# NC, USA: Man Fires Shotgun Into Neighbor's Yard Sign Against Ammendment One



## staticman0 (Apr 30, 2012)

So, how's the anti-equality movement gonna spin THIS?

[video=youtube;5DKtT-7gwMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DKtT-7gwMI[/video]

*DO NOT FLAG THE VIDEO!*  instead, make the video go viral.

And in case this guy turns into a coward and takes down his video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6KQVbvhCR4


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 30, 2012)

The amount of redneck in this video makes me want to scrub my eyeballs.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 30, 2012)

Why does the guy shoot the sign when he supports what it's all about?

(I can't make out the white words on the sign, so if the sign is against, as said in the subject line, then I guess that would be a reason, then.)


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 30, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Why does the guy shoot the sign when he supports what it's all about?


The guy is anti-gay-marriage. The sign is an opposition to the amendment that will make gay marriage illegal... or something like that.


----------



## staticman0 (Apr 30, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Why does the guy shoot the sign when he supports what it's all about?



Because he disagrees with it.  It's a sign AGAINST an amendment that would make gay marriage "SUPER EXTRA ILLEGAL" in the state of North Carolina.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Apr 30, 2012)

Mother fucking terrorists I swear.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 30, 2012)

Got that, thanks.  Waste of good ammunition, in my opinion.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Wow, just wow.

Something tells me he has either a small brain, a small penis, or both.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 30, 2012)

Oh my goodness, there's a person being stupid on youtube. How novel.


----------



## Aetius (Apr 30, 2012)

This is the common way of saying "Good Morning" deep in the interior of Redneckistan.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Another thing, before anyone says it's his "right" to hate on gays, and that it is protected under the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  No.

First Amendment is to be protected from the government oppressing what you have to say about them.  But not to be a dick to everyone you don't like.  Simple as that.  

Trust me, I've had that shit used against me improperly often enough.


----------



## JArt. (Apr 30, 2012)

Who needs words when you've got ammo? :V


----------



## Aetius (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> First Amendment is to be protected from the government oppressing what you have to say about them.  But not to be a dick to everyone you don't like.  Simple as that.



Supreme court already ruled that the first amendment makes it okay to be a dick. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Apr 30, 2012)

Well there is that saying that words are like bullets once fired they cannot be returned :V


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Supreme court already ruled that the first amendment makes it okay to be a dick.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie



...

Fuck you, America.
Fuck you hard.


----------



## iTails (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm confused, is he for or against this amendment? Or is he just pissed that someone put a sign in his yard?

Also, I've lived in NC. I've been around the majority of North Carolinians for 6 years and they are contradicting as fuck.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

iTails said:


> I'm confused, is he for or against this amendment? Or is he just pissed that someone put a sign in his yard?
> 
> Also, I've lived in NC. I've been around the majority of North Carolinians for 6 years and they are contradicting as fuck.



Take a look at him, and his gun, and just guess.

I'm sure you can figure it out. :v


----------



## iTails (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> Take a look at him, and his gun, and just guess.
> 
> I'm sure you can figure it out. :v


See, now you're just profiling. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> Another thing, before anyone says it's his "right" to hate on gays, and that it is protected under the Constitution/Bill of Rights.  No.
> 
> First Amendment is to be protected from the government oppressing what you have to say about them.  But not to be a dick to everyone you don't like.  Simple as that.
> 
> Trust me, I've had that shit used against me improperly often enough.



Yeah, it is his right to have an opinion and express it.

Glitch, stop posting about what you "think" the First Amendment stands for an actually do a bit of research on Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment.

Or better yet, pick up this book by Anthony Lewis which does a lot of the research for you.

My question is, where was that sign originally?  Because it seems convienently placed in front of a small hill that'll keep his shotgun from causing collateral damage.

If it was placed on his property, no harm, no foul.  If he picked it off someone else's and decided to fire on it, that's overstepping his boundaries and could be considered theft or vandalism.


----------



## JArt. (Apr 30, 2012)

"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it" - _The_ _Friends of Voltaire_


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 30, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> My question is, where was that sign originally?  Because it seems convienently placed in front of a small hill that'll keep his shotgun from causing collateral damage.



I thought that too. In the video it sounds like he found it on his property, in which case shooting it is perfectly legal unless he somehow otherwise violates firearms safety law (I.E by discharging it too close to a building or some such.) 

Not really sure how "angry redneck shoots sign" is major news in either case. Not exactly a gut-churning hate crime (unless you're a sign.)

EDIT: Wow. People keep posting the number for the local police department in the comments. They're the real victims here. 

"Well, we've got 3 stabbings, 2 muggings, 13 cases of domestic disturbance and possible meth lab to investigate, but no. Please. Let me hear about the guy who shot a fucking sign again."


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yeah, it is his right to have an opinion and express it.
> 
> Glitch, stop posting about what you "think" the First Amendment stands for an actually do a bit of research on Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment.
> 
> ...



Now, now, Term.

I never said he couldn't have his (albeit idiotic) opinion. But I think the rules of basic fucking decency to your fellow man are a little more important than being a gun-waving dickbag because someone doesn't like the idea of fags getting hitched.

And I am open to learning unlike most, so you don't need to be an ass either.  Really.


----------



## Corto (Apr 30, 2012)

How the fuck is just shooting a gun in the middle of a city just 'cause you feel like it legal? 

I'm more impressed at gun laws than I am at the sign thing.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 30, 2012)

what the hell is ammendment one?



Corto said:


> How the fuck is just shooting a gun in the middle of a city just 'cause you feel like it legal?
> 
> I'm more impressed at gun laws than I am at the sign thing.


it's north carolina...home of nascar...
everything redneck related is legal


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> what the hell is ammendment one?



In NC, it's apparently the one defining marriage.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> In NC, it's apparently the one defining marriage.



i live here and never heard of it...strange....


----------



## JArt. (Apr 30, 2012)

Corto said:


> How the fuck is just shooting a gun in the middle of a city just 'cause you feel like it legal?
> 
> I'm more impressed at gun laws than I am at the sign thing.


Anybody who is willing to get out their shotgun and shoot a sign because it was on their property, dosen't give a fuck about gun laws.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> Now, now, Term.
> 
> I never said he couldn't have his (albeit idiotic) opinion. But I think the rules of basic fucking decency to your fellow man is a little more important than being a gun-waving dickbag because someone doesn't like the idea of fags getting hitched.
> 
> And I am open to learning unlike most, so you don't need to be an ass either.  Really.



So according to your rules of decency he isn't allowed to express himself?  Seems a little backwards to me.  That kind of logic can be flipped to say that anyone supporting gay rights in public is being indecent for openly discussing sexual deviancy in public where children may be present.  :V

Being open to learning is one thing.  Presenting something as a fact without actually having a base knowledge of the subject in question is another thing.  This isn't the first time you've posted this, Glitch, and it's almost verbatim what you said before.

It's absolutely his prerogative to act like a dick and broadcast it.  As long as he hasn't done something illegal, such as what I brought up about the possibility he stole that sign and vandalized it, then just because you don't like his opinion doesn't mean he needs to be silenced or stop doing what he's doing.


----------



## Aetius (Apr 30, 2012)

Corto said:


> I'm more impressed at gun laws than I am at the sign thing.



You should totally see Arizona's gun laws.

They almost made it a right to carry a handgun into a college class.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 30, 2012)

Yeah... I live in that state. There is a chance, albeit a small one, that the amendment will not pass. Most North Carolinians support civil unions for same-sex couples at least, but they don't understand that the amendment bans those. The wording of the law is carefully crafted to sound innocuous, when actually it's taking away most people's rights (including hetero couples).

So it's a tough slog right now, educating as many people as possible what the law will do.


----------



## Rhampage (Apr 30, 2012)

Another well educated individual bringing a GREAT reputation to the south. :V


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So according to your rules of decency he isn't allowed to express himself?  Seems a little backwards to me.  That kind of logic can be flipped to say that anyone supporting gay rights in public is being indecent for openly discussing sexual deviancy in public where children may be present.  :V
> 
> Being open to learning is one thing.  Presenting something as a fact without actually having a base knowledge of the subject in question is another thing.  This isn't the first time you've posted this, Glitch, and it's almost verbatim what you said before.
> 
> It's absolutely his prerogative to act like a dick and broadcast it.  As long as he hasn't done something illegal, such as what I brought up about the possibility he stole that sign and vandalized it, then just because you don't like his opinion doesn't mean he needs to be silenced or stop doing what he's doing.



So I was wrong, big whoop.  I'm only human.  At least I try to educate myself instead of saying "NO UR RONG."

I'm typically more-than-fair to hicks like these.  I deal with little Bible-thumpers in my school (I am way outnumbered in most of my classes), get regularly ridiculed by them, told that I am diseased (aka gay) and going to Hell.  I deal with my idiot mother who tries to shove Jesus down my throat.  But enough is eventually enough.  Especially when APs and teachers at the school say "kids will be kids" whenever shit happens. I haven't beaten anyone up yet, and I get provoked plenty of times in a day.  I'd have to say that I am doing a damn good job in holding myself back.

As far as the First Amendment goes, my issue stems from a little teenager said it's well within his right as an American to desecrate my name because he simply doesn't like me.  (He abuses his girlfriend and blames me for it, simply because I stood up to him.)  I was never taught that stupid, pathetic slander like that was protected.  So my freaking apologies; I was so stupid in thinking that bullying is totally not "OK" in this country because our Constitution was written with that shit in mind.

So there, backstory that you don't care about/don't care to hear, but needed to be spilled anyway because I've got more shit in life to deal with than most give me credit for.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Apr 30, 2012)

Oh, guys.

You got shit all over the fan.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> So I was wrong, big whoop.  I'm only human.  At least I try to educate myself instead of saying "NO UR RONG."



You weren't just wrong Glitch.  You presented your incorrect information in such a matter-of-fact tone that anyone disagreeing with you must be a complete idiot with no concept as to what the First Amendment is all about.  Hence the harshness of my response.



