[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I can't believe you're still trotting this bull**** out there. Gays do NOT want "special" marriage laws to suit them. They simply want to have the same rights we straight people already do.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being hard headed or what, but it's getting old honestly.

Funny...i've been thinking the same about you and a few others of the usual suspects.

You have every right to marriage I do. There is no question of gay or straight when buying a marriage license. The fact that you may or may not want to marry someone of the same gender is not relevant. I don't have the choice to do that either.

Now...if you want to change the law to allow for that, fine--so be it, but don't act all whiny and pretend you're being discriminated against.

If you're truly a Libertarian then you'd be for gay marriage.

Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm going to go out on a whim here and suggest that you're probably a Republican who is a little ashamed by that and hiding behind the "Libertarian" veil. You certainly wouldn't be the first to do so.

I said I'm "pretty libertarian". And I stand by it. For the most part I believe we should live and let live. So stop this crap about trying to force your morals on me.

[Bosco55David]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Funny...i've been thinking the same about you and a few others of the usual suspects.

You have every right to marriage I do. There is no question of gay or straight when buying a marriage license. The fact that you may or may not want to marry someone of the same gender is not relevant. I don't have the choice to do that either.

Now...if you want to change the law to allow for that, fine--so be it, but don't act all whiny and pretend you're being discriminated against.

Why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to a teenager? That's about the only explanation I can think of for this nonsense you trot out here.

I said I'm "pretty libertarian". And I stand by it. For the most part I believe we should live and let live. So stop this crap about trying to force your morals on me.

You're neither a Libertarian (in any sense) nor do you believe in live and let live as the views you've expressed as about as diametrically opposed to those beliefs as you can get.

And I love how you cry foul about getting called on forcing your morals on others. So far, I haven't seen you offer a single reason why you believe we shouldn't allow gay marriage without dragging morals into it. Instead, you've chosen to hide behind word games and obtuseness.

When you decide to find your sack and tell us exactly why you're against it, then I'll back off.

[tones]

A libertarian doesn't "have to" support gay marriage qualify as being libertarian. The notion that everyone within a party must march lock-step with every "official stance" is more anti-libertarian than the free thinking individual who disagrees.

[pheaton]

The question I have for the OP is this:

If the gay people that want to be like everyone else, did the opposite of everybody else and assigned themselves their own little personal "gay district" AND Zios opened a location there, would the OP go there?

What would be more important to you SurfOmaha? The way that you allege they treated their employee, or would all that be forgotten because they opened a location in the gay district?

[pheaton]

I think a great place for a gay district is along the river on the Iowa side. You can have a nice area with a river view. Setup all kinds of activities and shops along the river front. Plus you could even have a little area where people can get married, plus you're in Iowa so it would even be recognized by the law.

Maybe put it on the otherside of the pedestrian bridge? Instead of the bridge to nowhere, it could be the bridge to acceptance. Crossing "all the way over" the bridge could have some other symbolic gay meaning. Right when you cross over you can enjoy hot dogs on the grill, or a lovely round of Caber toss.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to a teenager? That's about the only explanation I can think of for this nonsense you trot out here.

So because we don't buy your silly arguments we're obviously just dumb or stubborn? Cut the ad hominems and give me a legitimate reason why gay people do not have the EXACT same rights I do. Otherwise, please just stop. You're getting really annoying with the continued nonsense.

You're neither a Libertarian (in any sense) nor do you believe in live and let live as the views you've expressed as about as diametrically opposed to those beliefs as you can get.

I am a libertarian on some issues. On the issue of redefining marriage, I think it's better to just leave it alone. I'm sorry if that offends you.

And I love how you cry foul about getting called on forcing your morals on others. So far, I haven't seen you offer a single reason why you believe we shouldn't allow gay marriage without dragging morals into it. Instead, you've chosen to hide behind word games and obtuseness.

Except that you are attempting to redefine an institution that has been in existence for awhile? And you're attempting to define a special version of it that fits only a very small minority?

I'm sorry if you can't grasp the argument, but you have the EXACT SAME rights as everyone else regarding marriage. Stop whining about discrimination. You're arguments are really starting to look dumb.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by pheaton

The question I have for the OP is this:

If the gay people that want to be like everyone else, did the opposite of everybody else and assigned themselves their own little personal "gay district" AND Zios opened a location there, would the OP go there?

What would be more important to you SurfOmaha? The way that you allege they treated their employee, or would all that be forgotten because they opened a location in the gay district?

Right. Back to the initial topic of this ridiculous thread...

Trying to force an area to be a "Gay District" is stupid. Just plain stupid. Not only would it violate the rights of current business owners who don't want to be part of such a district, it goes against everything homosexuals claim they want - which is equality.

Of course, that's not really the point of the OP anyway. He just wants attention.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

And you're attempting to define a special version of it that fits only a very small minority?

So by your logic the government shouldn't set aside "special rules" for people because there aren't a lot of them. There aren't a lot of billionaires in the country but they lobby successfully to have tax breaks given to them because they are in a "special class" financially. Should they not have rules in place for them because there aren't a lot of them?

Another "minority" group would be gun owners. Most people don't own guns but they have rules in place to protect their rights as gun owners. They weren't born gun owners but choose to be gun owners. Even though there aren't a lot of them they still lobby to have rules made to fit them. Do you have a problem with this?

Native Americans are another severe minority in this country but the government still gives them their own sovreign lands and allows for accomodations of federally incarserated Natives to carry on religious practices while in jail. Even though they are a minority in jail the government still doesn't keep them from practicing their religion. Do you have a problem with those set of rules that don't apply to a majority?

No. Your problem is with homosexuals.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

So by your logic the government shouldn't set aside "special rules" for people because there aren't a lot of them. There aren't a lot of billionaires in the country but they lobby successfully to have tax breaks given to them because they are in a "special class" financially. Should they not have rules in place for them because there aren't a lot of them?

Actually that's entirely a different topic. The way the government does it's taxation should be illegal anyways.

Another "minority" group would be gun owners. Most people don't own guns but they have rules in place to protect their rights as gun owners. They weren't born gun owners but choose to be gun owners. Even though there aren't a lot of them they still lobby to have rules made to fit them. Do you have a problem with this?

The right to own firearms is in the constitution. Providing benefits for marriage isn't.

Native Americans are another severe minority in this country but the government still gives them their own sovreign lands and allows for accomodations of federally incarserated Natives to carry on religious practices while in jail. Even though they are a minority in jail the government still doesn't keep them from practicing their religion. Do you have a problem with those set of rules that don't apply to a majority

How does this apply? Again, freedom of religion is guaranteed. The benefits awared by the state for marriage are not.

[prairiestate]

You realize neighborhoods develop organically, right? You can't just say the gays will go over here, we'll put the Chinese here to create a Chinatown. After establishing Omaha's gay district do you plan to order a truckload of gay people from Chicago to populate it?