act accordingly.

EXACTLY.

So, the law should be simple - about the law, not religion or anything else. Civil law. It conveys nothing more than legal protections etc. And must be handed out equally.

 

[NCCommish]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views. Just as if you are a clergyman and you feel that it should be prohibited to marry an interracial couple, you should have that right as well, if we are talking about marriage as religious. To them, marriage is sacred and they should not be forced to go against their religion. Hell, if the KKK is allowed to (and SHOULD be allowed to) certain rights and freedoms, so should clergy or folk who don't want to reside over a ceremony that, to them, is far more than just hard legal realities.

Don't intermingle gov't legal rights of marriage AND the religious / ceremonial / spiritual / other meanings of marriage.

Gov't can give the former via a union and folks can get their religious / other bonds of marriage in the private realm.

If you are a civil official you don't get to pick and choose. You either follow the law or move on. You don't get to view the law through your personal prism and act accordingly.

EXACTLY.

So, the law should be simple - about the law, not religion or anything else. Civil law. It conveys nothing more than legal protections etc. And must be handed out equally.

Right but it is still going to be called marriage. Because at least a thousand years of modern history has conveyed a special meaning and value on that word.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can't we just realize the best and probably only truely fair path is to get rid of gov't / civil marriage. Anyone can get the legal rights by having the govt acknowledge a civil union.

Marriage should not be a legal exercise... it goes far deeper and for those who want more than just legal rights can have a marriage, religious, spiritual or otherwise.

Nope! You don't extend rights by taking the most important right in question away from everyone. And marriage is ultimately a contract and is just as much a "legal exercise" as any other contract.

Im honeslty not sure if this is shtick or not... marriage, in terms of having certain tax benefits or other legal remidies are not some constitutional nor god given "right" - like you state, it's a contract. So, if the gov't wants to extend certain rights/remedies/protections for couples, give them all the "right" to the same civil union. Then, it's not religious, moral, just business.

For those who want "Marriage" by all means, go to your Priest or Rabbi or Minister... that's not the gov'ts business and no individual "has" to marry a couple against their religion.

But if the gov't is giving out benies to couples, we can't be capricious and objectively, arbitrary about who is allowed to get those benefits and who can't.

Been saying this for a very long time. And about the only response I get in rebuttal that's somewhat reasonable is "that's too hard".

It's about acceptance and showing that a committed gay relationship has the same value as a committed straight relationship. And yes at this point marriage has become a de facto civil right.

I was married by a federal judge we still call it a marriage. As an atheist I am not required to submit my relationship for whichever sky gods approval and I still get to call it a marriage. No one pickets me. And despite the lack of involvement of religion we are still plugging along 26 years later.

I agree with you here... but why do you need the gov't to say you are married? It's not that gov't should give marriage to some but not all. It shouldn't be involved whatsoever.

That's a civil matter, imo and therefore should be handled in the private realm.

Now, if gov't insists on inequitably giving certain rights and protections to some who are in a committed one on one relationship, much as that seems, well, not really right, call it civil union. Cause marriage, imo, is more important and, again, private.

I don't need them or a priest or a rabbi to say I am married. But we live in a civil society. Within that society words have meanings and convey societal acceptance. Marriage is one of those words.It was one of those words for interracial couples as well.

I don't disagree at all. But gov't should still remain out of the marriage game.

In a civil society that respects true religious freedom, you should neither have laws that do not grant equal rights to all (i.e. a gay couple not allowed to marry and therefore inheritance or medical visitation can be denied) NOR should you have laws that "force" someone to grant a status that in their religion, outside of any legal benefits, is not allowed.

Want legal protections / tax benefits etc? Gov't involved. Everyone treated equal.

Want a historical institution that to some represents submission, to others an eternal bond and to others yet a relationship of dedicated equals? Let religious and secular but non-governmental realms take care of that.

I agree!

The government should not require me to consider you a person and thus the respect required for a real person against my religious beliefs.

True religious freedom does not give vocabulary preference to religion. If the word "marriage" is this special then it is the word that needs to be used.