> I'm typically more-than-fair to hicks like these.  I deal with little Bible-thumpers in my school (I am way outnumbered in most of my classes), get regularly ridiculed by them, told that I am diseased (aka gay) and going to Hell.  I deal with my idiot mother who tries to shove Jesus down my throat.  But enough is eventually enough.  Especially when APs and teachers at the school say "kids will be kids" whenever shit happens. I haven't beaten anyone up yet, and I get provoked plenty of times in a day.  I'd have to say that I am doing a damn good job in holding myself back.



What's the purpose of your sob story here?  Because you feel wronged about how people are treating you in what I assume is high school that doesn't mean that the redneck in this video is wrong for what he did.  He isn't harassing anyone in the video.  He's making his opinion on a political matter known in such a way that can only be assumed as a legal means since we don't know how that sign got in his possession.  Because you were made fun of and you hate your mom doesn't mean Joe-Sixpack in that video shouldn't be allowed to upload that video.



> As far as the First Amendment goes, my issue stems from a little teenager said it's well within his right as an American to desecrate my name because he simply doesn't like me.  (He abuses his girlfriend and blames me for it, simply because I stood up to him.)  I was never taught that stupid, pathetic slander like that was protected.  So my freaking apologies; I was so stupid in thinking that bullying is totally not "OK" in this country because our Constitution was written with that shit in mind.
> 
> So there, backstory that you don't care about/don't care to hear, but needed to be spilled anyway because I've got more shit in life to deal with than most give me credit for.



Bullying implies harassment.  Harassment is never okay.  Making a video where you say "Marriage is a right between a man and a woman" and you take a shotgun to a sign supporting gay marriage isn't harassment.  You seem to have a fundamental problem differentiating the two.

If you're so concerned about him assassinating your character, then hire a lawyer.  Just be aware that defamation via slander consists of him saying statements that 1) aren't true, 2) are expressed to a third party, 3) that he has some degree of fault, and 4) that actual harm or damage has occurred because of what he said about you.  Your hurt feelings don't count.

But that "little teenager" isn't the dude in the video.  And you making the claim he has a small mind and/or penis is just as much within your rights as him saying that you shouldn't be allowed to be in a gay relationship and destroy a sign that he acquired legitimately.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 30, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You weren't just wrong Glitch.  You presented your incorrect information in such a matter-of-fact tone that anyone disagreeing with you must be a complete idiot with no concept as to what the First Amendment is all about.  Hence the harshness of my response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm keeping this short, or at least will try to.

It is homophobic idiots like these that are spreading their damn disease of intolerance. You can't fix gay, but you can fix ignorance.  You appeared to be accusing me of intolerance when I am actually pretty damn tolerant of bullshit, hence the "sob story".  I've been chased out of schools because of people who thought just like this man.  It wouldn't be too much of a leap to say this man is the type to openly insult homosexuals.

I've had a hard time with differentiating things, especially now.  My views are rather black and white, especially when people are insulting my lifestyle/orientation.


Now for your checklist.

1. Yep, he lies all of the time. No shock.
2. He blabs to every damn person he can.
3. All he can do is spit out names and demonize me for what he thinks I have done.
4. Every damn person he has talked to (all members of the third party) has turned against me for this.  They don't even bother listening to me.

So yes, I think that qualifies as slander.  Even if it didn't, still is harassment.  But whatever.  Like you care about high schoolers getting harassed.  Especially when they are just hormonal little brats like me, right?

I'm done with this.  There are too many outside things going on for me to keep ranting; Internet is kind of the lower priority.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 30, 2012)

He is within his right to voice his opinion but it's quite unnecessary and very intimidating how he voiced it. Just my two cents.

At least he shot the sign and not people so there's that I suppose.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 30, 2012)

Glitch said:


> It is homophobic idiots like these that are spreading their damn disease of intolerance. You can't fix gay, but you can fix ignorance.  You appeared to be accusing me of intolerance when I am actually pretty damn tolerant of bullshit, hence the "sob story".  I've been chased out of schools because of people who thought just like this man.  *It wouldn't be too much of a leap to say this man is the type to openly insult homosexuals.*



Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  Frankly he did neither of those things in the video so you can't really make the claim either way with absolute certainty.  And even if he does, that still doesn't mean that the video he posted is in any way, shape, or form unfit for broadcast.  It's not fair of you to make the claim he's a dangerous man just as it wouldn't be fair of me to say you're a potential domestic terrorist because you said "fuck America" or went outside tomorrow and burned an American flag.



> I've had a hard time with differentiating things, especially now.  My views are rather black and white, especially when people are insulting my lifestyle/orientation.



Well this guy didn't insult your lifestyle or orientation in that video.  He voiced his opinion on the issue of gay marriage.




> Now for your checklist...
> 
> So yes, I think that qualifies as slander.  Even if it didn't, still is harassment.  But whatever.  Like you care about high schoolers getting harassed.  Especially when they are just hormonal little brats like me, right?



Then hire a lawyer if you think you have a case.  I don't know what these "lies" are as I'm only taking your word that he lies to begin with.  Complaining about him slandering here doesn't help you.  Take legal action if it's that much of a problem.

I'm dead serious.


----------



## zachhart12 (Apr 30, 2012)

Nevermind, 2nd link works but you have to copy and paste it.  Clicking doesn't work.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 30, 2012)

Aleu said:


> He is within his right to voice his opinion but it's quite unnecessary and very intimidating how he voiced it. Just my two cents.
> 
> At least he shot the sign and not people so there's that I suppose.



Voicing your opinion means "Talking about it". Taking a sign and shooting it to intimidate people is not the same as "expressing your opinion". That's just my two cents though. I would not want to live next to anyone who thinks shooting into a sign is a great way to express their opinion. This is a very violent way to go about it and it also sets a very bad example for younger people.

So much of the aggression, violence, and hate you see from kids towards gays comes from parents who think it is okay to express their "Feelings" in violent, aggressive, and hateful ways. You have your RIGHT to opinion when you choose to voice it responsibly.


----------



## Bliss (Apr 30, 2012)

This Amendment One needs to be struck down.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 30, 2012)

He seems awfully friendly...there are some worrying signs in this video :V 

Also, the second link didn't work.


----------



## LouyieBlu (May 1, 2012)

I live near Tacoma too Static!, that didnt sound creepy, I wonder at myself sometimes
Anyway, I think that he has the right to express his opinion, but its just unnecessary when you have to bring violence into a situation to prove your point.
Sadly this happens a lot when you live on a planet like Earth.


----------



## Inciatus (May 1, 2012)

staticman0 said:


> So, how's the anti-equality movement gonna spin THIS?
> 
> [video=youtube;5DKtT-7gwMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DKtT-7gwMI[/video]
> 
> ...



Original taken down.
Secondary is blank.


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2012)

Redneck conservatives, continuing to do wonders to fight the stereotype of their inability to resolve disagreement without violence.

Also when I first heard about this story, it was stated that he had stolen the sign from an Amendment 1 opponent's property, but it was a blog and not a news article so it could be mistaken.


----------



## Brazen (May 1, 2012)

Glitch said:


> It is homophobic idiots like these that are spreading their damn disease of intolerance. You can't fix gay, but you can fix ignorance.  You appeared to be accusing me of intolerance when I am actually pretty damn tolerant of bullshit, hence the "sob story".  I've been chased out of schools because of people who thought just like this man.  It wouldn't be too much of a leap to say this man is the type to openly insult homosexuals.



1. Call someone diseased for their beliefs.
2. Say that they can be "fixed" and should be "fixed".
3. Claim you're not intolerant in the slightest.

I don't care about your life experiences, the adult world doesn't operate on the schoolyard logic of "but they started it". Don't project your own personal grievances onto everyone if you want to have some sort of high-ground in an argument like this.


----------



## Sar (May 1, 2012)

Another brick of stupidity in the wall of YouTube.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 1, 2012)

Sarukai said:


> Another brick of stupidity in the wall of YouTube.



Hmmm... Let me just pull up this chart here... Cool! We're now 12,347,629 bricks into our 'Great Wall of YouTube Idiocy'.


----------



## Glitch (May 1, 2012)

Brazen said:


> 1. Call someone diseased for their beliefs.
> 2. Say that they can be "fixed" and should be "fixed".
> 3. Claim you're not intolerant in the slightest.
> 
> I don't care about your life experiences, the adult world doesn't operate on the schoolyard logic of "but they started it". Don't project your own personal grievances onto everyone if you want to have some sort of high-ground in an argument like this.



Homophobia is a plague in society. I never said they "should" be fixed, so don't stick words in my mouth.  And I said I am "pretty damn tolerant" for dealing with the shit I do.  I'm not innocent. I've been intolerant as fuck before. But then again, I want my right to marriage.  

Make all the snide remarks you want about how marriage is shit or whatever. I really couldn't care. I still want my rights, and not to have them put up to vote.


----------



## staticman0 (May 1, 2012)

Link should work, it's public.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Voicing your opinion means "Talking about it".



Since when?  Because I've seen plenty of people voice their opinions through artistic expression, protests, and other means without having another party present for discourse.  Hell, some people have set themselves on fire or  defecate on an American flag to demonstrate their convictions to their opinion.  There's no rule that voicing or expressing yourself has to be done through a one-on-one discourse.



> Taking a sign and shooting it to intimidate people is not the same as "expressing your opinion".
> 
> That's just my two cents though. I would not want to live next to anyone who thinks shooting into a sign is a great way to express their opinion. This is a very violent way to go about it and it also sets a very bad example for younger people.



How do you know this video was meant to intimidate?  For all we know, if the sign was placed on his property it's absolutely his right to dispose of it in any means he sees fit.  If he chooses to use it as target practice, who are we to say he can't as long as he's abiding by local gun ordinances?



> You have your RIGHT to opinion when you choose to voice it responsibly.



The only way this wasn't responsible is if he stole that sign off of someone else's lawn, because then he'd actually be committing a crime.



			
				Lobar said:
			
		

> Also when I first heard about this story, it was stated that he had stolen the sign from an Amendment 1 opponent's property, but it was a blog and not a news article so it could be mistaken.



