Author Wants Southern States To Secede Over Gay Rights, Name New Country 'Reagan'

[Karee 4,190]

Well, it is traditionally known Northern people are a lot more accepting.

I've actually found the opposite to be true. Although I only have Texas and Michigan to use as comparisons.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I've actually found the opposite to be true. Although I only have Texas and Michigan to use as comparisons.

Sometimes when we are staying at a hotel near the interstate, you will have the Jersey/New York crowd in the Breakfast Buffet.In their PJ's rude anxious practically pull the serving spoon out of your hand. People in the South are definitely more hospitable and have better manners

[AnnaMaria 68]

If this were to happen, I would definitely remain in the south. Do I have an intolerance towards homosexuals? Not particularly. It's their life choice and they can do as they please, but let's look at how things are being approached these days.

Homosexuality, among other strong current activist moments, is not something we're being allowed to just "accept and learn to be tolerant of." Educating children of people's different life choices is improving, but what good is trying to improve the future generation's impression on equal rights if certain movements are literally FORCING states and their residents to break their heritage and tradition to bend to their will. Now, I agree there are some states that are very liberal and accepting of constant changes, but many states in the South are not. My home of Tennessee, for example, is known to be very religious and hold a lot of tradition with family and how marriage works, the same can be said for most of the surrounding states. It is a shame that people who decide to live different lifestyles do not want to relocate to a place that is welcoming of their differences and offer them 100% status as a same-sex couple, but instead are taking states to court and forcing them to believe that their way of life is completely acceptable and they are the victims in society. No, I'm sorry, but that isn't exactly the way things work.

A lot of people say the problem back home are a result of the government, I highly disagree. Does the government have problems? Sure, it's rune by human beings and all human beings are prone to mistakes, but at the same time...look at the people they are trying to serve. We are in a time where almost EVERY SINGLE person wants something to change, whether it is against or supporting the fundamental values of America itself. We have people protesting for every action the government makes, or rather of lately, isn't making. It almost feels like people turn on the T.V. during election times and just go with whoever says the coolest and most motivational speech, or who has the best or most campaign posters. We all need to open our eyes for a moment and realize that our hunger for constant change (And not always positive change) is going to push us to the limits eventually, maybe not in this century, but who knows about 2100+? Regardless of my political viewpoints, I honestly feel bad for what our leaders have to go through every day. They have to make decisions and face issues where 33% of the people disapprove, 33% of the people want them to do something else, and 33% of the people feel there is no current hope so they just go on with their lives as if everything is fine and dandy.

Our government, in theory, is doing its job, but we the people are the ones who are so conflicted on our ideas of where the country should be going, we're sending so many politicians into positions that they are constantly at arms with each other. Have you watched C-Span lately, or any time in the last year? Congress is at each others THROATS all the time. Is it the politicians fault? Not really, we are the ones who supported their individual campaigns and supported their ideas and they take that with them to the Hill. When you have such a divided political structured, you're darn right things are going to get sloppy. We, as a country, need to re-think our ideas on what it really means to be an American. We need to support politicians who are not so gung-ho on fighting the opposite political party, that they are ready to make changes as necessary to improve our future and not argue "Just to debate a Republican/Democart).

Wow, I de-railed far from where I wanted this to originally go, but I guess long story short, we are basically being forced to accept changes whether the general population of a state agrees or disagrees because people believe their rights are more important than someone else.

EDIT : Did anyone see that news article about the Caucasian lesbian couple, where one of the partners got the wrong specimen from a sperm bank and had an african-american child and is now suing because they have poor records and are facing "unbearable humility for themselves and the child and are having a hard time raising her?" I mean, she requested a blonde hair, blue eyed male like her partner, geez, sorry she couldn't play Creator this go around. Or better yet, how about if you are going to live a life that does not support reproduction (I.E. - 2 Females cannot create a child themselves) you just don't reproduce.

Edited October 24, 2014 by AnnaMaria

[Robby999 1,024]

No need to worry about homosexuals ruining your lifestyle and traditions! Once large Muslim neighborhoods are formed and Sharia law becomes embedded here, homosexuals and their lifestyle will be driven underground to avoid persecution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

[AnnaMaria 68]

They took prayer time out of children's school because it was offensive to "some", so I can only imagine how warm communities would embrace a radical, and to be quite frank, degrading lifestyle with their own special "Neighorhood Watch"....Wait....