 

[Koya]

I'm worn out. I'll say, it's a good day when I am arguing with the folks with whom I essentially agree. Not sure I'm getting my nuance across, but I'll gladly discuss fine hairs with others who at heart believe in equality for all.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm worn out. I'll say, it's a good day when I am arguing with the folks with whom I essentially agree. Not sure I'm getting my nuance across, but I'll gladly discuss fine hairs with others who at heart believe in equality for all.

We still love ya :biggrouphug:

 

[trogg78]

Marriage is just the combining of two things, in this case two humans. One of the few things the government should be able to handle without much effort. Of course the government should be involved.

 

[fatness]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

 

[joffer]

Arkansas

Mississippi

 

[Henry Ford]

Arkansas

Mississippi

Sonofa... how does Martin Feldman uphold Louisiana's ban, but some #### in Jackson, Mississippi overturn it? ####.

 

[Koya]

Arkansas

Mississippi

Sonofa... how does Martin Feldman uphold Louisiana's ban, but some #### in Jackson, Mississippi overturn it? ####.

Wait, there's a Marty Feldman on the bench in La?

 

[Henry Ford]

Arkansas

Mississippi

Sonofa... how does Martin Feldman uphold Louisiana's ban, but some #### in Jackson, Mississippi overturn it? ####.

Wait, there's a Marty Feldman on the bench in La?

Yes. He was John Minor Wisdom's first clerk with the 5th Circuit.

 

[roadkill1292]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

Indeed, I think it makes a pretty clear statement that people with strong religious views are going to be continually bumping into what's required for a free society. If they can't separate their religious convictions from their responsibilities to administer the basic rules of a citizenry striving for fairness, then resigning is the right thing and we shouldn't be asking them to reconsider.

 

[Koya]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

Indeed, I think it makes a pretty clear statement that people with strong religious views are going to be continually bumping into what's required for a free society. If they can't separate their religious convictions from their responsibilities to administer the basic rules of a citizenry striving for fairness, then resigning is the right thing and we shouldn't be asking them to reconsider.

OR... we get gov't out of religion. What a novel idea.

You know how?

Marriage is for the civil and private sector.

For legal benefits of being "attached" and "recognized" get some union, call it what you want but don't convey that it is marriage, which to many is one and the same with certain religious aspects.

Now, a gov't employee does not have to convey something that has religious meaning to many people and people can still get married where they should - a Church, by a Friend, whomever. Not the gov't

 

[trogg78]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.

AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

Indeed, I think it makes a pretty clear statement that people with strong religious views are going to be continually bumping into what's required for a free society. If they can't separate their religious convictions from their responsibilities to administer the basic rules of a citizenry striving for fairness, then resigning is the right thing and we shouldn't be asking them to reconsider.

OR... we get gov't out of religion. What a novel idea.

You know how?

Marriage is for the civil and private sector.

For legal benefits of being "attached" and "recognized" get some union, call it what you want but don't convey that it is marriage, which to many is one and the same with certain religious aspects.

Now, a gov't employee does not have to convey something that has religious meaning to many people and people can still get married where they should - a Church, by a Friend, whomever. Not the gov't

Marriage, attached, union are just synonyms. Why does it matter what it is called?

 

[Koya]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.

AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

Indeed, I think it makes a pretty clear statement that people with strong religious views are going to be continually bumping into what's required for a free society. If they can't separate their religious convictions from their responsibilities to administer the basic rules of a citizenry striving for fairness, then resigning is the right thing and we shouldn't be asking them to reconsider.

OR... we get gov't out of religion. What a novel idea.

You know how?

Marriage is for the civil and private sector.

For legal benefits of being "attached" and "recognized" get some union, call it what you want but don't convey that it is marriage, which to many is one and the same with certain religious aspects.

Now, a gov't employee does not have to convey something that has religious meaning to many people and people can still get married where they should - a Church, by a Friend, whomever. Not the gov't

Marriage, attached, union are just synonyms. Why does it matter what it is called?