I've seen a lot of people make that claim too.  In the video he says "near" his property which could mean anything.  Was it on his lawn?  Was it on someone elses?  Was it on public property?

But to me the main issue people are having here is what he did with the sign rather than how he acquired it, so I'm going on the assumption he got it legitimately for the purpose of talking about expression.


----------



## Rilvor (May 1, 2012)

Make no mistake folks, these people are not big angry gorillas.

They are, in my experiences, more akin to excited chimpanzees.


I'm going to agree with Term that this man, despite how much his behavior is eye-roll inducing, has done nothing wrong unless he took that sign from anywhere other than his own property. From his dialogue, he merely spouts his beliefs and that he doesn't like a sign for opposing beliefs "near his property" as it were. How expresses it is very silly, of course. Nothing to see here really.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Since when?  Because I've seen plenty of people voice their opinions through artistic expression, protests, and other means without having another party present for discourse.  Hell, some people have set themselves on fire or  defecate on an American flag to demonstrate their convictions to their opinion.  There's no rule that voicing or expressing yourself has to be done through a one-on-one discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes there are various mediums through which you can "Voice" your opinion. However Violence is not a medium appropriate for getting your point across.  Neither is threatening behavior, harassment, bullying, and intimidation.

That said...I cannot see this as anything other than an intimidation tactic. The guy is choosing to use an object with symbolism attached and engaging in what is a violent act (shooting it). That is intimidationg as far as I am concerned. Since when is that guy's backyard a shooting range? What happens if the dude missed? What else could he have possible hit instead? You want to fire a gun, fire it for it's actual purpose (self defense or hunting) or go to a shooting range. This sure as hell ISN'T a case of someone responsible and respectful about gun ownership but that is another issue in of itself.

At the end of the day the guy is an idiot. Hur hur let me get my gun and a video camera and show yall what I think. Great job. So now instead of gaining support you've just turned hundreds away from wanting to hear a single thing you have to say. Great debate/discussion skills. :V


----------



## Aleu (May 1, 2012)

No one is claiming that it's an appropriate medium. Just that it is one.


----------



## Brazen (May 1, 2012)

Glitch said:


> Make all the snide remarks you want about how marriage is shit or whatever. I really couldn't care. I still want my rights, and not to have them put up to vote.



Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Yes there are various mediums through which you can "Voice" your opinion. However Violence is not a medium appropriate for getting your point across.  Neither is threatening behavior, harassment, bullying, and intimidation.



Well harassment and bullying certainly weren't apart of this man's video.  Threatening behavior and intimidation is up to personal interpretation, but most courts would view what he did as no immediate threat to anyone or anything outside of a sign that we're assuming was placed on his property without permission.



> That said...I cannot see this as anything other than an intimidation tactic. The guy is choosing to use an object with symbolism attached and engaging in what is a violent act (shooting it). That is intimidationg as far as I am concerned. Since when is that guy's backyard a shooting range? What happens if the dude missed? What else could he have possible hit instead? You want to fire a gun, fire it for it's actual purpose (self defense or hunting) or go to a shooting range. This sure as hell ISN'T a case of someone responsible and respectful about gun ownership but that is another issue in of itself.



You're assuming he thought so far as to make this video out to be a threat that he'll shoot a homosexual if they come by his property.  If this sign was placed on his property without his consent, it could read "Free hamburgers at Wendy's" and he still probably could have used it as target practice.

How is he not being a responsible gun owner?  He placed the sign in front of a hill to catch the ammunition when it passed through the sign.  He wore safety goggles.  As far as we can tell he's not in a heavily populated area and is on his own property.  Unless there's something within North Carolina law which prohibits the discharge of a weapon on your property, if he's the licensed owner of that shotgun and took basic safety measures to ensure no unintentional harm comes to anyone or anything, then that's hardly a case for calling this man irresponsible or disrespectful towards gun ownership.  Seems like a bit of a stretch and trying to paint this guy as worse than what he is which is a bit petty.  :V



> At the end of the day the guy is an idiot. Hur hur let me get my gun and a video camera and show yall what I think. Great job. So now instead of gaining support you've just turned hundreds away from wanting to hear a single thing you have to say. Great debate/discussion skills. :V



I'm not saying the guy's not an idiot for posting that video, considering he's posting it on You Tube and has drawn such attention that he's committed social suicide because of it.

But recognize that the same rights which allow you to call this guy an idiot or Glitch to make the claim that he has a small dick allows him to shoot at that sign in response to someone placing it on his property and claim marriage is a right between a man and a woman.


----------



## Spatel (May 1, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.


Brazen, you're not making any arguments.

Most sane people think marriage should not be granted special legal status, that we shouldn't punish couples that don't choose to marry or cannot marry by denying them a long list of rights and exceptions that married couples get to have. That the ultimate goal for the queer movement should be the gradual phasing-out of marriage as a preferred, mandatory institution that everyone is forced to seek.

In the meantime, if we're going to have state-sponsored marriage we should make it fair, shouldn't we?


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> it's north carolina...home of nascar...
> everything redneck related is legal



i'm not a nascar fan, but it originated in florida, and about 16 of the tracks currently used in the "top tier" series are above the mason dixon line, and, historically, there have been more races held at New York-based circuits than, say, South Carolina.

it's popular in the south as much as it is in the north- despite it being a shittier version of normal touring car circuit racing and that Indycar should really be in its position popularity-wise, Nascar isn't inherently redneck related. 

on topic, can we sum this down as "white people"


----------



## Rilvor (May 1, 2012)

triage said:


> on topic, can we sum this down as "white people"



Speaking on fairness, in all fairness this comment should create a shitstorm even though it won't. Double standard day all day every day.


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Speaking on fairness, in all fairness this comment should create a shitstorm even though it won't. Double standard day all day every day.



#blackpeopleprivileges :3


----------



## dinosaurdammit (May 1, 2012)

triage said:


> #blackpeopleprivileges :3



no. just no


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> no. just no



i'm not serious


----------



## Glitch (May 1, 2012)

Brazen said:


> Then go get married at one of the churches that marries gay couples, what's the problem? You're not asking for the right to marry, you're asking for the privilege of a convenient tax status.



No, I want to marry the person I love.  Simple enough now isn't it?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Since when?  Because I've seen plenty of people voice their opinions through artistic expression, protests, and other means without having another party present for discourse.  Hell, some people have set themselves on fire or  defecate on an American flag to demonstrate their convictions to their opinion.  There's no rule that voicing or expressing yourself has to be done through a one-on-one discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the sign was on his property, or on the sidewalk in front of his property, or on public property near his home, then, if no one claims it, and city ordinances don't protect its placement in public property, then it can become his.

Shooting at a sign placed on/near your property is no different from a Black man shooting or tearing down a burning cross that was deposited on his yard by someone who was taking advantage of their "Freedom of Speech", or painting over graffiti that has been left on some wall near your property, even if the message was tame and not discriminatory.


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2012)

JesusFish said:


> Shooting at a sign placed on/near your property is no different from a Black man shooting or tearing down a burning cross that was deposited on his yard by someone who was taking advantage of their "Freedom of Speech", or painting over graffiti that has been left on some wall near your property, even if the message was tame and not discriminatory.



It's no different than burning a cross itself.  He made a public display of violence against a statement for equality that he can't tolerate.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> How is he not being a responsible gun owner?  *He placed the sign in front of a hill to catch the ammunition when it passed through the sign.  He wore safety goggles.  As far as we can tell he's not in a heavily populated area and is on his own property.*  Unless there's something within North Carolina law which prohibits the discharge of a weapon on your property, if he's the licensed owner of that shotgun and took basic safety measures to ensure no unintentional harm comes to anyone or anything, then that's hardly a case for calling this man irresponsible or disrespectful towards gun ownership.  Seems like a bit of a stretch and trying to paint this guy as worse than what he is which is a bit petty.  :V



He also used a shotgun, which is a short-range weapon... even a .22 Long Rifle (rimfire) can be dangerous within 1.5-2 miles.


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2012)

Pretty sure it's illegal in just about any city to discharge a firearm for sport within city limits, regardless of effective range or what's behind it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 1, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Brazen, you're not making any arguments.
> 
> Most sane people think marriage should not be granted special legal status, that we shouldn't punish couples that don't choose to marry or cannot marry by denying them a long list of rights and exceptions that married couples get to have. That the ultimate goal for the queer movement should be the gradual phasing-out of marriage as a preferred, mandatory institution that everyone is forced to seek.
> 
> In the meantime, *if we're going to have state-sponsored marriage* we should make it fair, shouldn't we?



Thing is, even hetero couples don't need the State's approval to get married... having that GOVERNMENT license only grants you tax bennies and a few other "privaleges".  You can be quite happily "married" without a license, gay or straight.  In fact, from what I've read, "marriage" itself in on the wane.  Why bother taking on the legal obligations of a state license, which gives your partner half of what you own if you separate/divorce?  Better to just "marry" by means of moving in with each other and staying loyal.  If you do eventually separate, then you don't require the legal tangles of a divorce, and can just move on with your life, alone.  Or with a new partner.



Glitch said:


> No, I want to marry the person I love.  *Simple enough now isn't it?*



Then go and do it, exchange your vows in front of witnesses.  That's all it takes to be married.  What you want are the legal privaleges granted by a state marriage license.


----------



## KioPolaroid (May 1, 2012)

North Carolina is formed up of a bunch of redneck hicks. 
I should know,I live in this hell hole. 
I hope god destroys this place before any other.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

Lobar said:


> It's no different than burning a cross itself.



Depends on where you're burning the cross.

If you're placing the cross on someone elses' lawn, you're trespassing.  Private Property rights outweigh your First Amendment rights.



Lobar said:


> Pretty sure it's illegal in just about any city to discharge a firearm for sport within city limits, regardless of effective range or what's behind it.



