Greenville Off-Topic

[RestedTraveler]

Anybody noticed the "Skylines" added to the weather forcasts on channels 4 and 7? What do you think about them? Which is the best? Are they cheeesy?

I think Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson look a little closer together than they actually are on WYFF's. I've not seen WSPA's yet as I rarely watch WSPA's news.

[Spartan]

Fox21 also does the skyline thing. I like them in general, but I haven't watched the news recently, so I can't recall specific likes and dislikes. Spartanburg's usually has a shot from the Square, and they don't address our skyline (which does exist!). I think 21 may have the best angle for Greenville though.

Channel 13 does one for Asheville I think, but they address the Upstate as Greenville-Spartanburg, so I doubt we'll ever see a skyline shot there.

[RestedTraveler]

I believe distortedlogic was actually referring to the recent addition of "skylines" to the 3D flyover weather maps. They've always had "mountains" and "trees" on there in the past, but now they've included little "skyline" images as well.

[Spartan]

I believe distortedlogic was actually referring to the recent addition of "skylines" to the 3D flyover weather maps. They've always had "mountains" and "trees" on there in the past, but now they've included little "skyline" images as well.

Oh wow, I didn't even know this existed. Shows you how much I watch the new these days, doesnt it

[distortedlogic]

I believe distortedlogic was actually referring to the recent addition of "skylines" to the 3D flyover weather maps. They've always had "mountains" and "trees" on there in the past, but now they've included little "skyline" images as well.

That is correct, sorry about any confusion. I think channel 4's are overdone a bit, but hey, at least we have an impressive skyline on television

[RestedTraveler]

I think channel 4's are overdone a bit, but hey, at least we have an impressive skyline on television

Yea, I agree. One would think we lived in Andergreenspartanvilleburgson, South Carolina.

[GvilleSC]

There are rumors on another site that a company has looked at and was impressed with Greenville. Possibly being apart of ICAR, the poster states that a building housing 800 employees would be needed with possibly some outside testing tracks...

Rumors are rumors, but how awesome would 800 families moving (for the most part i assume) to Greenville be...? Engineering jobs at that. If this is true and does happen, then ICAR has paid off right there for Greenville. No if, ands, or buts about it.

[NYTransplant]

Hi all, anyone know where the closest parking to Rock Quarry Park is? I'm taking some portraits tomorrow and I don't think walking shoes are in order for the subjects.

Thanks.

[RestedTraveler]

Hi all, anyone know where the closest parking to Rock Quarry Park is? I'm taking some portraits tomorrow and I don't think walking shoes are in order for the subjects.

Thanks.

There are a few spaces of parking near the intersection of Ridgeland Drive and Sherwood Street (the street above Rock Quarry Park). That's where I usually park when I go there.

Edited October 29, 2006 by RestedTraveler

[NYTransplant]

There are a few spaces of parking near the intersection of Ridgeland Drive and Sherwood Street (the street above Rock Quarry Park). That's where I usually park when I go there.

Thanks RT, I didn't notice the spaces there.

[RestedTraveler]

No problem. They're easy spaces to miss, especially since they're not well marked.

[Fairfreak]

Hi Everyone. This is difficult to write as I find it hard to talk about something that affects me on a very personal and gut level. I would like to ask everyone to open their hearts and vote "No" to the ammendment that would ban gay marriage. I am from SC and I love it very much. It depresses me that the issue of gay marriage has essentially evolved into an issue of right and wrong in this state. What is truly lacking is level headed discussion between the two parties. I know that it is difficult to sway the opinions of those who see being gay as an immoral lifestyle. What can I say? Being gay is no more or less immoral than the heterosexual lifestyle. Some straight people are honest, caring, and good people. Some are not so nice. Gay people are exactly the same. Some are good people and some are not-- But the bottom line is that either straight or gay, we are all still people. Does anyone choose to be straight? That question is rarely up for debate. I think most heterosexuals just say that there was never a question. But for some reason, many people assume that gay people are straight people who somehow lost their way. Whether or not I can convince anyone that I personally never consciously chose to be gay instead of straight, does it really matter? Being gay is not a disease and letting two people who love each other get married is a good thing. I get so frustrated when those who teach about tollerance and understanding are so unwilling to even discuss the possibility of accepting gays. Again, what is lacking is honest communication. Straights do not live the "straight lifestyle" and gays do not live the "gay lifestyle." I know this is probably a rambling message, but please, have a heart. Vote no. Thank you.