Because to some, the word marriage connotes more than simple additional legal rights. Therefore, I can see some arguement for some that have to perform a wedding for a "marriage" when it brings with it religious implications.

Now, I don't believe you can have marriage for some and not others if done by the gov't - for one, it's inequitable to begin with. Second, I believe marriage should be between whomever wishes and for that matter, not just two people. Others feel it should only be between two people of different gender ... regardless, it is a term that is wrapped in both the private AND public realm.

So, since you can't have a truly equitable way to marry all through gov't sanctioned efforts for legal benefits, at least not in a way that may run counter to some people's religious (albeit bigoted) views, there's a very simple solution.

Get gov't out of the marriage business, period.

 

[trogg78]

http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/714136/more-magistrates-quit-over-same-sex-marriage-issue-than-previously-reported/

Last month, a federal judge cleared the way for same-sex marriages in North Carolina, prompting the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to direct magistrates. They are required by law to perform the wedding ceremonies, if asked.

AOC reports between that ruling on Oct. 10 and the end of the month, 16 magistrates left their jobs, but the state wouldn't release why they left.

"I explained to the judges that I could not continue to perform as a magistrate if it included doing something that was against my sincere religious beliefs," Kallam said at a rally supporting his decision to quit his job.

"I felt like to perform same sex unions would be in violation of the Lord's commands so I couldn't do that," said former Gaston Co. Magistrate Bill Stevenson after his resignation.

Time Warner Cable News has been able to determine at least 10 of the 16 magistrates who left last month, did so because they will not perform same-sex marriages.

Good. Hopefully there will be more rallies to support more magistrates resigning over this. Poor widdle magiswates.

My knee jerk reaction is to agree with you. Then I realized, much as I might abhor those who might actually resign over this, they are entitled to their religious views.

They certainly are entitled to their religious views. And non-religious views. They're not entitled as magistrates to substitute those views for performing their legal functions, that's all. I'm glad they quit. Good on 'em.

As for your drive to get government out of the marriage business it isn't going to happen. We all know that. There are so many legal benefits to being married that the federal government and 50 state governments will never undo them all. It just won't happen.

Indeed, I think it makes a pretty clear statement that people with strong religious views are going to be continually bumping into what's required for a free society. If they can't separate their religious convictions from their responsibilities to administer the basic rules of a citizenry striving for fairness, then resigning is the right thing and we shouldn't be asking them to reconsider.

OR... we get gov't out of religion. What a novel idea.

You know how?

Marriage is for the civil and private sector.

For legal benefits of being "attached" and "recognized" get some union, call it what you want but don't convey that it is marriage, which to many is one and the same with certain religious aspects.

Now, a gov't employee does not have to convey something that has religious meaning to many people and people can still get married where they should - a Church, by a Friend, whomever. Not the gov't

Marriage, attached, union are just synonyms. Why does it matter what it is called?

Because to some, the word marriage connotes more than simple additional legal rights. Therefore, I can see some arguement for some that have to perform a wedding for a "marriage" when it brings with it religious implications.

Now, I don't believe you can have marriage for some and not others if done by the gov't - for one, it's inequitable to begin with. Second, I believe marriage should be between whomever wishes and for that matter, not just two people. Others feel it should only be between two people of different gender ... regardless, it is a term that is wrapped in both the private AND public realm.

So, since you can't have a truly equitable way to marry all through gov't sanctioned efforts for legal benefits, at least not in a way that may run counter to some people's religious (albeit bigoted) views, there's a very simple solution.

Get gov't out of the marriage business, period.

Marriage privatization is dumb. It is in the states best interest for our children to have a secure family unit. It's really just the last ditch effort to support homophobia.

 

[Righetti]

Is this still debatable?

 

[squistion]

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2014/12/31/courthouse-weddings-end-gay-marriage-clay-baker-duval/21133653/

Local counties to end courthouse weddings to avoid marrying gays

Tia Mitchell, Florida Times-Union

Couples who wanted to skip the pomp and circumstance of a wedding and get married at the Duval, Clay or Baker county courthouses will no longer have that option in the new year.

