HATE GROUP NOM - It's Not Over, It's Just Beginning! New Yorkers Stand for Marriage

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 14, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    HATE GROUP NOM - It's Not Over, It's Just Beginning! New Yorkers Stand for Marriage





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7iSm_pyX-w
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 2:03 AM GMT
    They are such hypocrite.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 3:26 AM GMT
    Typical of white Liberals. Gay marriage was PASSED in NY, and they still bitch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 3:36 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    JackNWNJ saidTypical of white Liberals. Gay marriage was PASSED in NY, and they still bitch.

    Did you have to take jackass lessons, or is this some kind of weird innate talent?


    Can't you people just enjoy the moment for once?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 3:38 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    jprichva said
    JackNWNJ saidTypical of white Liberals. Gay marriage was PASSED in NY, and they still bitch.

    Did you have to take jackass lessons, or is this some kind of weird innate talent?

    Can't you people just enjoy the moment for once?

    Nah, we'd rather just enjoy your displeasure at our happy gay marriage moment. Like the displeasure of your NOM allies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 3:55 AM GMT
    I wonder if there would be any controversy if
    1) There were 2 terms recognized with the same exact rights: "Marriage" and "Civil Unions".
    2) If all gay marriages were called "Civil Unions" instead of "Gay Marriages".

    I really do think a big part of this has to do with semantics and how the term "marriage" is used.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 4:11 AM GMT
    LOL, I wonder how many of these people are actually able to vote! thought you needed to be a citizen....lolicon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    viitz saidFree speech vs. Hate speech. It's time the USA starts implementing laws that recognize the difference.


    That is what sets us apart from many other nations:

    Even stupid, hateful people have a right to speak their empty minds.

    With very few exceptions under US law, the burden is on the listener to act, react, respond, or ignore what is said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    viitz saidThis isn't a liberal issue, nor is it a republican issue. It's a civil rights issue. When are people going to realize that?

    Because Republicans aren't about civil rights. They are about bigotry & prejudice, and the removal of civil rights, in favor of White, Bible-inspired Christian supremacy.

    When you understand that, you will understand Republicans, and their agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 4:18 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    viitz saidThis isn't a liberal issue, nor is it a republican issue. It's a civil rights issue. When are people going to realize that?

    Because Republicans aren't about civil rights. They are about bigotry & prejudice, and the removal of civil rights, in favor of White, Bible-inspired Christian supremacy.

    When you understand that, you will understand Republicans, and their agenda.


    Not all Republicans - well at least the ones I keep company with on occasion - are like that at all.

    And why does it have to be about race? Anti-gay sentiment is just as deeply held, if not more so, by communities of colour in the USA.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 4:39 AM GMT
    alphatrigger said
    Art_Deco said
    viitz saidThis isn't a liberal issue, nor is it a republican issue. It's a civil rights issue. When are people going to realize that?

    Because Republicans aren't about civil rights. They are about bigotry & prejudice, and the removal of civil rights, in favor of White, Bible-inspired Christian supremacy.

    When you understand that, you will understand Republicans, and their agenda.

    Not all Republicans - well at least the ones I keep company with on occasion - are like that at all.

    And why does it have to be about race? Anti-gay sentiment is just as deeply held, if not more so, by communities of colour in the USA.

    A few individual exceptions prove the rule. Republican Party platforms confirm it.

    You do know that if you are Republican you are required to be anti-gay? And I challenge anyone to dispute that, because I will quote the State & National Republican anti-gay pronouncements.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 5:18 AM GMT
    If Ron Paul makes the primary ballot in NY state, I'll register Republican in the 60 day window needed to vote for him.

    And then change my registry back to Independent after the general election. And fortunately, the NYGOP charter contains no anti-gay statements or planks that I am aware of.

    But I see civil liberties and economic liberty and individual liberties as branches on the same Liberty Tree:

    Churches have a right to bless or withhold blessings on weddings as they see fit, according to their charters.

    They do not have a right to interfere with civil processes (i.e. use their tax exempt status, which I have a little trouble condoning in the first place save for funds set aside to be used explicitly for social justice causes/organizations) as was the case where the LDS Church orchestrated the movement of a lot of donations toward supporting Prop 8 in California.

    Business and the Economy should be regulated, but always with the question being considered by the regulators "Can this be done in the least intrusive way, to the best effect?".

    And of course, individual liberties are constrained to the degree they negatively impact the liberty of others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 5:29 AM GMT
    "Whatever your political or religious affiliation is, you should not be allowed to marginalize anyone in society because that would be considered hate speech"



    . . . . what? are you smoking crack? you are advocating a police state but you are too fucking stupid to realize that . . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 6:24 AM GMT
    This video is correct. Let's "give the right to the people to vote" as the fat white chick in the glasses said. This way we can vote to destroy the projects in Manhattan. That should effectively get rid of these anti-gay protestors.

    My favorite YouTube response is:

    "Cool
    A perspective from third world bigots."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 6:27 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ saidTypical of white Liberals. Gay marriage was PASSED in NY, and they still bitch.


