Florida... Not for Gays (Naples: living, legal, to move)

[joninclay]

And the panhandle

The Panhandle is NOT liberal.

I seriously doubt FL's tourism is going to suffer because of Amendment 2. Where is everyone gonna go, California? They voted to ban gay marriage, too. With the exception of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, nearly every state has a ban on it. So I ask again: Where is everyone gonna go on vacation?

[apanda]

Originally Posted by joninclay

And the panhandle

The Panhandle is NOT liberal.

I seriously doubt FL's tourism is going to suffer because of Amendment 2. Where is everyone gonna go, California? They voted to ban gay marriage, too. With the exception of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts, nearly every state has a ban on it. So I ask again: Where is everyone gonna go on vacation?

LOL i know sorry, I should have been more clear. They are VERY conservative.

[joninclay]

Just because this against YOUR religion, does not mean you can dictate some one else's life.

In terms of Amendment 2, yeah...it does. I mean, I didn't want Obama to win, but the majority voted for him, so hey...majority rules. I gotta live with majority rule, and so do you.

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by apanda

LOL i know sorry, I should have been more clear. They are VERY conservative.

Indeed. Leon County (Tallahassee) and neighboring Gadsden County (predominantly black) are about the only blue specks in the entire red Panhandle.

[apanda]

Originally Posted by joninclay

Just because this against YOUR religion, does not mean you can dictate some one else's life.

In terms of Amendment 2, yeah...it does. I mean, I didn't want Obama to win, but the majority voted for him, so hey...majority rules. I gotta live with majority rule, and so do you.

So you are saying that if I don't like pies because this is my belief not to, I should force my belief upon others? I should vote for a ban on pies? No. What is it that my mom used to say "Mind your own business."

I understand majority rules, but the majority ruled against this for the WRONG reason.

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by apanda

So you are saying that if I don't like pies because this is my belief not to, I should force my belief upon others? I should vote for a ban on pies? No. What is it that my mom used to say "Mind your own business."

I understand majority rules, but the majority ruled against this for the WRONG reason.

The implied question wasn't whether or not you SHOULD force your views on others, but whether or not you COULD force your views on others. "Should" is subjective and debateable, but "could" is not debateable because the answer is clearly "Yes".

Using your pie analogy, you COULD try to force your views on pie-lovers by getting the electorate to vote for a pie ban. And if the electorate was convinced, then pies would be banned. As to whether you SHOULD try to ban pies, that's a completely different topic.

And as for "the majority ruled against this for the WRONG reason", that is a matter of opinion, and it is irrelevant. No, I'm not trying to dismiss or trivialize your opinion, because your opinion is as valuable/worthless as everyone else's opinion, including mine. But what I am saying is that the majority considered different views and opted to go with "Yes" on Amendment 2. I'm not suggesting you like the outcome, just as I don't like the presidential outcome. But we both have to live with both outcomes.

I do enjoy the dialogue, though.

[apanda]

But what I am saying is that the majority considered different views and opted to go with "Yes" on Amendment 2.

No, they didn't. That is what I am upset about. They only considered their own selfish views.

I know this is all a matter of opinion and the majority opinion was not about to let gays become in any way equal. I just wish people could and would look past their opinions and vote more on prospective. I would like to see people not push their religious convictions on others. So, I stand by my statement: "the majority ruled against this for the WRONG reason"

We would be so much better off I people could (and once again WOULD) look past their religion when voting to implement laws on civil rights, (to be given or denied).

[joninclay]

No, they didn't. That is what I am upset about. They only considered their own selfish views.

I respectfully disagree. I think people did consider different views, but in the end, didn't think these different views were in line with their values or beliefs. Just because someone doesn't vote one way doesn't mean they never considered that way. For example, I considered both major candidates for president and concluded that one was far more preferable than the other.

We would be so much better off I people could (and once again WOULD) look past their religion

apanda, asking people to look past their own religion is not reasonable. Would you ask a Muslim to look past his/her religion and eat a slab of bacon? Would you ask a preacher of any religion to look past his religion and drop an f-bomb during a sermon?

If you are a true born-again Christian, God compels you to keep His word. You are not allowed to separate God's word from your own personal beliefs or preferences if you are a true born-again Christian.

Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” This destroys any perceived nobility in keeping politics out of one’s “religion”. Paul notes that God forbids any such separation.

1 Corinthians 10:31: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” This includes voting. BTW, “All” in the original Greek text, is interesting because the Greek word here for “all” means…wait for it…ALL !

Proverbs 3:6 "In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths" In what ways are we commanded to ackowledge Him? “Some”? “Many”? “Most”? “Nearly all, except for politics”? Nope..."all"!

If you're not a born-again Christian, then obviously this advice doesn't apply to you. But if you are, you don't get the luxury of following the world's rules and God's rules when they conflict. God's word is clear, even if it's not politically correct.

My friend, you and will have to cordially "agree to disagree".

[apanda]

apanda, asking people to look past their own religion is not reasonable. Would you ask a Muslim to look past his/her religion and eat a slab of bacon? Would you ask a preacher of any religion to look past his religion and drop an f-bomb during a sermon?

How is that not reasonable? You cannot (ok, ok, should not), force your view upon others. I am not asking Christians to shack up with someone of the same sex, I am asking why must you impose your views upon others.

I know we disagree, but I am just asking why this cannot be done.

[big mean bear]

Originally Posted by gradco2004

[ ] It is against the law for a gay person to adopt a child in Florida.

[ ] Gay citizens are no longer provided the legal protections and benefits of civil unions or domestic partnerships.

[ ] An employer who provides health benefits to couples in a domestic partnership or civil union is open to lawsuits for providing such benefits.

Why would any GLBTC community members want to move or remain here? At first it wasn't so bad, but a GLBTC person is truely a second class citizen in every sense of the word.

98% of the state will not be affected by any of this... The gays I have known had thick enough skin to take whatever you "think" might hurt their feelings or make it tough on them... Who cares what people "think", we're Florida, not Missouri or West Virginia, what you're saying will not stop or even slow the flow of tourists (even gay tourists). Ridiculous...

Stop being so sensitive