[Spartan]

Hi Everyone. This is difficult to write as I find it hard to talk about something that affects me on a very personal and gut level. I would like to ask everyone to open their hearts and vote "No" to the ammendment that would ban gay marriage. I am from SC and I love it very much. It depresses me that the issue of gay marriage has essentially evolved into an issue of right and wrong in this state. What is truly lacking is level headed discussion between the two parties. I know that it is difficult to sway the opinions of those who see being gay as an immoral lifestyle. What can I say? Being gay is no more or less immoral than the heterosexual lifestyle. Some straight people are honest, caring, and good people. Some are not so nice. Gay people are exactly the same. Some are good people and some are not-- But the bottom line is that either straight or gay, we are all still people. Does anyone choose to be straight? That question is rarely up for debate. I think most heterosexuals just say that there was never a question. But for some reason, many people assume that gay people are straight people who somehow lost their way. Whether or not I can convince anyone that I personally never consciously chose to be gay instead of straight, does it really matter? Being gay is not a disease and letting two people who love each other get married is a good thing. I get so frustrated when those who teach about tollerance and understanding are so unwilling to even discuss the possibility of accepting gays. Again, what is lacking is honest communication. Straights do not live the "straight lifestyle" and gays do not live the "gay lifestyle." I know this is probably a rambling message, but please, have a heart. Vote no. Thank you.

Its also a matter of not permitting the government dictate what you can and cannot do in your personal life, particularly when its not a detriment to anyone. There is too much of it as it is. Thats the Libertarian in me talking...

Anyway, welcome to the forum. I hope you will continue to share you opinions with us here on UrbanPlanet

[Greenville]

Its also a matter of not permitting the government dictate what you can and cannot do in your personal life, particularly when its not a detriment to anyone. There is too much of it as it is. Thats the Libertarian in me talking...

Anyway, welcome to the forum. I hope you will continue to share you opinions with us here on UrbanPlanet

I totally agree. Marriage and relationships shouldn't be the government's business, but since they are then it only makes sense that two adults in a consentual relationship have the right to pursue it under the law - regardless of whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. It shouldn't matter what someone believes on a personal level (I'm a Christian, BTW).

[TREY]

Let love rule!

I could rant about this for a long time on many levels.

I see nothing positive about this admendment for anyone.

The Greenville unitarian Universalist Fellowship is working hard to increase awareness on this subject.

If you would like more information E-mail Jim Lee at [email protected].

Please consider voting no.

[Chickenwing]

I suppose I am the only one voting yes.

[whitehourseview]

I suppose I am the only one voting yes.

You, and as it stands today by poll, about 80% or so of the voting public

[GvilleSC]

I suppose I am the only one voting yes.

I'll most likely be joining you.

[StrangeCock]

Put me down for a "NO." What harm can gay people do to marriage that straight people haven't already done?

And on a more fundamental level, what does government have to do with marriage at all?

[Spartan]

I totally agree. Marriage and relationships shouldn't be the government's business, but since they are then it only makes sense that two adults in a consentual relationship have the right to pursue it under the law - regardless of whether it's heterosexual or homosexual. It shouldn't matter what someone believes on a personal level (I'm a Christian, BTW).

If you were to meet me on the street you'd probably take me for someone who'd vote yes. I'm a straight guy, a conservative (usually), and that ever stereo typical "WASP" but I think "NO" on this one is just common sense.