Incorrect.  In rural areas in North Carolina, you can discharge weapons such as a shotgun generally as long as you're 100 yards from roads or dwellings.  I don't know where people are getting this "city" business from.  I don't know what part of this video constitutes that he's in a heavily populated area, or even something that constitutes a semi-urban environment.  Looked more rural to me.


----------



## Spatel (May 1, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thing is, even hetero couples don't need the State's approval to get married... having that GOVERNMENT license only grants you tax bennies and a few other "privaleges".  You can be quite happily "married" without a license, gay or straight.  In fact, from what I've read, "marriage" itself in on the wane.  Why bother taking on the legal obligations of a state license, which gives your partner half of what you own if you separate/divorce?  Better to just "marry" by means of moving in with each other and staying loyal.  If you do eventually separate, then you don't require the legal tangles of a divorce, and can just move on with your life, alone.  Or with a new partner.


Yes except if you plan to have kids, it's good to at least get a domestic partnership. Something which will become impossible, even for straight couples, if amendment one passes.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 1, 2012)

Spatel said:


> *Yes except if you plan to have kids*, it's good to at least get a domestic partnership. Something which will become impossible, even for straight couples, if amendment one passes.



Plenty of kids are born out of wedlock... but yes, a domestic partnership would provide some legal bond, so you avoid having the gov potentially burning your ass over something.  Me, I'd just like to see the state keep its meathooks out of a private citizen's business.  Like marriage and child-rearing.


----------



## Glitch (May 1, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Then go and do it, exchange your vows in front of witnesses.  That's all it takes to be married.  What you want are the legal privaleges granted by a state marriage license.



I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.  What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?

Explain that to me.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

Glitch said:


> I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.  What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?
> 
> Explain that to me.



Just so we're clear now.

You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?

You can be honest with us without the "I want to marry the person I love" sob story.

And technically speaking, no one _deserves_ anything.  Heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.


----------



## triage (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just so we're clear now.
> 
> You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?



Really though.

If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.

This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just so we're clear now.
> 
> You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?
> 
> ...


Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,

"You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

triage said:


> If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.
> 
> This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.





Ad Hoc said:


> Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,
> 
> "You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.



It's also dishonest when you're beating around the bush by saying "Oh, I just want to marry the person I love, is that so wrong?"

And so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting the tax breaks or privileges, as many of us realize that's at the crux of what the gay marriage issue is all about.

What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's also dishonest when you're beating around the bush by saying "Oh, I just want to marry the person I love, is that so wrong?"
> 
> And so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting the tax breaks or privileges, as many of us realize that's at the crux of what the gay marriage issue is all about.
> 
> What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.


What I mean when I say "I just want to marry the person I love," is, "I want to build a life with the person I love." Marriage isn't absolutely necessary for that but it really helps with it in a good number of ways--it helps a lot with issues of child rearing, getting a home, health issues, etc., 

Maybe the LGBT community should switch to "I want to build a life with the person I love," but it's not as immediately relatable to marriage. I think the current phrase of choice is comprehensible enough.


----------



## Spatel (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just so we're clear now.
> 
> You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?



It isn't about the legal benefits at all, and if you think it is, you're completely missing the fucking point: it's the principle of the thing. By having a law on the books that says gay couples are not and cannot be *families*, it sends a message that their lifestyle is bad. The existence of these laws, even if it minimally impacts queer individuals directly, is used to humiliate and degrade them. That is all. I never plan on getting married. Probably no domestic partnership either. This doesn't do jack shit for me in a legal sense.



			
				Term_the_Schmuck said:
			
		

> And technically speaking, no one _deserves_ anything.  Heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.



You should be very careful about expressing a pretty radical line of thought like this as if it's some kind of universal fact. Most people think there are certain 'inalienable' rights. Those would constitute things that everyone deserves. Demoting human rights to privileges is the first step towards becoming a despot.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 1, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> What I mean when I say "I just want to marry the person I love," is, "I want to build a life with the person I love." Marriage isn't absolutely necessary for that but it really helps with it in a good number of ways--it helps a lot with issues of child rearing, getting a home, health issues, etc.,
> 
> Maybe the LGBT community should switch to "I want to build a life with the person I love," but it's not as immediately relatable to marriage. I think the current phrase of choice is comprehensible enough.



I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry.  That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.

And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry.  That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.
> 
> And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.


Glitch is, as far as I'm aware, a high school girl. That doesn't make her stupid, but she probably just doesn't think about the things that I listed, or think about them in a way that's clear and easy to express. When I was in high school, the thought of kids, or home loans, or health insurance, whatever, wouldn't have really . . . been on my mind? I knew that they were what was so important about legal marriage, but they weren't important enough to me to think about often; so I wouldn't have been able to express that readily. I suspect Glitch is in a similar position. Maybe she does need to have it pointed out to her so that she can fix her rhetoric, though. 

I would probably agree with your second bit here. Obviously gays can already make vows--the real issues are more concrete, you're right.


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Depends on where you're burning the cross.
> 
> If you're placing the cross on someone elses' lawn, you're trespassing.  Private Property rights outweigh your First Amendment rights.



This sign wasn't on his lawn, at worst it's described as only being "near" his property.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Incorrect.  In rural areas in North Carolina, you can discharge weapons such as a shotgun generally as long as you're 100 yards from roads or dwellings.  I don't know where people are getting this "city" business from.  I don't know what part of this video constitutes that he's in a heavily populated area, or even something that constitutes a semi-urban environment.  Looked more rural to me.



Yard signs are relatively expensive to produce, generally campaigns don't distribute them in places where there will be no neighbors driving by to see it.  That itself implies this isn't the middle of nowhere, unless of course he did in fact steal and relocate the sign to shoot it.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 1, 2012)

Does it really matter if what he did was legal or constitutional, in he context of this thread? This isn't a courtroom, none of us are charging or sentencing him. The local courts and other involved parties will deal with that, if he did do anything out of line. I could tell you all to eat a bag of dookie and it'd be within my constitutional rights; doesn't mean I wouldn't be a dick for doing so. I think most of us can agree that the dude's a dick, if nothing else.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 2, 2012)

Glitch said:


> I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.  What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?
> 
> *Explain that to me.*



I already did.  You have the RIGHT to marry already, what you don't have is the PRIVALEGE  of _government recognition_.  THAT is what you want, a privalege, not a right.




triage said:


> Really though.
> 
> If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.
> 
> *This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.*



No, it's not a dumb argument.  Homosexuals want the RIGHT to MARRY when they already possess that right, they just don't have the PRIVALEGE of owning a piece of state-granted paper that "legalizes" that union.  Homo or hetero, you don't NEED that paper to get married.  And the only thing that paper gives you is tax bennies and the like.  It's like homos are saying "I want to force the state to recognize my union".........

Well, however you want to put it, it all comes down to getting approval for something they are already free to do, like a puppy being free to pee on the paper, but wanting their owner to say "Good dog!"




Ad Hoc said:


> Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,
> 
> *"You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.*



But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper.  Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law".  Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after.  Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.



Which is my whole point, exactly.




Spatel said:


> You should be very careful about expressing a pretty radical line of thought like this as if it's some kind of universal fact. *Most people think there are certain 'inalienable' rights. Those would constitute things that everyone deserves.* Demoting human rights to privileges is the first step towards becoming a despot.



But that's just it... you already have the right to marry, you just don't have the privalege of being recognized by the government... the same government that didn't even exist back when God married Adam and Eve.  Which, even if you don't believe the Bible, shows that marriage... making a FAMILY, as you put it... doesn't need a piece of paper.  It simply needs a lifelong committment.  Vows exchanged in front of witnesses.  Let me put it to you this way:  If you were some primative, tribal native, you would take a husband/wife by exchanging vows in front of your chieftan and fellow tribesmates.  No documentation required.

But yes, now that we have governments that meddle in private affairs, we have these issues.  And though I understand where you're coming from, I think you'd have a better chance at success if you changed your "point of attack", so to speak.




Ad Hoc said:


> I would probably agree with your second bit here. Obviously gays can already make vows--*the real issues are more concrete*, you're right.



So, the focus needs to be turned to the real issues.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 2, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.



Actually, Term has a point here (Doesn't he always?).

To have a Gay marriage doesn't really change anything. Besides, a vast majority of married couples divorce within 1-10 years. Even when it says in the vows 'Until death do you part', people are still going to divorce one another. Sure, you get tax breaks. And sure, you get Media attention.

But to be completely honest, Gay marriage is pointless in my opinion.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper.  Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law".  Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after.  Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.


Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I _just_ listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. Marriage has a huge legal presence. 



Foxecality said:


> Actually, Term has a point here (Doesn't he always?).
> 
> To have a Gay marriage doesn't really change anything. Besides, a vast majority of married couples divorce within 1-10 years. Even when it says in the vows 'Until death do you part', people are still going to divorce one another. Sure, you get tax breaks. And sure, you get Media attention.
> 
> But to be completely honest, Gay marriage is pointless in my opinion.


Please to read.


----------



## Sar (May 2, 2012)

Foxecality said:


> Hmmm... Let me just pull up this chart here... Cool! We're now 12,347,629 *dozen* bricks into our 'Great Wall of YouTube Idiocy'.



Fixed to be more realistic.



RedFoxTwo said:


> The amount of redneck in this video makes me want to scrub my eyeballs.



Wayyy ahead of you


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 2, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I _just_ listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. Marriage has a huge legal presence.
> 
> 
> Please to read.



Hmmmm...

Point taken.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 2, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I _just_ listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. *Marriage has a huge legal presence.*



It does, indeed, which I think is the real problem.  Not only telling me I need their approval to get married, but their approval to be considered a "family", with all the RIGHTS due as a member of said "family".  But then, this is the same government that tells us we need a certificate to prove we've been born.  So yes, quite a few things that used to require no government recognition today are just loaded with paperwork.  I just think couples and families should be recognized without all that paperwork mumbo jumbo.  All that legal slavery.

This is truly the crux of the issue.  At least to me.  If not for that "huge legal presence", we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And even if gays are not "legally" permitted to marry, there should be some way to get a proverbial foot in the door.  Some other "legal" documentation specially set up to handle "unconventional" partnerships.  If what you said is really what gays are looking for.  SOME form of recognition, in part if not in full.  Something people like our shotgun-toting "redneck" can agree with.  Or at least accept.

