Florida... Not for Gays (Pensacola, Key West: spring break, buying, dangerous)

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by Ectorcab

I voted no on 2, i don't care what religion has to do with gays getting a legal partnership. As for employment you can always work at Disney, I knew a couple of friends that work there in college its the gayest(happiest) place on earth

Gee, thanks. That's so nice of you. Permission to work at Disney. Yay!

[jjbradleynyc]

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 majority is not always right and correct--and do not always make the wisest decisions.
The majority of the population, pardon me to say, is pretty much not-so-intelligent.
I don't trust majority rule, and neither should anyone else.

Has anyone read "Lord of the Flies?" Read it--a good example of "majority" ruling.

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by tallrick

Gays cannot live more than a few miles from the ocean. They hate cold weather. Therefore they will continue to come and reside in Florida no matter what laws are against them. Besides most gay men cannot have a boyfriend for more than a month, so why would they want to get married?

Such a wrong stereotype. I have been with my partner for 5 years, and we got married 2 months ago. I have many happily-partnered friends, for many years.
Just as straight people enjoy promiscuous sex, get divorces by the dozen, or have fly-by-night marriages in Vegas, gay people do too. All people are the same, in that respect.

[joninclay]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

The majority is not always right and correct--and do not always make the wisest decisions.
The majority of the population, pardon me to say, is pretty much not-so-intelligent.
I don't trust majority rule, and neither should anyone else.

What I want to know is this:

Why is it that when the "majority" vote for a radical left-wing president, the "majority" is smart and not subject to fall for "fear-mongering", but if the "majority" votes against gay marriage, then all of a sudden that same "majority" are "pretty much not-so-intelligent"?

I guess folks are only intelligent when they vote the way you want them to, right?

[riveree]

Originally Posted by cricketfan

Thanks for that link, Riv.

That is a powerful piece. I gotta tell ya, he makes a really emotional argument in favor of "love". Unfortunately, I don't think he says anything to dispel the bugaboo of marriage between people of the same gender. Olberman equates it to civil rights (an argument that we often hear) but it is far easier to defend a right that is taken away than a right that in the minds of people was never there in the first place.

I almost wish this message was delivered by someone other than Olberman though. I kinda lost all respect or credibility for him especially and most of the commentators in mainstream network television. But that's another story.

People either love or hate Keith O, I suppose ! He is polarizing. You got why I posted it though, I think it's important to remember the core issue which is human love and why would we want to take that away from anyone?

[jsimms3]

Originally Posted by joninclay

What I want to know is this:

Why is it that when the "majority" vote for a radical left-wing president, the "majority" is smart and not subject to fall for "fear-mongering", but if the "majority" votes against gay marriage, then all of a sudden that same "majority" are "pretty much not-so-intelligent"?

I guess folks are only intelligent when they vote the way you want them to, right?

That goes along with the libs' version of freedom of speech/expression. It is certainly ok for them to express whatever the hek they want, but if someone who differs in opinion or views expresses concern or their opposing views, it is "suppression" of amendment 1. Unbelievable how there is always a double standard. Can we agree to disagree? Is it ok for me to express concern over the new ad in DC that is on the buses and other places there? It says, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake." And it has a picture of a thin black santa. The "humanist" group that paid for it has the rights to do so, but I certainly have a right to say that I think that ad is ridiculous and it is certainly equally ridiculous for the public transportation to run that ad.

[riveree]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

That goes along with the libs' version of freedom of speech/expression. It is certainly ok for them to express whatever the hek they want, but if someone who differs in opinion or views expresses concern or their opposing views, it is "suppression" of amendment 1. Unbelievable how there is always a double standard. Can we agree to disagree? Is it ok for me to express concern over the new ad in DC that is on the buses and other places there? It says, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake." And it has a picture of a thin black santa. The "humanist" group that paid for it has the rights to do so, but I certainly have a right to say that I think that ad is ridiculous and it is certainly equally ridiculous for the public transportation to run that ad.

This amendment was not about expressing an idea regarding gay rights, it was about impeding on those rights. That's a very different matter.

[joninclay]

Can we agree to disagree?

I've been trying to argue that exact point for some time, but some folks aren't willing to listen. For some, disagreeing with them makes you at best a moron, and at worst evil. That's a shame.

[KerryB]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

The majority is not always right and correct--and do not always make the wisest decisions.
The majority of the population, pardon me to say, is pretty much not-so-intelligent.
I don't trust majority rule, and neither should anyone else.

Has anyone read "Lord of the Flies?" Read it--a good example of "majority" ruling.

For real. If we all went with the majority, we'd be lead to believe that McDonalds is the best place to eat, all shop at Wal-Mart & all drive big honking SUVs (even though they're declining now, but it took a gas crisis for it to happen).

Not saying you have to be a stupid person to do those things (we all do them at some point), but still. Majority itself can be pretty dumb sometimes & make some really bad choices. After Bush got re-elected, nothing surprises me though.

[gradco2004]

[ONE]

For the bible thumpers:

Matthew 7:12 (New International Version)

So in EVERYTHING, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Some of you are really just abusing the bible. As much of an old out dated rag that I think it is, I still can see a principle meaning to it. It is very despicable that someone would use individual excerpts from the bible to support an already formed opinion they have of something, instead of taking in the breadth and fullness and overall meaning of the bible. If there be a god, and I sincerely hope there isn't, he should be insulted that his book of fables be used to make the lives of his "creations" such a misery, and that men took his MOST IMPORTANT RULE (the golden one) and threw out the window.

[TWO]

Churches should pay taxes.


[THREE]

I don't want to hear the "we want to preserve the definition of marriage" argument. Many years ago, marriage was defined as a union between a FREE man and woman, who were the same race. Slaves could not marry, since they were property, and interracial marriage was illegal. The majority wanted to keep it that way, and guess what? They were WRONG!!! The majority of the world could thing that the sky is falling, doesn't make them right. We do not want "Gay Rights," we want EQUALITY. So just quit with the gay marriage foolishness, it is just marriage equality.


The End