Infact, I have yet to see any valid reason why I should to vote yes... not just from you guys, but from the general public. I heard a "vote yes" ad today on the radio, and I just laughed at it. Its arguement was very weak. I don't buy the arguement that our kids will suffer from a NO vote, and thats really the only reason that anyone can give me. If you raise you kids right, they won't be confused or suffer undue mental anguish. I'm more than willing to give any idea consideration, but this one just doesn't add up.

Despite the so called "divide" between religion and politics, the two are very much entangled. People who are religious are likely voting on this bill for their beliefs, and for that they should be respected, if not commended for practicing what they preach (no pun intended!).

However, I think its important to consider the fact that it is not, and should not be, the government's responsibility or obligation to impose religion on people, particularly in matters of the home. I don't see it as my responsibility to require the government to put a law into place that is based purely on spiritual beliefs, and one that one actually affect the general public. I also don't see anyone's relationship with God or lack thereof as my business, or the government's for that matter.

Besides all of that, voting NO is not supporting gay marriage. All it will do is not ban it. Like I said, if you can convince me that voting yes is the better choise I will definitely consider it, but I think you will be hard pressed to make that arguement.

And on a more fundamental level, what does government have to do with marriage at all?

They tax it. Hah, there is another reason to vote NO... extra income for the government! (they would have to make it legal first, which a NO vote here would not do)

[whitehourseview]

For what its worth, voting on this is much, much preferred to judicial decree, which would do nothing more than add gas on a fire of division and anger on this than about anything else. Let people make their case and let it be voted on. We live in a Federal country, and voting on matters state to state is a great thing.

And for what its worth, historically, there has been a divide between a Protestant/ Puritan view (in America and England) of the relationship to the state and marriage and a Catholic view (in most of Europe and Latin America), which means something on how South Carolina's laws were written and how the common law structure developed in this state over time.

When the early Pilgrims and Puritans arrived in Massachusetts for instance or the early Scotch Irish settlers in the Piedmont of South Carolina, they refused to conduct marriage ceremonies under the auspices of the church, believing that marriage and its regulation was a state function and not a religious one.

If we went back and time and showed lots of those folks, mostly being conservative religious sorts, arguments that marriage was a religious thing and had nothing to do with the state, they would barely understood what we were talking about, for they would have held the opposite opinion about the function of conducting marriage.

[Cap'n Prowler]

The way I see it there are two sides to marriage: the legal part and the sacred/personal part. The latter is irrelevant here. The former includes (I believe) several hundred rights to married couples. The fact that so many Americans wish to punish those who are different from themselves and take away their rights is unsettling. Morality begins and ends with the welfare of others. I believe passing this will hurt more than it could ever help.

[BrasilnSC]

For those who said they are voting "YES", what is your reasoning?

[silverseale]

I'm a "No." I'm one who doesn't think material benefits should be granted to anyone's marriages, nor do I think the church has the right to interfere with legal partnerships between consenting adults.

Edited November 1, 2006 by silverseale

[distortedlogic]

I am voting yes on my Christian convictions. I believe that marriage is a sacred compact between one man, one woman, and God. Changing the parameters would alter what marriage is about. While it may or may not weaken my particular marriage, it would weaken the institution of marriage, which would inevitably change what it stands for and means. That would impact my marriage. As for personal rights; there are many things we do in the name of personal rights, that could or should be called into question. But if this is truly a civil rights issue, then we (as a country or gov't) have no right to interfere with any marriages; including group marriages, adult family members, ect. It would even bring into question the age issue. Who is to say a 13 or 14 year old is not "mature" or "old" enough not to get married to an adult if they want to. There are planty of teenagers out there who are more mature than 40 or 50 year olds. In some countries it is very common for "kids" of that age to marry. I think we are doing it the right way for the people of the country. Let the people speak through their votes. If it is voted no, and these marriages are allowed, then that will be part of living in this country, even though I personally would still be opposed to it. Since we are voting, I am voting for what I believe.