Thinking outside the box could find a way.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> It does, indeed, which I think is the real problem.  Not only telling me I need their approval to get married, but their approval to be considered a "family", with all the RIGHTS due as a member of said "family".  But then, this is the same government that tells us we need a certificate to prove we've been born.  So yes, quite a few things that used to require no government recognition today are just loaded with paperwork.  I just think couples and families should be recognized without all that paperwork mumbo jumbo.  All that legal slavery.


Well, you know, I might agree with you. That might be nice. But I think the law exists as it does for a reason. If we get rid of marriage, how do you propose we handle issues  of child adoption/custody, health and life insurance, home loans, power  of attorney in life-threatening situations, wills and estates, etc.,

I've got a genetic disorder. My body is very breakable and it doesn't heal well. Someday I'll probably be too disabled by it to work full-time or maybe work at all. When my theoretical partner tries to get me signed on to his health insurance, how is the insurance company going to verify that I'm not just some random dude that my partner's just trying to help out? Let's say something bad happens, let's say I get hurt. Really hurt. When my theoretical partner comes strolling into the hospital and wants to visit me in the ICU, how are they going to know he's not just some dope? If I'm in too bad of shape to make medical decisions and he has to make them for me, how are they going to know he's not just some goofball who I don't want making those decisions? It's like they would need some sort of legal documentation of it--and there, we're back to legal marriage, or something like it. There really are some solid reasons for having partnerships be legally recognized.



Roose Hurro said:


> This is truly the crux of the issue.  At least to me.  If not for that "huge legal presence", we wouldn't be having this discussion.  And even if gays are not "legally" permitted to marry, there should be some way to get a proverbial foot in the door.  Some other "legal" documentation specially set up to handle "unconventional" partnerships.  If what you said is really what gays are looking for.  SOME form of recognition, in part if not in full.  Something people like our shotgun-toting "redneck" can agree with.  Or at least accept.


Well, I think this came up last time we discussed this--a clone of legal marriage but by another name. I wouldn't have a problem with that, I don't think many other LGBT folks would either. (Unless, I suppose, they themselves are religious.) Unfortunately, there really isn't another widely-known term that we _can_ use. "Civil unions" don't come close to legal marriage as far as the law's concerned. We could just make something up, but with respect to reader comprehension, we're kind of stuck with "legal marriage" for now.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 2, 2012)

Lobar said:


> This sign wasn't on his lawn, at worst it's described as only being "near" his property.



What constitutes "near" becomes the question then.  As I mentioned, was it actually on HIS property?  Was it on his neighbors?  Was it on "public" land which the sign isn't allowed to be on?  We don't know, all we're doing is guessing.

And as I've continually said from when I started posting in his thread, if he acquired the sign illegally then this becomes a criminal matter as opposed to an issue about First Amendment expression.  But the discussion has continually focused mainly on what he chose to do with the sign which is why that has taken the forefront of the conversation.



> Yard signs are relatively expensive to produce, generally campaigns don't distribute them in places where there will be no neighbors driving by to see it.  That itself implies this isn't the middle of nowhere, unless of course he did in fact steal and relocate the sign to shoot it.



Rural doesn't constitute "middle of nowhere."  Again, we don't have the facts.  As you've mentioned previously, all we have to go on is what some bloggers are saying but there's nothing concrete either way where he got the sign from or where exactly he is aside from "on his property."  If someone knows this guy and would like to enlighten us, please be my guest.



Ad Hoc said:


> Does it really matter if what he did was legal or constitutional, in he context of this thread? This isn't a courtroom, none of us are charging or sentencing him. The local courts and other involved parties will deal with that, if he did do anything out of line. I could tell you all to eat a bag of dookie and it'd be within my constitutional rights; doesn't mean I wouldn't be a dick for doing so. I think most of us can agree that the dude's a dick, if nothing else.



Well there's being a dick and then there's actually doing something against the law.  The conversation steered towards "he shouldn't be allowed to do that" or at least that's what I've been getting out of Trp's and others' responses to this thread.  I'm of the opinion that if he's done nothing illegal in the acquiring of the sign and followed basic safety precautions when he decided to shoot at the sign, there's nothing inherently wrong with what he did, though we can form our own opinions on his character based on his method of expression, certainly.


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> I already did.  You have the RIGHT to marry already, what you don't have is the PRIVALEGE  of _government recognition_.  THAT is what you want, a privalege, not a right.


There is absolutely nothing to base this argument on. Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior. Rights are inherent. Free speech is a *right*. Freedom to practice any religion you so choose (or none) is a *right*. Being alive is a *right*. We have to establish certain things as inalienable rights for our society to foster a sufficient amount of trust between its members to operate. Rights are what allow us the opportunity to earn further privileges. 

One right, established in the Due Process clause of our country's 14th amendment, says that state and local governments cannot deprive their citizens of *life, liberty, and property*, without steps being taken to ensure fairness. Protection from discrimination is a *right*, and it has to be treated as a right, because in the past when we've left things like racial or sexual discrimination up in the air, people have abused them. By passing amendment 1, North Carolina will be depriving all couples currently in domestic partnerships of rights they used to have. This is applied unfairly, since it limits legal recognition of couples to being something only certain people can obtain, through circumstances they did not earn.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper.  Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law".  Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after.  Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.


Amendment 1 bans common law marriage. Also, why does it so offend you that gays want tax benefits that straight couples can already get? This seems like such a non-argument. Tell me why you think they shouldn't have those, if you think straight couples should. And make it a good argument. None of that "well they can't reproduce" shit, because they actually can, and there are arrangements where they do, and there are straight couples that choose not to have kids, or can't have kids, and under any such argument those couples should be denied benefits, no?



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> But that's just it... you already have the right to marry, you just don't have the privalege of being recognized by the government... the same government that didn't even exist back when God married Adam and Eve.  Which, even if you don't believe the Bible, shows that marriage... making a FAMILY, as you put it... doesn't need a piece of paper.  It simply needs a lifelong committment.  Vows exchanged in front of witnesses.  Let me put it to you this way:  If you were some primative, tribal native, you would take a husband/wife by exchanging vows in front of your chieftan and fellow tribesmates.  No documentation required.
> 
> But yes, now that we have governments that meddle in private affairs, we have these issues.  And though I understand where you're coming from, I think you'd have a better chance at success if you changed your "point of attack", so to speak.


I cannot understand where you're coming from, for that matter. To what ends are you trying to argue against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? In the principle of applying the law fairly to all demographics, that is the only logical thing to do. If you wanted to argue against any financial benefits given through legal marriage... that's an entirely different argument isn't it? And that pursuit is a worthwhile one. It's also politically impossible right now. So we're focusing on equality in this area first, and then we'll move on to the next step. And regardless, there are legal issues that are not financially-related that need to be equalized anyway.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 2, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Well, you know, I might agree with you. That might be nice. *But I think the law exists as it does for a reason.* If we get rid of marriage, how do you propose we handle issues  of child adoption/custody, health and life insurance, home loans, power  of attorney in life-threatening situations, wills and estates, etc.



Perhaps, but then, we have quite a few redundant/useless/harmful laws on the books, do we not?  It's not getting rid of marriage, it's getting rid of the "legal" paperwork.  But as you've noted, that opens up other issues.  Society has grown so complex, so huge, it seems we're stuck with the paperwork whether we like it or not.




Ad Hoc said:


> I've got a genetic disorder. *My body is very breakable and it doesn't heal well.* Someday I'll probably be too disabled by it to work full-time or maybe work at all. When my theoretical partner tries to get me signed on to his health insurance, how is the insurance company going to verify that I'm not just some random dude that my partner's just trying to help out? Let's say something bad happens, let's say I get hurt. Really hurt. When my theoretical partner comes strolling into the hospital and wants to visit me in the ICU, how are they going to know he's not just some dope? If I'm in too bad of shape to make medical decisions and he has to make them for me, how are they going to know he's not just some goofball who I don't want making those decisions? It's like they would need some sort of legal documentation of it--and there, we're back to legal marriage, or something like it. There really are some solid reasons for having partnerships be legally recognized.



I have my own physical (birth-related) issues... don't know if they're genetic or simply environmental/developmental, but, last time I broke a bone, it took 18 months to recover, and I had to repeat the 7th grade twice... lost an entire year of school.  So yes, I understand where you're coming from, and I can agree that a person, whatever their "orientation", needs some legal means to assert the rights you mention.  Yes, the "marriage license" may be a privalege, but you should have the same rights with or without the "paper".  But then, thanks to a whole butt-load of anal-retentiveness, we'd need some other form of "paper" to enumerate those particular rights you mention.  As I've mentioned before, people used to be able to get married without documentation, without a problem.  But somewhere along the line, we ended up with laws that required us to have a license for legal recognition.  Rather than demanding to be included on the existing license, the LGBT community needs a "license" of its own, created especially for their specific needs.

And no, I have no idea how you'd accomplish that.  I just know you'd have better success if you left "legal marriage" as a contract between a man and a woman, and came up with your own unique legal contract.  At least I'd hope you'd have better success.




Ad Hoc said:


> Well, I think this came up last time we discussed this--a clone of legal marriage but by another name. I wouldn't have a problem with that, I don't think many other LGBT folks would either. (Unless, I suppose, they themselves are religious.) Unfortunately, there really isn't another widely-known term that we _can_ use. *"Civil unions" don't come close to legal marriage as far as the law's concerned.* We could just make something up, but with respect to reader comprehension, we're kind of stuck with "legal marriage" for now.



Then that sounds like the issue.  The LGBT folks need a form of "Civil Union" that legalizes their needs.  Call it a "Civil Union Plus".  Yes, "legal marriage" has the whole comprehension thing down, but isn't that the problem?  You want something the LGBT community and the gov can agree on, but something that won't gain the ire of the NON-LGBT community.  And since you already have the right to marry, and just need the legal recognition, the focus should be on getting that legal recognition by whatever means will be successful.  Continuing with the same tactics that have been failing just isn't a good use of time and energy.  You need to stop stubbornly treading on toes.  Because that's no way to gain support for your cause.




