_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

This is just stupid. You really should just find a corner to sit in and think for a while.

Why is it stupid? Why should there be extra penalties for two roomates, of the same sex, regardless of sexual relationship, fighting?
 
This sums up my thoughts with regard to humanity:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojt8QhKrrk[/youtube]
 
Why is it stupid? Why should there be extra penalties for two roomates, of the same sex, regardless of sexual relationship, fighting?

There should not be extra penalties; the penalty should be the same as assault and battery. However, there should be regard for extra protection. There are government grants (many that are subsidized through donations to non-profits) that specifically provide for paying for protection and counseling for those who are victims of domestic abuse; whether you agree with those programs or not, you are now denying the protection that a heterosexual wife or husband (yes, husbands can and have been domestic violence victims) to a homosexual husband or wife. Again, it is a lack of equal protection under the law.
 
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
Marriage is not protected. Skin color and gender are protected, not someones sexual preferences

They are protected because they are natural, correct? Individuals do not choose their race; they do not choose their gender. Yet, you must think being homosexual is a choice. How many times in your life have you made the decision (the choice) not to **** a man you were attracted to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Marriage is not protected. Skin color and gender are protected, not someones sexual preferences

Fine, you find me in the portion of the Constitution that I just cited where it says "skin color and gender, but not sexual preference"
 
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How is anyone being deprived of life, liberty or property?
 
There should not be extra penalties; the penalty should be the same as assault and battery. However, there should be regard for extra protection. There are government grants (many that are subsidized through donations to non-profits) that specifically provide for paying for protection and counseling for those who are victims of domestic abuse; whether you agree with those programs or not, you are now denying the protection that a heterosexual wife or husband (yes, husbands can and have been domestic violence victims) to a homosexual husband or wife. Again, it is a lack of equal protection under the law.

Here is where we differ. The domestic violence laws were designed to protect women, who are the most vulnerable to abuse from a spouse, throw in kids and hell yes they need protection, counseling ext. Yes a man can be a victim of domestic abuse from his wife, weak man that is.

Two guys or girls, sorry it's assult press charges and move on, gov't isn't here to hold your hand.
 
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thousands of laws on the books that violate this clause. Where's the uproar?
 
Here is where we differ. The domestic violence laws were designed to protect women, who are the most vulnerable to abuse from a spouse, throw in kids and hell yes they need protection, counseling ext. Yes a man can be a victim of domestic abuse from his wife, weak man that is.

Two guys or girls, sorry it's assult press charges and move on, gov't isn't here to hold your hand.

Actually, the government is stepping in to see that they don't hold hands.
 
I have found myself reading this thread and have experienced a wide range thoughts and reactions. While I really do not share a single thought with Marcus, he is entitled to his beliefs and the expression of his beliefs. He exorcised this on the day of the vote. I do not agree with his opinion in the least bit but that is nonconsequential. I have also seen Regulator and him arguing quite a bit and I have seen that regulator is from North Carolina. He has expressed his displeasure with the passing. However, he has not mentioned if he went out to vote against it. If he did, then awesome I agree with you, but if he did not then there is not much room to express displeasure with the passing because he made no real effort to stop it. That is the only place that I see Marcus has made a decently valid point.
 
They are protected because they are natural, correct? Individuals do not choose their race; they do not choose their gender. Yet, you must think being homosexual is a choice. How many times in your life have you made the decision (the choice) not to **** a man you were attracted to?

Thanks for this. This is a great way to try to help people understand. For straight folks who believe homosexuality is a choice, when did you decide to be heterosexual? I can tell you that it was absolutely not a choice for me or anyone I know or have met. Many folks can't seem to accept that because it is counter to who they are and what they know. Bottom line is that if you are not gay how could you possibly know?
 
Fine, you find me in the portion of the Constitution that I just cited where it says "skin color and gender, but not sexual preference"

That whole stance is justified through the idea that sexual preference is and is only a choice. Unfortunately, that notion stands up to no level of scrutiny.

I don't remember at what point I consciously decided I was heterosexual. I just am. I've never met a gay person that just decided they were going to be gay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Actually, the government is stepping in to see that they don't hold hands.

Ahh, I just have a problem with the domestic violence laws as they have evolved. True story-

Several years ago we had some friends over (man and wife) they got into an aurgument, we told them to leave. Cops show up after they left, neighbor called, my wife had a scratch(s) on her arm from the new puppy and I almost got hauled off to jail. Cuffed and in the back seat before reason prevailed.
 
They are protected because they are natural, correct? Individuals do not choose their race; they do not choose their gender. Yet, you must think being homosexual is a choice. How many times in your life have you made the decision (the choice) not to **** a man you were attracted to?

This is good stuff.
 

VN Store



Back
Top