Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: North Carolina will culturally be ruined in 10 years or so.

  1. #1
    was_peacemaker
    Guest

    Thumbs down North Carolina will culturally be ruined in 10 years or so.

    In May we are having a special election to vote for or against a amendment that would ban gay marriage. Recent polls show that the amendment would fail. Also recent polls show that NC voters would recognize gay legal unions. This means NC would be the only southern state without an amendment in the state constitution to define marriage.

    That also means all those liberal gays will flock here for the low cost of living. The next domino to this would be the politics that they bring and in 10 years NC is the next Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, or Maryland. Once the liberal northern gays flock here...NC will become a base for liberal operations in the south! The commies, unions, environmental wackos will come. Look out SC, VA, TN, GA! This is how the left is going to destroy the conservative south, and get their anti-gun tree hugging politics pushed south of the Mason-Dixon line!

  2. #2
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655

    Wink

    Like it or not, gay marriage is coming to every state before long. The trend for the past 20 years has been steady erosion of opposition to gay marriage:



    That's not just the non-religious behind that trend, but mainline Christianity is becoming more liberal and tolerant as well.

    But the same trend over the past 20 years is also more tolerance for gun rights. So I'm not too worried.

    Pro-gay and pro-gun America. I can live with that.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  3. #3
    was_peacemaker
    Guest
    Actually 30 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. The issue is that gays tend to be uber-liberal and that usually translates to anti-gun.

  4. #4
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by was_peacemaker View Post
    Actually 30 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. The issue is that gays tend to be uber-liberal and that usually translates to anti-gun.
    Maybe if the conservatives would quit hating on the gays, they wouldn't default to being so liberal.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  5. #5
    was_peacemaker
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Maybe if the conservatives would quit hating on the gays, they wouldn't default to being so liberal.
    Are you in an area where there are many gays? I am near a large east coast art school and various colleges and universities that are very liberal. LAGC if you yourself saw day in and day out what gay culture is all about...then I think you would change your mind. They typically are a STD ridden self-centered, pessimistic, drug using drama queens. They can ruin a work place, and cause plenty of discourse because they have to shove their "victimization card" around.

    I have worked places were gays push the limit and if you say something to them...they through up the "victim card" even when they know they are in the wrong. I have never been around many that weren't seeking attention and trying to throw crap in peoples faces.

  6. #6
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655

    Post

    Well, I think you may be stereotyping based on particular anecdotal accounts you may have experienced.

    Truth is, we ALL live around LGBT people. They make up fully 10% of any given population naturally, even if many of them aren't out of the closet yet. So I imagine you've been around many more than you realize, they just don't identify themselves as being "that way", so they've flown under the radar so to speak.

    I have two cousins (one male and one female) who are gay, they've never been "in your face" about their sexual orientation. I've also worked in corporate settings where gays were welcomed, with pro-gay diversity posters plastered all over the place. Never noticed any problems.

    If two men (or two women) want to tie the knot, they should have just as much equal right to do so as those of the opposite sex. It really is ridiculous how many social conservatives want to keep treating them like second-class citizens, and then they wonder why they don't tend to vote Republican.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  7. #7
    was_peacemaker
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Well, I think you may be stereotyping based on particular anecdotal accounts you may have experienced.

    Truth is, we ALL live around LGBT people. They make up fully 10% of any given population naturally, even if many of them aren't out of the closet yet. So I imagine you've been around many more than you realize, they just don't identify themselves as being "that way", so they've flown under the radar so to speak.

    I have two cousins (one male and one female) who are gay, they've never been "in your face" about their sexual orientation. I've also worked in corporate settings where gays were welcomed, with pro-gay diversity posters plastered all over the place. Never noticed any problems.

    If two men (or two women) want to tie the knot, they should have just as much equal right to do so as those of the opposite sex. It really is ridiculous how many social conservatives want to keep treating them like second-class citizens, and then they wonder why they don't tend to vote Republican.

    I think the numbers speak for themselves. MSM are men who have sex with men.

    "CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the US population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009. MSM accounted for 49% of people living with HIV infection in 2008 (the most recent year prevalence data are available)."

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

  8. #8
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by was_peacemaker View Post
    I think the numbers speak for themselves. MSM are men who have sex with men.

    "CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the US population, but accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in 2009. MSM accounted for 49% of people living with HIV infection in 2008 (the most recent year prevalence data are available)."

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
    Why focus on male homosexuals? Lesbians are very unlikely to contract HIV, since it usually transmits through anal sex. So what's your point?

    Good reason for all folks to practice safe sex. Too bad many conservatives are against sex education and free condom distribution to teenagers.

    And scientists are on the verge of finding a cure for HIV, by the way. What will the anti-gay folks fret about next?
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  9. #9
    was_peacemaker
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Why focus on male homosexuals? Lesbians are very unlikely to contract HIV, since it usually transmits through anal sex. So what's your point?

    Good reason for all folks to practice safe sex. Too bad many conservatives are against sex education and free condom distribution to teenagers.

