@Baldimo,
Uh...not sure to what you are referring. And I have no Idea what NSFW is, sorry.
@giujohn,
When I see your post about meanings of Muslim terms it is listed as NSFW, Not Safe For Work. It makes the post so it can't be seen without clicking on the post.
@Baldimo,
OK then...news to me. Guess some moderator has an undisclosed axe to grind??
Now that Im paying attention most of the NSFW I see are for those threads that have a sexual content... not sure why my post is noted this way. When I view it I dont see this notation.
@coldjoint,
Wow, is that twisted! So joint's idiot poster contends opposing intolerance is intolerant. What a maroon. Change the target, and that argument sounds a lot like the ones segregationists used fifty years ago to justify dragging black students off to jail for trying to eat at a whites-only lunch counter. Go back a hundred and fifty years and it's eerily similar to the religious arguments preachers used to justify slavery.
But, hey, that's joint, espousing unAmerican values every time he opens his mouth (or touches a keyboard).
And, might I add, 63% of Americans support same-sex marriage now. That's not "acceding to homosexuals" or "non-gay Gay enthusiasts" in joint's idiot poster's language, that's mainstream majority Americans supporting it because it's the right American thing to do.
Hey, get with it, joint. This is the 21st century now. It's not your pro-slavery great-great-great-grandfathers' America anymore.
Thank the gods.
In 2006, when the MA Supreme Judicial Court decided that the MA Constitution gave gays the right to get married just like straights, we thought about it, thought, ""Yeah, that makes sense" and got on with our lives, no muss, no fuss, and our gay brothers and sisters got married, and we were fine with it, and in the next elections, we voted out of office all those loudmouth politicians who fulminated agains the court's decision. Was that "intolerance" or was that democracy? In the immediate aftermath of the decision, the Boston Globe polled MA residents, and nearly 70% agreed with the court (it's even higher now). It's nice the rest of the country is finally catching up to us. When are you planning to rejoin America, joint?
But the left has rewritten the concept of freedom to mean "whatever the government allows you to do," and leftists now insist that government cannot allow discrimination -- unless, of course, the government is itself enforcing discrimination against religious Christians who don't want to violate their belief in traditional marriage.
Same-sex marriage, it turns out, was never designed to grant legal benefits to same-sex couples. That could have been done under a regime of civil unions.
Same-sex marriage was always designed to allow the government to have the power to cram down punishment on anyone who disobeys the government's vision of the public good. One need not be an advocate of discrimination against gays to believe that government does not have the ability to enforce the prevailing social standards of the time in violation of individual rights.
There are many situations in which advocates of freedom dislike particular exercises of that freedom but understand that government attacks on individual rights are far more threatening to the public good.[/b]
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/shapiro-fascist-left-and-same-sex-marriage?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