Spatel said:


> *There is absolutely nothing to base this argument on.* Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior. Rights are inherent. Free speech is a *right*. Freedom to practice any religion you so choose (or none) is a *right*. Being alive is a *right*. We have to establish certain things as inalienable rights for our society to foster a sufficient amount of trust between its members to operate. Rights are what allow us the opportunity to earn further privileges.



Of course there is.  In fact, in your very next sentence, you've made it clear that even marriage, itself can be considered a privalege, since marriage is a social contract that is earned, is it not?  You have to earn the affections of your partner, so you have someone to marry in the first place.  Homo or hetero.  So yes, free speach is a right.  Because it isn't a social contract.  Religion is a right.  Because it isn't a social contract.  Being alive is a right (unless you happen to still be in your mother's womb).  Because it isn't a social contract.  




Spatel said:


> One right, established in the Due Process clause of our country's 14th amendment, says that state and local governments cannot deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property, without steps being taken to ensure fairness. *Protection from discrimination is a right, and it has to be treated as a right, because in the past when we've left things like racial or sexual discrimination up in the air, people have abused them.* By passing amendment 1, North Carolina will be depriving all couples currently in domestic partnerships of rights they used to have. This is applied unfairly, since it limits legal recognition of couples to being something only certain people can obtain, through circumstances they did not earn.



Point taken.  But success has a lot to do with how you present yourself.  And there are times when you must change your approach, if you hope to change how other people view your cause.




Spatel said:


> Amendment 1 bans common law marriage. *Also, why does it so offend you that gays want tax benefits that straight couples can already get?* This seems like such a non-argument. Tell me why you think they shouldn't have those, if you think straight couples should. And make it a good argument. None of that "well they can't reproduce" shit, because they actually can, and there are arrangements where they do, and there are straight couples that choose not to have kids, or can't have kids, and under any such argument those couples should be denied benefits, no?



It doesn't offend me at all.  I just had someone spouting off about love when the simple fact is they CAN get married.  Just can't get the legal recognition.  And yes, with that legal recognition comes a whole host of bennies, including those tax-related.  So, rather that spout on about love and junk, be honest with what you're after.  Admit you want all the bennies.

As for straight couples, they also have the right to get married without a license, and like gays, forgo all the bennies.  And like I've mentioned, I've read about how marriage is on the wane, straight couples getting married without the legalities, so they don't have the legal tangles of divorce, should things not work out.  If you're not "legally" married, then you don't need to concern yourself with a "legal" divorce.  See?  No need to bring reproduction into this at all.




Spatel said:


> *I cannot understand where you're coming from, for that matter.* To what ends are you trying to argue against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? In the principle of applying the law fairly to all demographics, that is the only logical thing to do. If you wanted to argue against any financial benefits given through legal marriage... that's an entirely different argument isn't it? And that pursuit is a worthwhile one. It's also politically impossible right now. So we're focusing on equality in this area first, and then we'll move on to the next step. And regardless, there are legal issues that are not financially-related that need to be equalized anyway.



Well, that's your issue, not mine.  But I'll try again.  I'm simply saying that marriage, at its very start, did not involve a "legal" contract.  And if you're not aware, plenty of people live together in "relationships" without even being married, let alone "legally" married.  Children and all.

And yes, all the issues you bring up could indeed stand to be equalized.  I've already mentioned possibilities, above, to avoid the whole social tangle involved in the issue.  Or at least enough of the tangle to give you an easier time, perhaps.  Personally, not being gay, I have no investment in the whole issue, either for or against.  I just see some of the perceptual problems, and try to suggest alternative approaches.  Take it with a grain of salt, if you must.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 2, 2012)

I got a great idea. Why not illegalize marriage? It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 2, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I got a great idea. Why not illegalize marriage? It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.


Too many institutions built on it. You'd have to re-write a lot of laws concerning child adoption/custody, hospital visitation rights, health and life insurance, power of attorney, wills and estates, home loans, etc., Honestly, for some of them (particularly power of attorney), I don't know how one would even go about it without basically created some other kind of legally recognized partnership--essentially, marriage by another name.


Roose, we seem to basically be in agreement except for the use of the word "marriage." Your criticisms are valid and I'll consider them. Unfortunately I can't really just . . . make up a new term for the whole community to use; so I still kind of have to maintain that for reader comprehension, "legal marriage" is really the best available term. But I'll ponder on it and talk to a few of my peers about it.



EDIT: Well, I haven't read your exchange with Spatel at all, so I dunno if I agree with what's in there. That's Spatel's, though.


----------



## Glitch (May 2, 2012)

Roose, late to the party on this one, but what is with this civil union 'plus' v legal marriage hogwash?

Hmm, sounds so familiar.

Marriage, to those who don't care about it, or those who go through them like tissues in a circle-jerk cleanup, is not really that sacred.  Really, look at the dramatic celebs.  Do they give two shits about the sanctity of marriage?  Nope.  Neither do the people that marry hookers in Las Vegas.  Let the people who want to have it, have it.  If they are two consenting adults, then where is the issue?

Again, what have we done (as homosexuals/bisexuals/queers in general) to deserve marital segregation, if we are even lucky enough to do that all (get a civil union)?  Are we too fabulous for marriage or something?

As far as marriage being a privilege goes, sure, when it is between lovers.  But it shouldn't be up to the government and the voters to dictate what (adult, consenting once again) lovers can and cannot do.  Throwing in the adult and consenting parts so you don't go off on ridiculous "slippery slope to bestiality and pedophilia" tangets.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry. That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.
> 
> And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.



Fine, then here are the damn facts if you want them.

I want equality. I probably will never even get married.  But I hate the fact that you have idiot people voting on whether or not I deserve said equality.  The government says no because the people did, and that is just sickening.

It will happen eventually, we will get equality.  I just want it to happen in my lifetime.

Now is that really that bad?  Really.  Do tell.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 2, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I got a great idea. *Why not illegalize marriage?* It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.



Because then you'd be doing something stupid.  Just look what happened with prohibition.




Ad Hoc said:


> Too many institutions built on it. You'd have to re-write a lot of laws concerning child adoption/custody, hospital visitation rights, health and life insurance, power of attorney, wills and estates, home loans, etc., Honestly, for some of them (*particularly power of attorney*), I don't know how one would even go about it without basically created some other kind of legally recognized partnership--essentially, marriage by another name.



It was easy for me to get power of attorney over my mother's finacial affairs... all I needed was her signature on a piece of paper, to indicate she'd willfully turned that power over to me.  So, simply took her to the bank, had her sign, and done.




Ad Hoc said:


> *Roose, we seem to basically be in agreement except for the use of the word "marriage."* Your criticisms are valid and I'll consider them. Unfortunately I can't really just . . . make up a new term for the whole community to use; so I still kind of have to maintain that for reader comprehension, "legal marriage" is really the best available term. But I'll ponder on it and talk to a few of my peers about it.



Yes... but my thing is, that word "marriage" has been around a long time, and has always been between a man and a woman.  What the LGBT community is trying to do is change that, after all this time.  So the difficulties are quite understandable.  Better to avoid that whole "mass" you'd have to move and just come up with something under a different name.  Eventually, if not right this moment.  And yes, ponder, and talk with your peers.  Who knows, you might just come up with something.




Ad Hoc said:


> EDIT: Well, I haven't read your exchange with Spatel at all, so I dunno if I agree with what's in there. *That's Spatel's, though.*



Indeed it is... different person, different angle.  Thanks for the reasoned discussion on your part.


----------



## JArt. (May 2, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Bec
> Yes... but my thing is, that word "marriage" has been around a long time, and has always been between a man and a woman.  What the LGBT community is trying to do is change that, after all this time.  So the difficulties are quite understandable.  Better to avoid that whole "mass" you'd have to move and just come up with something under a different name.  Eventually, if not right this moment.  And yes, ponder, and talk with your peers.  Who knows, you might just come up with something.



I agree, most people i know who are against gay marriage would be ok with it as long as it isn't called marriage.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 2, 2012)

Glitch said:


> Fine, then here are the damn facts if you want them.
> 
> I want equality. I probably will never even get married.  But I hate the fact that you have idiot people voting on whether or not I deserve said equality.  The government says no because the people did, and that is just sickening.
> 
> ...



Yes, your explanation is terrible if you honestly expect someone to take you seriously.

The whole "I want my rights, but I'll probably never even use them if I get them" schtick is piss poor.  Like getting up in front of a bunch of people to give a presentation and saying "I know this is going to suck, but please bear with me."  You've already lost me because you feel the need to preface what you're saying that what you have to say probably doesn't matter to you in the long run.

So basically all you've told me is "I deserve equality to be in the same exact situation as I am now without my perceived equality" and "people are stupid."  I can assure you one thing, the best way to get people to change their opinion is to call them stupid.  :V

We all want to see things happen in our lifetimes.  I want to see the Giants win 10 more Super Bowls.  I want to see human beings on other planets.  But neither of those are as concrete as "I want to make sure that if my significant other has something drastic happen for them that I can visit them in the hospital/we can share finances/etc."

If the basis of what you call "equality" is simply the term "marriage" then you're going to have a hard time convincing people that what you're talking about isn't a childish pursuit. Ad Hoc has a point, maybe you don't have the perspective on the kinds of things that marriage provides that are actual issues of equality and are just clinging to a word as opposed to the actual legal benefits that come with a legally recognized union.  This is far more important than an arbitrary word.


----------



## Spatel (May 2, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Of course there is.  In fact, in your very next sentence, you've made it clear that even marriage, itself can be considered a privalege, since marriage is a social contract that is earned, is it not?  You have to earn the affections of your partner, so you have someone to marry in the first place.  Homo or hetero.  So yes, free speach is a right.  Because it isn't a social contract.  Religion is a right.  Because it isn't a social contract.  Being alive is a right (unless you happen to still be in your mother's womb).  Because it isn't a social contract.