Would this be something like that Amish-sect church in the mid-west which got raided time and time again and their leader incarcerated because of their radical ideas? Yea...I imagine one of those neighborhoods you mentioned being extinguished in something of that manner.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If this were to happen, I would definitely remain in the south. Do I have an intolerance towards homosexuals? Not particularly. It's their life choice and they can do as they please, but let's look at how things are being approached these days.

Homosexuality, among other strong current activist moments, is not something we're being allowed to just "accept and learn to be tolerant of." Educating children of people's different life choices is improving, but what good is trying to improve the future generation's impression on equal rights if certain movements are literally FORCING states and their residents to break their heritage and tradition to bend to their will. Now, I agree there are some states that are very liberal and accepting of constant changes, but many states in the South are not. My home of Tennessee, for example, is known to be very religious and hold a lot of tradition with family and how marriage works, the same can be said for most of the surrounding states. It is a shame that people who decide to live different lifestyles do not want to relocate to a place that is welcoming of their differences and offer them 100% status as a same-sex couple, but instead are taking states to court and forcing them to believe that their way of life is completely acceptable and they are the victims in society. No, I'm sorry, but that isn't exactly the way things work.

A lot of people say the problem back home are a result of the government, I highly disagree. Does the government have problems? Sure, it's rune by human beings and all human beings are prone to mistakes, but at the same time...look at the people they are trying to serve. We are in a time where almost EVERY SINGLE person wants something to change, whether it is against or supporting the fundamental values of America itself. We have people protesting for every action the government makes, or rather of lately, isn't making. It almost feels like people turn on the T.V. during election times and just go with whoever says the coolest and most motivational speech, or who has the best or most campaign posters. We all need to open our eyes for a moment and realize that our hunger for constant change (And not always positive change) is going to push us to the limits eventually, maybe not in this century, but who knows about 2100+? Regardless of my political viewpoints, I honestly feel bad for what our leaders have to go through every day. They have to make decisions and face issues where 33% of the people disapprove, 33% of the people want them to do something else, and 33% of the people feel there is no current hope so they just go on with their lives as if everything is fine and dandy.

Our government, in theory, is doing its job, but we the people are the ones who are so conflicted on our ideas of where the country should be going, we're sending so many politicians into positions that they are constantly at arms with each other. Have you watched C-Span lately, or any time in the last year? Congress is at each others THROATS all the time. Is it the politicians fault? Not really, we are the ones who supported their individual campaigns and supported their ideas and they take that with them to the Hill. When you have such a divided political structured, you're darn right things are going to get sloppy. We, as a country, need to re-think our ideas on what it really means to be an American. We need to support politicians who are not so gung-ho on fighting the opposite political party, that they are ready to make changes as necessary to improve our future and not argue "Just to debate a Republican/Democart).

Wow, I de-railed far from where I wanted this to originally go, but I guess long story short, we are basically being forced to accept changes whether the general population of a state agrees or disagrees because people believe their rights are more important than someone else.

EDIT : Did anyone see that news article about the Caucasian lesbian couple, where one of the partners got the wrong specimen from a sperm bank and had an african-american child and is now suing because they have poor records and are facing "unbearable humility for themselves and the child and are having a hard time raising her?" I mean, she requested a blonde hair, blue eyed male like her partner, geez, sorry she couldn't play Creator this go around. Or better yet, how about if you are going to live a life that does not support reproduction (I.E. - 2 Females cannot create a child themselves) you just don't reproduce.

If you are gay and were born, raised and live in a Southern State why should you have to move just because there are people living there with 'traditional' values who hold bigoted opinions? Do gay people not have a right to live there as well? And do they also not have the right to not have others harrass them or discriminate against them because they have some deep-seated issue with their personal life?

I'm sorry but the 'traditionalists' have no more ownership of the State than homosexuals do. The point is that people should be free to pursue their lives however they see fit, providing noone else is hurt by their actions and they do so within the law. The fact that many states had/have anti-gay laws on the books only underlines the fact that society shouldn't be governed by people's bigotry.