These counties' decision to end the long-standing tradition of courthouse wedding ceremonies is due, at least in part, to the continued debate over same-sex marriage in Florida against the backdrop of conservative Christianity. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle could rule any day and make gay marriage legal across the state.

If same-sex marriage is allowed, Duval Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, Clay Clerk Tara Green and Baker Clerk Stacie Harvey will have no choice but to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. But to avoid performing ceremonies for them, these clerks have decided to end all courthouse weddings.

The clerks said multiple factors contributed to the decision to end courthouse weddings, with gay marriage being just one of them. And they now said the new policies will take effect no matter what the courts decide about gay marriage.

Fussell says the decision came after a series of discussion with members of his staff who currently officiate wedding ceremonies. None of them, including Fussell, felt comfortable doing gay weddings so they decided to end the practice all together, he said.

"It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn't be any discrimination," Fussell said. "The easiest way is to not do them at all."

Equality Florida co-founder and chief executive Nadine Smith was shocked to hear that certain counties would stop allowing courthouse wedding because of the possibility that gay couples would want to use the service.

"I think it would be outrageous for clerks to change the rules simply because gay couples are getting married," she said.

Smith, an advocate for gay and lesbian rights, predicted the policy change would backfire and be characterized as spiteful and mean.

There were 1,911 wedding ceremonies performed at the Duval County Courthouse in 2013, compared to 6,342 marriage licenses issued. About 330 Clay County couples are married at its courthouse each year, and Baker averages about 30.

Clerks of courts in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties in the Panhandle also made similar announcements that they were ending courthouse ceremonies.

 

[Koya]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

 

[Eminence]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

 

[Koya]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

 

[Eminence]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

No, I'm saying that if I called Comcast and told them I didn't want anything that promoted Homosexual values to come through my TV that it should be allowed to happen. I don't understand why the default is programming which supports this specific agenda.

When you don't give people a choice and indoctrinate them young, of course they are going to support your cause.

 

[joffer]

popsecret should be checking in any minute

 

[squistion]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

A gay block on your TV? Interesting idea, because if your kids saw homosexuals on TV who knows what reprehensible things they might do when they grow up - like threatening to commit suicide just to shut down an internet message board thread. I doubt anyone would want their offspring to be that maladjusted.

 

[popsecret]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

What if he really believes being homosexual is a gateway to hell?

If he does it would make plenty of sense not to want his kids influenced into thinking being gay is normal.

That doesn't mean he wants to beat up gay people or not give them rights to live their life.

And by definition being gay isn't normal, that isn't an insult it is a fact.

"Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight,"

So if 96 percent of people are straight but there is always a gay person in every TV show like the percentage was higher than 3.6 percent than clearly TV is doing what Eminence is worried about, which is making it seem like being gay is normal when it isn't.

 

[Koya]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

No, I'm saying that if I called Comcast and told them I didn't want anything that promoted Homosexual values to come through my TV that it should be allowed to happen. I don't understand why the default is programming which supports this specific agenda.

When you don't give people a choice and indoctrinate them young, of course they are going to support your cause.

1. TV networks have one agenda - it's making money. If a show will get ratings, it will air - whether its shows like duck dynasty or shows that god forbid have a gay married couple with cute adopted kids.

2. You realize that you are the one asking for the agenda here? You want to curtail the rights of others to free expression and to watch what they wish and instead ONLY show stations that are ok with you. That's an agenda, and the agenda is about as Anti-American and anti-freedom as I could think. Especially since someone who has even half a brain knows that you can block whichever you wish, at home.

3. You realise that providing access to entertainment and other speech is not indoctrinating? Worse yet, YOU are the one trying to indoctrinate by forcing others to conform to your views. Comcast puts out a multitude of views and your agenda is going to distate what to see? To think you want to spread bigotry to your childen is the scariest thing.

You are the exact evil you pretend to be fight against.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

What if he really believes being homosexual is a gateway to hell?