    OMG like totally. Black people have all their rights yet they bitch and complain when a White person is being racist. How dare the Blacks stand up for equality. Likewise, how dare the gays stand up for equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 6:49 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidIf Ron Paul makes the primary ballot in NY state, I'll register Republican in the 60 day window needed to vote for him.


    Wait you have to REGISTER Republican in order to VOTE Republican? That's really fucking annoying. Can I register as anything that can allow me to CHOOSE to vote when it comes down to it? This rule is bullshit for moderates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 14, 2011 6:54 AM GMT
    JakeBenson said
    alphatrigger saidIf Ron Paul makes the primary ballot in NY state, I'll register Republican in the 60 day window needed to vote for him.


    Wait you have to REGISTER Republican in order to VOTE Republican? That's really fucking annoying. Can I register as anything that can allow me to CHOOSE to vote when it comes down to it? This rule is bullshit for moderates.


    Only for the primary elections.

    The general election you can be registered as whatever and vote for whoever.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 14, 2011 7:27 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ saidTypical of white Liberals. Gay marriage was PASSED in NY, and they still bitch.


    Really?! You have issues...
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 14, 2011 8:05 AM GMT
    Brownale saidI wonder if there would be any controversy if
    1) There were 2 terms recognized with the same exact rights: "Marriage" and "Civil Unions".
    2) If all gay marriages were called "Civil Unions" instead of "Gay Marriages".

    I really do think a big part of this has to do with semantics and how the term "marriage" is used.


    Imagine if blacks were being asked to have the same legal rights as whites in regard to marriage but they would just have to call it something else.

    Are we suppose to create separate but equal laws and labels every time human rights advance or a change of status occurs for a group of people?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 14, 2011 8:24 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    viitz saidThis isn't a liberal issue, nor is it a republican issue. It's a civil rights issue. When are people going to realize that?

    Because Republicans aren't about civil rights. They are about bigotry & prejudice, and the removal of civil rights, in favor of White, Bible-inspired Christian supremacy.

    When you understand that, you will understand Republicans, and their agenda.


    Sounds a little bigoted to me!

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 14, 2011 8:27 AM GMT
    metta8 saidHATE GROUP NOM - It's Not Over, It's Just Beginning! New Yorkers Stand for Marriage





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7iSm_pyX-w



    I wonder if the bulk of those people marching would like anti-miscegenation laws to be up for people to vote on icon_neutral.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Aug 15, 2011 5:03 PM GMT
    I doubt that the liberal side is bitching over the gay marriage victory in New York. On the contrary, they are bitching because those narrow minded, bible thumping screwballs from NOM cannot get it through their thick heads that they lost and rightfully so. Justice and civil rights for all prevailed over primitive minded bigotry and discrimination in our great state. NOM should just pack it up and get the fuck out of our state and go back to their poverty strickened, undereducated bible belt country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2011 5:13 PM GMT
    Brownale saidI wonder if there would be any controversy if
    1) There were 2 terms recognized with the same exact rights: "Marriage" and "Civil Unions".
    2) If all gay marriages were called "Civil Unions" instead of "Gay Marriages".

    I really do think a big part of this has to do with semantics and how the term "marriage" is used.


    Ive felt like this before too, but from what I understand is that we have tried separate but equal in this country before, and it didnt really work.

    I dont know why it would work now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 15, 2011 5:50 PM GMT
    Chainers said
    Brownale saidI wonder if there would be any controversy if
    1) There were 2 terms recognized with the same exact rights: "Marriage" and "Civil Unions".
    2) If all gay marriages were called "Civil Unions" instead of "Gay Marriages".

    I really do think a big part of this has to do with semantics and how the term "marriage" is used.


    Ive felt like this before too, but from what I understand is that we have tried separate but equal in this country before, and it didnt really work.

    I dont know why it would work now.


    The other thing is, a lot of the haters have made this argument in an effort to seem more moderate, but when push comes to shove, they won't back full civil unions either. While in theory it might be acceptable to some gay folks, in terms of real world politics it's a nonstarter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2011 12:58 AM GMT
    Anto said
    I wonder if the bulk of those people marching would like anti-miscegenation laws to be up for people to vote on


    That's actually a very interesting point to bring up.

    Anti-miscegenation laws were not enforced since the 1960s, but a few states had them on the books until much more recent times. The Alabama law was only voted out of the state constitution in 2000 with 60% of the vote. Because there is so much precinct-level racial segregation, it was possible to roughly see how people voted by race. In a number of almost all white areas, most people supported keeping the laws, while in the almost all black areas, a large majority of 80%+ supported getting rid of them.

    There were always some black right-wing forces in the south who tactically allied themselves with the white supremacist rulers - usually they were preachers or wealthier black people. They resisted the civil rights movement when it emerged and opposed union organizing and boycotts. They got swept to the side during the 1950s and 1960s. I think the black pentacostal and other black fundamentalist forces (not Baptist) are a modern continuation of that traitorous tradition of supporting white supremacy. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those people of color actually wouldn't care if there were anti-miscegenation laws. There's that old nonsense about god and the tower of Babel they could cite as reason for racial separatism.