[AnnaMaria 68]

I would never expect anyone to leave their home unwillingly, but at the same time if you're life takes you down a path that has limited support in that area, should you handle it by forcing your beliefs onto a people or relocating to an area that your lifestyle is fully supported in all areas. I love when people who are die-hard supporters of gay rights use the statement "They should be free to pursue their lives how they see fit." It leads me right into the following questions;

Is one persons freedom more important than another persons? By forcing a general population of a state or community to accept a practice that is against its general beliefs, you have therefore stripped the freedoms of those people of being able to uphold their freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There are tons and tons of examples of companies with Christian values (Just using Christians as an example) who are being forced to pay fines, defamed, or even shut down due to the "Our way or no way" attitude of equal rights activists. It's very ironic. If someone doesn't accept your life choices, then they are somehow bigots or uncivilized and should therefore be punished...Oops, that sounds like an equal rights issue right there on it's own.

Does the pursuit of happiness mean nothing to people who are being forced to accept that which they do not believe or approve in? I mean, do you seriously not think that forcing our children, and let's even say elderly, to accept this kind of lifestyle is acceptable? Church teaches the true value of marriage, School teaches equality, Parents teach their own personal values, and the media feeds people with whatever gets more ratings. So yea, I do think tradition has a huge role in our "freedoms" because you are FORCING people who do not accept those kind of changes to ACCEPT theirs. It's not about disliking homosexuals ultimately, it's about the "It's Our way or the Highway" for the world right now in the eyes of activists.

What do activists do to those they cannot force their ways on? Harass, discriminate, protest, embarrass, and even humiliate until they get what they want. That is how things work right now. I know what you are trying to say, but at the same time, when an activist cannot win their case with simple reason, then they turn as aggressive as necessary to force their will upon the public. And do people have the right not to be harassed and discriminated against activists because they do not choose to accept their way of life?

Anti-gay laws protected a general populations similar idea of the value of marriage and what it was. For a long time, families (at least in the south) thrived on strength of family and treated marriage and courtship at a very high standard. That is being slowly destroyed now, and not by the will of the people.

So, if someone is a bigot because you cannot force your ideology on them, what does that make you for calling them a bigot and un-accepting and harassing them?

It's a two way street that will never end....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So based on what I said you believe that I am a "die-hard supporter of gay rights". People's use of language interests me because it often reveals their real agenda. I am not a 'die hard' anything, I am not an activist, nor am I not part of any activist group - I just believe in simple fairness and I know what side of this issue is 'fair' and I know which side is 'die hard' and wants to defend evil, outdated ideas.

As to your question 'Is one person's freedom more important than anothers'? I don't think that is the issue here at all - what you are essentially saying is that because a lot of people in the South have bigoted, homophobic opinions that that equality laws designed to minority groups from discrimination are somehow infringing on the rights of bigoted people to be bigoted.

That's a very topsy turvy way to look at the issue. People are perfectly free to be racist, homophobic, xenophobic or whatever. They just aren't free to use those views to curtail anyone's freedoms. In practical terms - that means you can't, for example, refuse a gay couple service in a restaurant because you don't like homosexuality. A person's sex life has sweet FA to do with their decision to go to a restaurant and purchase food.

If anything, given what you've written above I'd say you are the activist here. Certainly in this thread.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[AnnaMaria 68]

Pardon me if I did reveal my personal thoughts on the matter. I do, in fact, support gay rights, as long as they do not infringe on the religious rights or traditional beliefs of a community (Regardless of size).

The importance of freedoms of certain individuals is absolutely the issue. You are stripping people of their religious beliefs, desecrating decades of belief's to the true meaning of a marital union, and sometimes even forcing people to observe homosexual couples having/adopting children. Only God can determine what is right in wrong in the end, but to tell someone that they are idiots and intolerant (bigots) for not accepting their way of life, is stripping them of their pursuit of happiness and many of their own personal rights.

If you think people who dislike serving homosexual couples is wrong, how about this recent news story. A very, very religious couple from a very religious community owned a local bakery. A lesbian couple entered their store recently (This is a true story) and requested a cake for their wedding. The couple kindly declined, stating it was against their religious beliefs. They now have a lawsuit against them and a pending fine of up to $150k, they had to close their store, and are forced to do a few online orders only from home. Instead of fighting this losing battle, they were forced to give up their dream and their life as bakers at that particular store because that couple did not want to go to any of the 1000000000000000000000 other bakery's in the states. Now Hail Ming!, you seem pretty intelligent, that situation could have gone two ways. The lesbian couple could have respected the religious freedoms of that family bakery and went to another, or they could have been so upset that someone didn't accept their lifestyle that they did everything possible to destroy or convert them....Now, tell me again how that is supposed to be acceptable?

I wasn't suggesting you particularly were an activist, I was just stating that people with the opinions you have stated might be. As for me, I am no activist, I am just a citizen who has independent opinions about things that happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pardon me if I did reveal my personal thoughts on the matter. I do, in fact, support gay rights, as long as they do not infringe on the religious rights or traditional beliefs of a community (Regardless of size).

The importance of freedoms of certain individuals is absolutely the issue. You are stripping people of their religious beliefs, desecrating decades of belief's to the true meaning of a marital union, and sometimes even forcing people to observe homosexual couples having/adopting children. Only God can determine what is right in wrong in the end, but to tell someone that they are idiots and intolerant (bigots) for not accepting their way of life, is stripping them of their pursuit of happiness and many of their own personal rights.

If you think people who dislike serving homosexual couples is wrong, how about this recent news story. A very, very religious couple from a very religious community owned a local bakery. A lesbian couple entered their store recently (This is a true story) and requested a cake for their wedding. The couple kindly declined, stating it was against their religious beliefs. They now have a lawsuit against them and a pending fine of up to $150k, they had to close their store, and are forced to do a few online orders only from home. Instead of fighting this losing battle, they were forced to give up their dream and their life as bakers at that particular store because that couple did not want to go to any of the 1000000000000000000000 other bakery's in the states. Now Hail Ming!, you seem pretty intelligent, that situation could have gone two ways. The lesbian couple could have respected the religious freedoms of that family bakery and went to another, or they could have been so upset that someone didn't accept their lifestyle that they did everything possible to destroy or convert them....Now, tell me again how that is supposed to be acceptable?

I wasn't suggesting you particularly were an activist, I was just stating that people with the opinions you have stated might be. As for me, I am no activist, I am just a citizen who has independent opinions about things that happen.

Exactly how are people being 'stripped' of their religious beliefs? People are free to believe whatever they like, they just can't use those beliefs to abuse other people. What's wrong with that?

As to your example - what does baking and selling a cake have to do with a person's religious beliefs? You can do that and still go to church, nothing 'rubs' off on you because you baked and sold a cake to some people whose sex life you don't approve of. Why do the gay people not have the right to have their private life treated privately - because surely it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the people running the cake shop and nothing to do with their wanting to buy a cake. Why do the cake shop owners think that a business transaction is an appropriate venue for a soapbox about their views of homosexuality!?

Should a gay person looking to buy a cake know beforehand that the people they are buying it from are prejudiced against gay people? Should they have to take an inventory before they leave the house of places that they can and can't shop at for fear of offending a business owner's delicate sensibilities? Are you effing serious!?

I'm sorry that these people have lost their business, but they clearly overstepped the bounds of what is acceptable in a business transaction. If they aren't able to separate their religious beliefs from running a business, they probably aren't cut out for it to begin with. Here's my advice to them:

Sell your cakes, keep your mouth shut, go to church on sunday and keep your nose out of other people's business.

It's not difficult is it. Why do you feel this need to sympathise with bigoted busybodies who can't conduct themselves in public in an appropriate manner?

Edited October 24, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[AnnaMaria 68]

Well, if things were as simple as separating religion from business, you're absolutely correct, however you have to think about what those business owner might perceive of the outcome of serving something considered a sin in their religion. Everyone in this world should know by now how extreme people with religious beliefs can go, but lets just take that bakery story for example and use it. There are a couple kinds of ways to hurt someone. There is physical, mental, and emotional. Seeing as this couple had very strong religious beliefs, and obviously found that marriage between anyone other than a man and a women was a sin, this would have caused them a sense of emotional or mental pain had they of gone against their belief's and condoned what they thought was immoral. You stated earlier, you think people should be free unless it causes harm to another, well emotional and mental pain can be just as harmful. Add to that situation now they have legal issues over it, their religious freedoms have been put at risk. So in a way, they did harm this couple by not simply respecting their decision to stand by their religion, but there is no way for any business to flat out advertise "Serving those with Christian morals only."