No... the ability to get marred is a right. Finding someone to marry is a privilege. Be very careful here, because suggesting the institution itself is a privilege suggests the *good behavior* involves marrying someone of the opposite sex.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 3, 2012)

This battle between Glitch and Term is getting more hot than Brad Pitt in _Fight Club_...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2012)

Foxecality said:


> This battle between Glitch and Term is getting more hot than Brad Pitt in _Fight Club_ _Troy_...



Two words.

Brad Ass.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (May 3, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Two words.
> 
> Brad Ass.



(0)____(0)

Oh dear god, YES!


----------



## BarlettaX (May 3, 2012)

Relevant.


----------



## Glitch (May 3, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yes, your explanation is terrible if you honestly expect someone to take you seriously.
> 
> The whole "I want my rights, but I'll probably never even use them if I get them" schtick is piss poor.  Like getting up in front of a bunch of people to give a presentation and saying "I know this is going to suck, but please bear with me."  You've already lost me because you feel the need to preface what you're saying that what you have to say probably doesn't matter to you in the long run.
> 
> ...



It does matter to me.  What is someone in high school going so say about marriage, honestly?  I don't know my life and how it's gonna go, then again nobody does.  I can't plan what I am going to think in a decade.  Maybe it'll change, who knows?  I don't, and you sure as hell don't.  

If/when the time comes where I want to have the right to a real marriage, with all the legal fixings. Once again, this circles as to what the hell homosexuals have done to not deserve the same treatment as their heterosexual counterparts.

It is so frustrating being the good little faggot for high school (and general) society.  I don't act out, I'm not flamboyant, I don't cram a fist into the face of every fuckwit that calls me diseased, I don't go screaming in the face of every damn politician that says that I don't deserve equal rights because of some damn book that isn't part of my (lack of a) belief system.  Unlike the straight kids at my previous school, my ex girlfriend and I didn't stuff tongues in each other's faces in public.  We held hands and gave each other goodbyes with pecks.  I let the homophobes have their damn beliefs, in spite of how God-awful wrong they are sometimes.

I know life is different out of high school.  It pisses me off when people automatically discredit me for being a teenager.  Yeah, sure, I might not always know EVERYTHING about ANYTHING, and I have never claimed to.  I'm still young and have a lot to learn; no need to be a colossal freaking prick about everything I happen to say.

What is so wrong with wanting full legal benefits of marriage?  You still didn't answer that question in between your criticisms and implying that I am nothing but some arrogant child.  And in all honesty I will say I do not care about the fundies and their opinions on the matter.  I don't care that marriage will be "redefined" to allow LGBT folks to be free to choose if they want it or not.


----------



## Rilvor (May 3, 2012)

Glitch, I can assure you that in a mere two to three years you probably won't want to see any proof of how you thought so many years ago. Most of us human beings are that way.

Listen, what Term is trying to tell you in so many words isn't that he thinks you shouldn't have rights for yourself or your partner that carry strong legal ramifications. All he is trying to do is get you to form your opinions in a respectable and well-thought out way. His posts are well-meaning.


----------



## Glitch (May 3, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Glitch, I can assure you that in a mere two to three years you probably won't want to see any proof of how you thought so many years ago. Most of us human beings are that way.
> 
> Listen, what Term is trying to tell you in so many words isn't that he thinks you shouldn't have rights for yourself or your partner that carry strong legal ramifications. All he is trying to do is get you to form your opinions in a respectable and well-thought out way. His posts are well-meaning.



I'm ashamed of myself for being a Bible thumping twat in middle school. I know that one denies their past most times. 

And really, fuck the ramifications.  I try to be respectable in every life situation and it is tiring because you get the majority that still says "nope, fuck your rights because it'll take away ours.". Seriously, what rights am I trying to take from straights that want marriage?  Their right to treat "their" institution like some club formed by little girls and boys with a sign saying "no fags allowed."

I'm allowed to fight with opinion. And I doubt my stance on my marriage/equality in general will change, unless people start trying to take away the actual livelihood of LGBT folks. I know that livelihood > freedom, but even so Missouri tried to keep school-age kids and teens from even talking about homosexuality, I'm sure much less "act" homosexual.  Term still hasn't given me any reason that I remember about why others and I shouldn't get equality through marriage. All he has done is essentially call me an insolent brat and laugh. 

I'd jump to say Term really has no clue what it is like to have the government and the people of the nation put his rights on the chopping block, and have to watch them get shot down. I doubt he knows any of that. Not saying I know he doesn't, because he is just text on a forum to me.  That goes both ways, I'm sure.  

TL;DR I really don't care how "well-meaning" his posts are.  My opinions are just opinions, but at least I am fighting for the progression of mankind.  Unlike him, who probably just wants to keep gays from marriage because he doesn't like the idea of changing the (pretty shitty) definition of marriage or letting them in on his benefits if he is/is planning on getting married. 

Boy, I am so fucking selfish for wanting equal benefits.


----------



## Ad Hoc (May 3, 2012)

I'm not sure Term is actually against gay marriage, Glitch. I don't recall him ever saying it concretely, and he seemed pretty agreeable in his exchange with me. He seems to be going after how you're phrasing your opinion rather than what your opinion actually is. I don't know for sure though.


----------



## Glitch (May 3, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> I'm not sure Term is actually against gay marriage, Glitch. I don't recall him ever saying it concretely, and he seemed pretty agreeable in his exchange with me. He seems to be going after how you're phrasing your opinion rather than what your opinion actually is. I don't know for sure though.



Then he can lay off.  My posts are not made for his enjoyment.  Not all opinions are presented in the same way.
My phrasing is scatterbrained because I am one angry person.  Not because of Term, but because there is a lot of outside shit going on.  Not that I expect people of these forums to care.  I'm clarifying because otherwise people will say "lol U MAD BRO" like some tween that just discovered the Internet.  Yes, I am mad.  It's a normal human emotion when a line is crossed.  

Plenty of lines have been crossed in my life lately.  I don't need more coming from someone whose ass has been glued to their high horse.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Listen, what Term is trying to tell you in so many words isn't that he thinks you shouldn't have rights for yourself or your partner that carry strong legal ramifications. All he is trying to do is get you to form your opinions in a respectable and well-thought out way. His posts are well-meaning.





Ad Hoc said:


> I'm not sure Term is actually against gay marriage, Glitch. I don't recall him ever saying it concretely, and he seemed pretty agreeable in his exchange with me. He seems to be going after how you're phrasing your opinion rather than what your opinion actually is. I don't know for sure though.



These two posts pretty much hit the nail on the head here.  I've never argued against gay marriage in this thread.  I have argued against your points for why you think you deserve gay marriage.

No line has been crossed and frankly, if you can't separate what's going on in your personal life with a simple conversation on how you're going about "fighting" for you rights, then maybe you should lay off the fighting and leave it to someone who's more reasonable.

You must realize at this point that your personal stories and attempt to make yourself seem justified by appealing to our emotional empathy are very cheap tactics when you're talking about trying to change people's opinions.  And when you decide to insult said people for not buying what you're selling, that further disenfranchises them.

I personally hold no opinion why they shouldn't have those legal rights that a heterosexual couple enjoys.  But assuming I'm someone with strong moral issues with the concept of gay marriage, your personal stories about how you've held back from fighting people or wanting to marry the person you love don't exactly help prove your point why gay marriage is an important issue because 1) you're acting like you're threatening people when you talk about "holding back" and 2) "I just want to get married to someone I love" isn't very strong given how disenfranchised most heterosexual couples have become with marriage or said "moral reasons" why gay marriage would be wrong.

You're acting very self-righteous when you start making the claim "I'm fighting for the progression of mankind."  You're pretty full of yourself when you make broad claims like that.  I'd argue you really don't know what it's like for the government to quash your personal rights either, given the fact that you hold such a low opinion of yourself that you have to preface your gay marriage speech with "I probably won't get married."  The government isn't keeping you from doing anything currently, nor have you apparently even entertained the notion that it may or will happen.  

It's a bit ironic you try to insult me for being on a high horse when in your previous post you say the following:



> I really don't care how "well-meaning" his posts are. My opinions are just opinions, but at least I am fighting for the progression of mankind. Unlike him, who probably just wants to keep gays from marriage because he doesn't like the idea of changing the (pretty shitty) definition of marriage or letting them in on his benefits if he is/is planning on getting married.



You make broad statements about how you're personally changing the world while completely misrepresenting my arguments.  Anyone who's been on these forums longer than a day should recognize I have a long history of being neutral on the issue of gay marriage, leaning towards support.  But I often voice my disappointment with how the gay community represents itself or argues for their side.  You have done the same, by skirting the actual issues associated with why equality isn't achieved between heterosexual and homosexual couples to try and play on someone's empathy by posting diatribes about how you've held back from fighting people who are mean to you in high school, how you want to marry someone for love, and how much you hate your mom.  None of which talks about "progressing mankind" but is more about your personal problems and somehow gay marriage would fix everything.

And then everyone who even hints at disagreeing with any part of your argument is on their own high horse who can't possibly fathom all the shit you've dealt with in your life.  That you act the part of the martyr while dishing out subtle threats and insults doesn't inspire compassion or understanding of the issues surrounds why gay couples aren't equal.  It only serves to push away anyone who might be on the fence about the issue to say "well fuck you too."


----------



## Vukasin (May 3, 2012)

Looks like I showed up a little too late. I can't watch the videos...


----------



## Glitch (May 3, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> These two posts pretty much hit the nail on the head here.  I've never argued against gay marriage in this thread.  I have argued against your points for why you think you deserve gay marriage.
> 
> No line has been crossed and frankly, if you can't separate what's going on in your personal life with a simple conversation on how you're going about "fighting" for you rights, then maybe you should lay off the fighting and leave it to someone who's more reasonable.
> 
> ...



I never said you crossed a line.

"1) you're acting like you're threatening people when you talk about 'holding back'"

I'm not.  That isn't at people who say gay marriage is wrong.  That is at people who say I am diseased for who I love.  You can't honestly think that is something appropriate to say to anyone who loves another consenting human being.  


"2) "I just want to get married to someone I love" isn't very strong...."

There's still nothing wrong with that want.  Yet some people tend to paint that to be "SO AWFUL", simply because they view it as unorthodox.

"...but is more about your personal problems and somehow gay marriage would fix everything."

I never once said that it was the fix of the entire problem.  There will always be homophobia just like there will always be racism.  Nothing can fix that unless you kill people like that on the spot, and that is in no way an applicable solution.  

"And then everyone who even hints at disagreeing with any part of your argument is on their own high horse who can't possibly fathom all the shit you've dealt with in your life."

Nope once again. Now you are just sticking words in my mouth, which I do not appreciate in the slightest.

And again, no.  People can pretend all they like that they know what I have gone through; I just know that they honestly don't care enough to know.  It's irritating, but whatever.  People all tolerate and react to things differently.


Most arguments I have heard on the news, coming from the common person, etc. against gay marriage haven't been too strong, either.  Most of it is based on the Bible, which shouldn't even count as a legitimate source because not everyone follows the Christian way of life.  Just because I don't have the best arguments for supporting my claims doesn't mean I am some person who deserves to be treated like shit.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (May 3, 2012)

Glitch said:


> I'm not.  That isn't at people who say gay marriage is wrong.  That is at people who say I am diseased for who I love.  You can't honestly think that is something appropriate to say to anyone who loves another consenting human being.



And the question still stands, why bring that up in a discussion about why you should have the right to get married?  Because talking about how you've held back from hurting other people, and throwing in the word "yet" at the end of it comes off as a vague threat, as if to say "IF THINGS DON'T CHANGE SHIT'S GONNA GO DOWN."  Yeah, it's shitty people say that to you.  But because people are shitty to you doesn't mean that you should be allowed to marry another chick.  Those two things don't go hand-in-hand.



> There's still nothing wrong with that want.  Yet some people tend to paint that to be "SO AWFUL", simply because they view it as unorthodox.



Because they have their own moral convictions as to why it is wrong or a slight against God.  But you start painting tangible things that people can relate to like powers of attorney, tax benefits, and so on it becomes an issue about something physical as opposed to an abstract concept of love.



> I never once said that it was the fix of the entire problem.  There will always be homophobia just like there will always be racism.  Nothing can fix that unless you kill people like that on the spot, and that is in no way an applicable solution.



Again, then why bring up your problems in your personal life in a discussion about gay marriage?  Because so far your own reasons that you personally have presented for why you should get married amounts to "because I say so" and "it ain't easy being green."  Then you flip the script and try to demand why other people think you shouldn't get married, as if to keep yourself from having to answer the question when you have ACTUAL AMMUNITION IN THE FORM OF REAL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT GAY AND STRAIGHT COUPLES HAVE BENEFITS TO.



> Nope once again. Now you are just sticking words in my mouth, which I do not appreciate in the slightest.



I'm sorry, did you not start off in this thread by claiming the dude in the OP had a small mind and/or penis?  Did you not further state his opinions are stupid?  Have you not repeatedly interjecting your own personal life into this thread and try and play off your alledged incredible patience for people?  Did you not make the claim you were fighting the good fight of progressing mankind?  Did you not also make the claim that I can't possibly have any concept over what it's like to be gay and have people pick on me because of something relating to my character?  That's right, you have.  I'm presenting you in the very fashion you presented yourself in this thread; a self-righteous martyr who views themselves crusading for the betterment of mankind while being condescending to just about anyone who might in some way disagree either with your stance or how you go about defending your stance.  Prove me wrong.



> And again, no.  People can pretend all they like that they know what I have gone through; I just know that they honestly don't care enough to know.  It's irritating, but whatever.  People all tolerate and react to things differently.



And yet you must certainly realize this sounds like every other generic "NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ME" schtick most angst-ridden teenagers go through.  And is completely irrelevant to why gay people should get married.



> Just because I don't have the best arguments for supporting my claims doesn't mean I am some person who deserves to be treated like shit.



What it does mean is that you hurt the cause your fighting for by going off on tangents to make these much larger issues about you personally, by misrepresenting information as you've also done in this thread, and taking ad hominem shots at other people.


----------



## Roose Hurro (May 3, 2012)

Glitch said:


> *Roose, late to the party on this one, but what is with this civil union 'plus' v legal marriage hogwash?*
> 
> Hmm, sounds so familiar.
> 
> ...



It's not "hogwash", it's an alternative approach that doesn't end up with a footful of broken toes.  And yes, it shouldn't be up to the government... that was one of my points.  Marriage shouldn't require a "license" in order for a married couple to get all the bennies of marriage.  And no, no reason for any "tangents".

So, if you want "equality" in your lifetime, I suggest changing your approach.  Since, you know, the present one isn't working very well.




JArt. said:


> I agree, *most people i know who are against gay marriage would be ok with it as long as it isn't called marriage*.



Yes, it's what I keep hearing over and over again.  Got that, Glitch?




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If the basis of what you call "equality" is simply the term "marriage" then you're going to have a hard time convincing people that what you're talking about isn't a childish pursuit. Ad Hoc has a point, *maybe you don't have the perspective on the kinds of things that marriage provides that are actual issues of equality and are just clinging to a word as opposed to the actual legal benefits that come with a legally recognized union.  This is far more important than an arbitrary word.*



Yes, this is indeed far more important.  And what I've bolded is exactly my view on the whole issue.  And it's not just a matter of perspective, but of perception, as well.  Your perspective on the issue, and the perception of your cause to others.




Spatel said:


> *No... the ability to get marred is a right.* Finding someone to marry is a privilege. Be very careful here, because suggesting the institution itself is a privilege suggests the *good behavior* involves marrying someone of the opposite sex.



Spatel, you said *"Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior."*  Therefore, marriage, being a social contract between two people through good behavior (how else can two people get close enough to want marriage?), means that "marriage" is a privilege... it is something EARNED.  It is not a right.  You cannot force someone to marry you, they have to grant you the privilege.  In other words, marriage is like sex.  You either earn it through a consenting partner, or you force it in an act of rape.  In essense, rapists are those who think sex is a "right".  So they take their "right" even if their "partner" refuses.  One thing important to remember:  Rights are inherent in the INDIVIDUAL, whereas PRIVILEGES are granted by others.  And since marriage takes two people, it is a privilege granted by another, not an individual right.  Unless you happen to be a rapist.

Though I can think of one way "marriage" could become a "right"... but it would be rather stupid to marry yourself.   




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And then everyone who even hints at disagreeing with any part of your argument is on their own high horse *who can't possibly fathom all the shit you've dealt with in your life*.  That you act the part of the martyr while dishing out subtle threats and insults doesn't inspire compassion or understanding of the issues surrounds why gay couples aren't equal.  It only serves to push away anyone who might be on the fence about the issue to say "well fuck you too."



I just got the news earlier today that my mother won't be coming home from the care home, were she's been since her breast cancer surgery.  Which means I'm out of a home, unless I find some place I can live that will accept someone with no income.  So, yeah, I can fathom.  But Glitch?  With your attitude, I wouldn't call you the "poster child" of the LGBT community.  As you've said, you're a highschooler... I'm due to turn fifty on the seventeenth of this month.  Yeah, my "birthday present" is finding a new home.  So if I suddenly disappear, you'll know where I've gone.

Or maybe not.




Vukasin said:


> Looks like I showed up a little too late. *I can't watch the videos...*



You haven't missed anything.




Glitch said:


> Most arguments I have heard on the news, coming from the common person, etc. against gay marriage haven't been too strong, either.  Most of it is based on the Bible, which shouldn't even count as a legitimate source because not everyone follows the Christian way of life.  *Just because I don't have the best arguments for supporting my claims doesn't mean I am some person who deserves to be treated like shit.*



True, but it does mean you are "some person" whose arguments are, as Term said (and I paraphrase), "not very strong".  Meaning, though you don't deserve to be treated like shit, you also don't deserve to be treated like a princess.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Because they have their own moral convictions as to why it is wrong or a slight against God.  *But you start painting tangible things that people can relate to like powers of attorney, tax benefits, and so on it becomes an issue about something physical as opposed to an abstract concept of love.*



Bingo!


----------



## Spatel (May 4, 2012)

Roose Hurro said:


> Spatel, you said *"Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior."*  Therefore, marriage, being a social contract between two people through good behavior (how else can two people get close enough to want marriage?), means that "marriage" is a privilege... it is something EARNED.  It is not a right.  You cannot force someone to marry you, they have to grant you the privilege.  In other words, marriage is like sex.  You either earn it through a consenting partner, or you force it in an act of rape.  In essense, rapists are those who think sex is a "right".  So they take their "right" even if their "partner" refuses.  One thing important to remember:  Rights are inherent in the INDIVIDUAL, whereas PRIVILEGES are granted by others.  And since marriage takes two people, it is a privilege granted by another, not an individual right.  Unless you happen to be a rapist.



Here is an analogy:

Driving a car. That is a privilege. You can get points on your license, or you can fail the driver's test and not get a license. Or you could get a license, and live in New York and never own a car, if you so choose. The _ability_ to pursue a license is a right. Everyone can try to obtain a license. Saying "this demographic cannot pursue a driver's license ever" is discrimination. The ability to use that license is a privilege; one that must be earned, and one that can be lost.

Marriage is the same way. Having legal marriage as an option you can pursue is a right. Succeeding in getting a marriage through dating other people and falling in love is a privilege.

Your argument right here is the equivalent to saying "it's okay if we legally ban motorcycle riders from ever getting a driver's licenses, because a license is a privilege, and they can still ride cars or take mass transit like everyone else. People have driven cars traditionally so I don't see why we should change that for this fringe interest group"... I don't know how to convey this if you can't understand it at this point. It is a nonsensical, mean-spirited, arbitrary restriction of rights to one group of people.


----------