If he does it would make plenty of sense not to want his kids influenced into thinking being gay is normal.

That doesn't mean he wants to beat up gay people or not give them rights to live their life.

And by definition being gay isn't normal, that isn't an insult it is a fact.

"Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight,"

So if 96 percent of people are straight but there is always a gay person in every TV show like the percentage was higher than 3.6 percent than clearly TV is doing what Eminence is worried about, which is making it seem like being gay is normal when it isn't.

Do you believe that more than 1/25 of the major characters in television shows are gay/lesbian/bisexual? Or even more than 1/25 of the characters at all are gay/lesbian/bisexual?

 

[Henry Ford]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual series regulars on primetime broadcast television (that's not "main characters" or "total characters" obviously) has fluctuated between 3.3% and 4.4% from the 2012 season through the upcoming 2015 season. That's pretty close to representative according to recent CDC numbers that show that 96.6% of respondents identified as "straight, not gay or lesbian."

 

[Joe Summer]

No, I'm saying that if I called Comcast and told them I didn't want anything that promoted Homosexual values to come through my TV that it should be allowed to happen.

I don't understand why the default is

Indeed.

 

[njherdfan]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

When does homosexual conduct go from mere tomfoolery to full-on antics?

 

[matuski]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

What if he really believes being homosexual is a gateway to hell?

If he does it would make plenty of sense not to want his kids influenced into thinking being gay is normal.

That doesn't mean he wants to beat up gay people or not give them rights to live their life.

And by definition being gay isn't normal, that isn't an insult it is a fact.

"Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight,"

So if 96 percent of people are straight but there is always a gay person in every TV show like the percentage was higher than 3.6 percent than clearly TV is doing what Eminence is worried about, which is making it seem like being gay is normal when it isn't.

You seem intimately familiar with what Em is worried about.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

When does homosexual conduct go from mere tomfoolery to full-on antics?

Mustaches are the key difference.

 

[squistion]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

When does homosexual conduct go from mere tomfoolery to full-on antics?

Mustaches are the key difference.

Uh, oh, Em has a beard (or an attempt at one). Where does that place him?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

When does homosexual conduct go from mere tomfoolery to full-on antics?

Mustaches are the key difference.

Uh, oh, Em has a beard (or an attempt at one). Where does that place him?

Definitely a twink. Way too girly to be a bear.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual series regulars on primetime broadcast television (that's not "main characters" or "total characters" obviously) has fluctuated between 3.3% and 4.4% from the 2012 season through the upcoming 2015 season. That's pretty close to representative according to recent CDC numbers that show that 96.6% of respondents identified as "straight, not gay or lesbian."

No freaking way - by all the public outrage I am convinced that upwards of 75% of America consist of gay illegal aliens trying to convert our country to Islam.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The GLAAD report vastly understates the number of gay characters on TV because it generally doesn't count characters who are still in the closet.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The GLAAD report vastly understates the number of gay characters on TV because it generally doesn't count characters who are still in the closet.

Sure, but neither does a survey that asks if people identify as straight.

 

[roadkill1292]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

I think the news / media shouldn't be involved with promoting what is a civil life decision.Edit:

Comparably, I think there should be an option with my TV carrier to blackout any and all homosexual antics on my television. What if I don't want my children seeing that lifestyle as normal?

I am entitled to be able to watch television without their minds being polluted by garbage.

Aside from the trolling level bigotry - beliefs you are certainly free to hold (which are made crystal clear by your language in the quoted post) - you do realise you can do this at home on just about any system at this point (parental blocking of channels and/or certain content).

I guess stupid and bigoted go hand in hand more often than not. Although that's not really fair to stupid people as not all stupid people are bigots, but its hard to see many of the latter not be the former.

What if he really believes being homosexual is a gateway to hell?

If he does it would make plenty of sense not to want his kids influenced into thinking being gay is normal.

That doesn't mean he wants to beat up gay people or not give them rights to live their life.

And by definition being gay isn't normal, that isn't an insult it is a fact.

"Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight,"

So if 96 percent of people are straight but there is always a gay person in every TV show like the percentage was higher than 3.6 percent than clearly TV is doing what Eminence is worried about, which is making it seem like being gay is normal when it isn't.

It's actually pretty normal for a small percentage of the population to be gay. Maybe his kids would benefit more by being exposed to the concept that not everybody is the same.

 

[bigbottom]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The GLAAD report vastly understates the number of gay characters on TV because it generally doesn't count characters who are still in the closet.

 

[Da Guru]

Going to a gay wedding next month. Should I get a flamboyant outfit? Only 100 people attending and my niece said more than half will be gays.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Going to a gay wedding next month. Should I get a flamboyant outfit? Only 100 people attending and my niece said more than half will be gays.

No. Dress as you would for any other wedding.

...as long as you dress FABULOUSLY at every other wedding.

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, roughly the same percentage of the U.S. population has red hair as identifies as something other than straight.

I guess you could say redheads aren't "normal." Of course, if we hear you say that we will burn down your house and eat your family.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Incidentally, roughly the same percentage of the U.S. population has red hair as identifies as something other than straight.

I guess you could say redheads aren't "normal." Of course, if we hear you say that we will burn down your house and eat your family.

Of course they aren't normal. Everyone knows that gingers have no soul.

 

[cstu]

Just to foolishly try to inject some numbers into this conversation:

GLAAD puts out an annual report called "Where We Are On TV." The purpose is to let GLAAD supporters and members know where they can watch and see gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters on tv shows.

Here's this year's report.

The GLAAD report vastly understates the number of gay characters on TV because it generally doesn't count characters who are still in the closet.

In their defense, the whole cast of Glee would skew the numbers.

 

[Jack White]

I support that right of any individuals to associate with whomever they want. What consenting adults do together in the bedroom or any other area of their lives is their business, not mine.

I also believe the state should get out of the marriage business completely -- no matter the genders of the two people who want to become a legal couple.

I'd make it a private contract outside the purview of the state.

 

[Henry Ford]

Incidentally, roughly the same percentage of the U.S. population has red hair as identifies as something other than straight.

I guess you could say redheads aren't "normal." Of course, if we hear you say that we will burn down your house and eat your family.

Of course they aren't normal. Everyone knows that gingers have no soul.

Give me a minute to find my lighter.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

Pretty good example of the reality of what "get government out of marriage" would actually accomplish.

In order to appease the bigots, or at least a bigoted idea you make the act of getting married more difficult and more costly for everyone. While you achieve zero noble goals such as ending discrimination against single folks or making government less intertwined in regulating and resolving disputes with these contractual arrangements.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I support that right of any individuals to associate with whomever they want. What consenting adults do together in the bedroom or any other area of their lives is their business, not mine.

I also believe the state should get out of the marriage business completely -- no matter the genders of the two people who want to become a legal couple.

I'd make it a private contract outside the purview of the state.

So the government would have no say when a certain board member coerces a twelve year old into a marriage contract?

 

[Henry Ford]

I support that right of any individuals to associate with whomever they want. What consenting adults do together in the bedroom or any other area of their lives is their business, not mine.

I also believe the state should get out of the marriage business completely -- no matter the genders of the two people who want to become a legal couple.

I'd make it a private contract outside the purview of the state.

Are you suggesting that the government doesn't regulate private contracts?

 

[Koya]

Well, that's one way to get govt out of the Marriage business. Again, govt shouldn't be involved in this civil life decision anyway.

Pretty good example of the reality of what "get government out of marriage" would actually accomplish.

In order to appease the bigots, or at least a bigoted idea you make the act of getting married more difficult and more costly for everyone. While you achieve zero noble goals such as ending discrimination against single folks or making government less intertwined in regulating and resolving disputes with these contractual arrangements.

Huh? Why would it be more expensive? You go get married in a civil / religious ceremony and you register with the govt that you are "married" - better yet, you get married civilly and it has no effect whatsoever on taxation etc so the govt can really stay out of the morass