    And scientists are on the verge of finding a cure for HIV, by the way. What will the anti-gay folks fret about next?
    "Lesbian and bisexual women reported significantly higher lifetime rates of ecstasy, cocaine, methamphetamine, and LSD use compared to heterosexual women. These data suggest a need to better understand the influence of sexual orientation and sexual culture in relation to club drug use and to tailor health promotion efforts to meet the needs of various groups of club drug using women." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688448/

  10. #10
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655
    Again, I fail to see your point.

    Equal rights shouldn't be denied to an entire class of people just because a minority engage in risky behavior.

    It would be like saying all white males should be locked up because most sex predators are white males.
    Last edited by LAGC; 02-24-2012 at 07:51 AM.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  11. #11
    Senior Member mriddick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,804
    IMO the question should be is it good for society, then if it is deemed to be so then simply pay for the extra costs and be done with it.

  12. #12
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    harms way
    Posts
    17,742
    Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Anything else is just that, something else. Next they'll try to get it legislated that all must agree the sky is green and the grass is blue.

  13. #13
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
    IMO the question should be is it good for society, then if it is deemed to be so then simply pay for the extra costs and be done with it.
    Well, I know what's not good for society. That's the number of LGBT youth who commit suicide every day because they are bullied, harassed, or told they are "evil" for being who they are.

    The extra costs associated with expanding marriage benefits to more people is more than mitigated by the eventual decrease in teen suicides, I would think.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  14. #14
    Senior Member mriddick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Well, I know what's not good for society. That's the number of LGBT youth who commit suicide every day because they are bullied, harassed, or told they are "evil" for being who they are.

    The extra costs associated with expanding marriage benefits to more people is more than mitigated by the eventual decrease in teen suicides, I would think.
    Then do the math and prove it You know even in places where gays are accepted their rates of suicide are much higher then the national average, it could be they are just more sensitive to such things and are at risk regardless. It might be you're attempt to make them conform to national averages is in itself a form of bigotry, as maybe they are different and you're not allowing them to be what they are...

  15. #15
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,655
    Quote Originally Posted by mriddick View Post
    Then do the math and prove it You know even in places where gays are accepted their rates of suicide are much higher then the national average, it could be they are just more sensitive to such things and are at risk regardless. It might be you're attempt to make them conform to national averages is in itself a form of bigotry, as maybe they are different and you're not allowing them to be what they are...
    Well, to be completely honest with you, I've never really seen the big deal about marriage. Considering most marriages end in divorce with much suffering involved, why bother in the first place? Why not keep relationships open-ended, so that if you and your would-be spouse eventually come to not love each other any more, why not just split and find new mates? Why put your children through that, if you can't stand your spouse any more?

    But if gays/lesbians want to "join the club" and be as miserable as so many straight married couples are, that should be their right. After all, there are tax and health care benefits of tying the knot that unmarried couples can't take advantage of.

    I certainly don't see any harm, any more than broken/abusive marriages between straight people are wrong in general.
    Last edited by LAGC; 02-24-2012 at 08:46 AM.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  16. #16
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,750
    If fags get to marry I want two wives.

  17. #17
    Senior Member mriddick's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,804
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Well, to be completely honest with you, I've never really seen the big deal about marriage. Considering most marriages end in divorce with much suffering involved, why bother in the first place? Why not keep relationships open-ended, so that if you and your would-be spouse eventually come to not love each other any more, why not just split and find new mates? Why put your children through that, if you can't stand your spouse any more?

    But if gays/lesbians want to "join the club" and be as miserable as so many straight married couples are, that should be their right. After all, there are tax and health care benefits of tying the knot that unmarried couples can't take advantage of.

    I certainly don't see any harm, any more than broken/abusive marriages between straight people are wrong in general.
    My belief is going forward everything should be looked at as to costs and whether it is paid for, I know it sounds different but it's time that's how we start to do it. I also believe we need to make choices based on whats good for society VS just OK'ing every individual freedom based on it simply being an individual freedom (not much of a libertarian).

  18. #18
    Contributor 02/2014 FunkyPertwee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,163
    Just because I define marriage as being outside the authority of Government doesn't mean I support homosexuality or am non-religious.
    "I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"

  19. #19
    Senior Member Dr. Gonzo GED's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,317
    NC's culture is so fragile that it will be ruined by ugly fat chicks getting spousal status?

    I'm not seeing the connection.

    You've already got gays. They already live togeather. A piece of paper that basically does little more than marry their credit score and tax return is going to destroy your society?

    Grow. Thicker. Skin.

  20. #20
    Contributor 02/2014 FunkyPertwee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo GED View Post
    NC's culture is so fragile that it will be ruined by ugly fat chicks getting spousal status?

    I'm not seeing the connection.

    You've already got gays. They already live togeather. A piece of paper that basically does little more than marry their credit score and tax return is going to destroy your society?

    Grow. Thicker. Skin.
    I think what they really want is the gays to be rounded up and shipped via train to a fag camp. Thats the only way to stop Christian children from choosing to become gay. Otherwise the anal urge is just too great for them to resist.

    Thats what I gather from the family values crowd anyway. Same goes for pot; If they don't pay the police to eradicate it, they're children won't have strong enough principals to resist becoming a drug addict.
    "I'm fucking furious, I'm violently angry, and I like it. If you don't know what that feels like then I feel bad for you"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •