Same-sex weddings not allowed, Winston-Salem venue tells couple

volsrock said:
Wrong u stupid fag

Data on couples suggests that same-sex couples are more vulnerable to poverty in general than are different-sex married couples.

Poverty rates for female same-sex couples and unmarried different-sex couples were higher than those of married different-sex couples.

While male same-sex couples have lower overall poverty rates than married different-sex couples, male couples were more likely to be poor than married different-sex couples after controlling for other characteristics that influence poverty.

Among women 18-44 years old, more than a quarter of bisexual women are poor (29.4%) and more than 1 in 5 lesbians are in poverty (22.7%), a rate higher than the poverty rate among heterosexual women (21.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant.

Similarly, a greater percentage of gay (20.5%) and bisexual men (25.9%) fell at or below the federal poverty line than heterosexual men (15.3%), but these differences were also not statistically significant.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgb-patterns-of-poverty/
Click to expand...

A lot LGBTQ neighborhoods are pretty wealthy.

Like Greenwich Village in Manhattan, the Castro in San Francisco, among others.

That, however might be explained by not having kids to shell out for.

As for the high poverty, it can be explained by high levels of mental disorders & substance abuse in LGBTQ people.
 
volsrock said:
You are not forced to work or go shopping or attend public school!

If u went shopping in Chicago would u rather shop in West Garfield Park or Gold Coast ?



Tuskegee University, Spelman College has ZERO white students!

Can u show a college that has ZERO black students?
Click to expand...

Would you rather go shopping in Greenwich Village ( LGBTQ)
or Brownsville ( Black)
???

LGBTQ might be annoying, but they're hardly dangerous as Black hoods.
 
StoneByStone said:
I actually do agree that marriage should be a state issue. However, the reason it was done through the courts is because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. Homophobia was no longer useful in distracting people from the real issues. That's why even Republicans don't use it anymore.
Click to expand...

You logic makes zero sense. The legislatures better represent the people than the courts.
 
StoneByStone said:
I said it shouldn't have been done through the courts.
Click to expand...

"However, the reason it was done through the courts is because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. "

Your logic makes zero sense. The legislatures better represent the people than the courts.
 
Dark Soul said:
"However, the reason it was done through the courts is because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. "

Your logic makes zero sense. The legislatures better represent the people than the courts.
Click to expand...

It was done in the courts because bigots would not rent to people they thought of as "others". That is what Trump got nailed for a few times. It is not about want. It is about the law and equal rights.
 
Last edited:
Nordberg said:
It was done in the courts because bigots would ot rent to people they thought of as "others". That is what Trump got nailed for a few times. It is not about want. It is about the law and equal rights.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that a majority of Americans didn't want it forced upon them.
 
Dark Soul said:
"However, the reason it was done through the courts is because the vast majority of Americans wanted it. "

Your logic makes zero sense. The legislatures better represent the people than the courts.
Click to expand...

Sure, and I agreed that the courts shouldn't have forced all the states to recognize gay marriage. However, the reason they did it is because the culture changed to the point where the vast majority of people now support gay marriage.
And if you disagree with that, just look at how quickly the RNC dropped the homophobic propaganda.
 
StoneByStone said:
Sure, and I agreed that the courts shouldn't have forced all the states to recognize gay marriage. However, the reason they did it is because the culture changed to the point where the vast majority of people now support gay marriage.
And if you disagree with that, just look at how quickly the RNC dropped the homophobic propaganda.
Click to expand...

Again, your logic makes zero sense.
 
StoneByStone said:
But you understand this is restricting freedom of association, right?
Click to expand...

No, it is not.

"Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria." -- Wikipedia
 
StoneByStone said:
Sure, and I agreed that the courts shouldn't have forced all the states to recognize gay marriage. However, the reason they did it is because the culture changed to the point where the vast majority of people now support gay marriage.
And if you disagree with that, just look at how quickly the RNC dropped the homophobic propaganda.
Click to expand...

Again, zero logic. If the culture had changed, the the voters would have convinced their legislators, either by lobbying or through the election process. Judges for the most part are far less influenced by the voters.

Even in ultra-Left Massachusetts the issue was forced upon the voters by the courts.
 
Nordberg said:
It was done in the courts because bigots would ot rent to people they thought of as "others". That is what Trump got nailed for a few times. It is not about want. It is about the law and equal rights.
Click to expand...

I cant remember who, but some POS Lib here is a landlord..and stated he would only rent, to certain people. low beacon scores I guess among other things

So the POS has his "others" that he refuses to rent to
 
Dark Soul said:
Again, zero logic. If the culture had changed, the the voters would have convinced their legislators, either by lobbying or through the election process. Judges for the most part are far less influenced by the voters.

Even in ultra-Left Massachusetts the issue was forced upon the voters by the courts.
Click to expand...

This is what was already happening. The federal court just jumped the gun because they knew they could get away with it, since most Americans had begun supporting gay rights by that point.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
No, it is not.

"Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria." -- Wikipedia
Click to expand...

So if an association declines membership due to the individual's race, wouldn't that be considered freedom of association?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top