I know this sounds silly, and you're absolutely right, it is. Which is why i'm going to go all the way back to the reason I even commented on this post. We are not learning to be an acceptable civilized people anymore, instead we are sitting back and letting people pick apart our constitution and amendments and strip their true meaning for nothing more than a dictionary word, and then utilize that definition to get what they want. This isn't harmony, this is dysfunction. By dishonoring a person's idea of family, heritage, and tradition, you have therefore stripped them of identity and left them in a sort of limbo, again, that is an emotional harm to that person.

The question people need to ask themselves isn't "Should we separate the non-tolerant from the tolerant!?", that is what is really ridiculous. Instead, we need to find solutions to respect people's ideology of family while honoring the desires of those who wish to seek out their own definition of family and marriage. Do I have any idea on a solution? Absolutely not. Do I think simple and respect and understanding, and maybe even a little cooperative teamwork from both parties would help solve the problem? More than likely.

[AnnaMaria 68]

It's not difficult is it. Why do you feel this need to sympathise with bigoted busybodies who can't conduct themselves in public in an appropriate manner?

Again, the double standard I've mentioned several times. These "Bigoted busybodies" do not consider a marital union between he same sex an appropriate manner, who is anyone to tell them that their religious entity is wrong and they are terrible people for preserving what they see is a good deed when it is their time to come to judgement? They didn't slander them, beat them, no hate crimes, they simply stood by their faith and did not let someone put a gun to their head to get what they wanted.

Again, two way street, never going to end...

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Please show me where it says in the bible it's okay to refuse service to a homosexual couple.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, if things were as simple as separating religion from business, you're absolutely correct, however you have to think about what those business owner might perceive of the outcome of serving something considered a sin in their religion. Everyone in this world should know by now how extreme people with religious beliefs can go, but lets just take that bakery story for example and use it. There are a couple kinds of ways to hurt someone. There is physical, mental, and emotional. Seeing as this couple had very strong religious beliefs, and obviously found that marriage between anyone other than a man and a women was a sin, this would have caused them a sense of emotional or mental pain had they of gone against their belief's and condoned what they thought was immoral. You stated earlier, you think people should be free unless it causes harm to another, well emotional and mental pain can be just as harmful. Add to that situation now they have legal issues over it, their religious freedoms have been put at risk. So in a way, they did harm this couple by not simply respecting their decision to stand by their religion, but there is no way for any business to flat out advertise "Serving those with Christian morals only."

I know this sounds silly, and you're absolutely right, it is. Which is why i'm going to go all the way back to the reason I even commented on this post. We are not learning to be an acceptable civilized people anymore, instead we are sitting back and letting people pick apart our constitution and amendments and strip their true meaning for nothing more than a dictionary word, and then utilize that definition to get what they want. This isn't harmony, this is dysfunction. By dishonoring a person's idea of family, heritage, and tradition, you have therefore stripped them of identity and left them in a sort of limbo, again, that is an emotional harm to that person.

The question people need to ask themselves isn't "Should we separate the non-tolerant from the tolerant!?", that is what is really ridiculous. Instead, we need to find solutions to respect people's ideology of family while honoring the desires of those who wish to seek out their own definition of family and marriage. Do I have any idea on a solution? Absolutely not. Do I think simple and respect and understanding, and maybe even a little cooperative teamwork from both parties would help solve the problem? More than likely.

If you buy a product from Amazon, do you think they care about whether or not you are gay? Does that enter into the transaction process - is there a checkbox you have to tick before you submit your order to indicate that you aren't gay? If not, why?

BECAUSE IT IS NOT RELEVANT!!!

Why couldn't the people in the cake shop not just sell the cake and mind their own business? I'm really struggling to understand why you can't grasp that idea. They created the situation, not the lesbians. In what whacked out world does the person who does something wrong and indefensible get classifed as the victim?

Noone has to approve of homosexuality. All that I'm saying is that in a public setting you shouldn't use your privately held beliefs to infringe on the freedoms of others.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[AnnaMaria 68]

It is not about refusing service, it is about participating in an act that a person believes is immoral. I can post some links to as many bible passages as you would like stating why Christians find marriage to be a marital union between a man and a union, but I'm pretty sure everyone knows them by now.