North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[RDD_1210]

Gays were the first group of people that aids was first to have been trackeed from.

And how will preventing gay marriage have an impact on this?

At least here in North Carolina it just made it a little harder for them to live together. if they want to marry they have the right to move to a state that allows that.

So not marrying means they can't live together which means AIDS rates will be reduced? Is this what you're saying?

 

[RDD_1210]

Gays were the first group of people that aids was first to have been trackeed from.

HIV/AIDS Basics | Questions and Answers | CDC HIV/AIDS

The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

CDC just a political smoke screen to keep from blaming aids on the gay lifestyle. Question in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

How did you manage to get rid of your AIDS?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And how will preventing gay marriage have an impact on this?

At least here in North Carolina it just made it a little harder for them to live together. if they want to marry they have the right to move to a state that allows that.

So not marrying means they can't live together which means AIDS rates will be reduced? Is this what you're saying?

Gays cannot be marry here that's all that needs to be said. They have the right too leave the state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

HIV/AIDS Basics | Questions and Answers | CDC HIV/AIDS

CDC just a political smoke screen to keep from blaming aids on the gay lifestyle. Question in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

How did you manage to get rid of your AIDS?

NON answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

 

[RDD_1210]

At least here in North Carolina it just made it a little harder for them to live together. if they want to marry they have the right to move to a state that allows that.

So not marrying means they can't live together which means AIDS rates will be reduced? Is this what you're saying?

Gays cannot be marry here that's all that needs to be said. They have the right too leave the state.

Ahhh, so you just want gays to leave your state. You know that you have no actual reason to deny marriage for them.

Got it.

 

[RDD_1210]

CDC just a political smoke screen to keep from blaming aids on the gay lifestyle. Question in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

How did you manage to get rid of your AIDS?

NON answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

So you still have AIDS? I mean, you're gay by proxy and we all know that being gay means you have AIDS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did you manage to get rid of your AIDS?

NON answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

So you still have AIDS? I mean, you're gay by proxy and we all know that being gay means you have AIDS.

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

 

[asaratis]

And yet still not ONE valid reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry. Not one. Shame on all of you.

Here are some....trivial reasons.

1
It requires the re-definition of other terms such as "aunt", "uncle", "married couple", "married" and possibly others.

2
It provides a way for one to mislead others (should they have need to) by insinuating that they are not homosexual.

3
To the vast majority of straight married people, it denigrates the word "marriage" and makes them no better than "those abominable gays and lesbians".

I suspect the third is not trivial to many, especially in the bible belt. So be it. It is still a reason for many people objecting.

You'll not find any objection to matching benefits for gay/lesbian couples from me. I think they should have all and equal rights regarding wills, conjugal visits at detention centers and hospitals, insurance, tax breaks and whatever else applies to man/woman couples (whether they were legally married by way of ceremony or common law). Just pick a different word to describe the relationship.

If you say it's the benefits you want, then what could possibly be wrong with making up a name for the union and going on about your business?

So far, I have not seen a single legitimate reason to claim a NEED to be called "married".

Spit it out!

I asked for valid reasons. Not trivial. Thanks for trying though.

They are somewhat trivial to me...not trivial to many.

I asked you a question also. Why would you not be happy with another name for your union other than "married" if you could obtain all the benefits afforded married couples?

What's wrong with that...other than you would feel "singled out"?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So not marrying means they can't live together which means AIDS rates will be reduced? Is this what you're saying?

Gays cannot be marry here that's all that needs to be said. They have the right too leave the state.

Ahhh, so you just want gays to leave your state. You know that you have no actual reason to deny marriage for them.

Got it.

Yes when they leave you can have them.

 

[RDD_1210]

Here are some....trivial reasons.

1
It requires the re-definition of other terms such as "aunt", "uncle", "married couple", "married" and possibly others.

2
It provides a way for one to mislead others (should they have need to) by insinuating that they are not homosexual.

3
To the vast majority of straight married people, it denigrates the word "marriage" and makes them no better than "those abominable gays and lesbians".

I suspect the third is not trivial to many, especially in the bible belt. So be it. It is still a reason for many people objecting.

You'll not find any objection to matching benefits for gay/lesbian couples from me. I think they should have all and equal rights regarding wills, conjugal visits at detention centers and hospitals, insurance, tax breaks and whatever else applies to man/woman couples (whether they were legally married by way of ceremony or common law). Just pick a different word to describe the relationship.

If you say it's the benefits you want, then what could possibly be wrong with making up a name for the union and going on about your business?

So far, I have not seen a single legitimate reason to claim a NEED to be called "married".

Spit it out!

I asked for valid reasons. Not trivial. Thanks for trying though.

They are somewhat trivial to me...not trivial to many.

I asked you a question also. Why would you not be happy with another name for your union other than "married" mif you could obtain all the benefits afforded married couples?

What's wrong with that...other than you would feel "singled out"?

Sure, call it something else in the law for all I care. As long as it retains the EXACT same rights that marriage would have.

 

[RDD_1210]

NON answer

So you still have AIDS? I mean, you're gay by proxy and we all know that being gay means you have AIDS.

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

How long have you been gay?

Hint the first time you had sex you became gay....since you never know who your partner had been with before, or who they were with, etc...

 

[Sunni Man]

Bruce comes home one day and says to his lover, "Please do me a favor. It feels like something's stuck up my ass. Could you check it out for me?"

His roommate lubes up his finger (mercifully) and shoves it up Bruce's ass, feeling all around, and says, "I don't feel anything."

Bruce says, "Trust me, there's something up there. Try lubing up your whole hand and checking it out."

So his roommate lubes his whole hand and sticks it up Bruce's ass. He feels around, and then pulls out a Rolex watch.

He says, "I found your problem. There was a watch stuck up your ass."

Bruce starts singing, "Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."

 

[asaratis]

I asked for valid reasons. Not trivial. Thanks for trying though.

They are somewhat trivial to me...not trivial to many.

I asked you a question also. Why would you not be happy with another name for your union other than "married" mif you could obtain all the benefits afforded married couples?

What's wrong with that...other than you would feel "singled out"?

Sure, call it something else in the law for all I care. As long as it retains the EXACT same rights that marriage would have.

Well, that just might work. Pick a name for the union and propose it in a bill.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you still have AIDS? I mean, you're gay by proxy and we all know that being gay means you have AIDS.

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

How long have you been gay?

Hint the first time you had sex you became gay....since you never know who your partner had been with before, or who they were with, etc...

What a stupid thing to write. If I was gay wouldn't it be logical for me to support gay marriage?

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Bruce comes home one day and says to his lover, "Please do me a favor. It feels like something's stuck up my ass. Could you check it out for me?"

His roommate lubes up his finger (mercifully) and shoves it up Bruce's ass, feeling all around, and says, "I don't feel anything."

Bruce says, "Trust me, there's something up there. Try lubing up your whole hand and checking it out."

So his roommate lubes his whole hand and sticks it up Bruce's ass. He feels around, and then pulls out a Rolex watch.

He says, "I found your problem. There was a watch stuck up your ass."

Bruce starts singing, "Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."

Who's team will you be on when these same nanny stater fundamentalists are trying to restrict your religious liberties?

 

[KevinWestern]

Then I'll tell you why.. it's called States Rights.

So let me get this straight, you're defending the right for NC voters to enact extreme-left leaning policy because California and NY does it too?

Don't you want to fight against tyranny?

.
.

If you think tyranny is America move to China.

Are you saying that tyranny in America is ok, because - after all - it's much worse in China (and somebody actually gave you a "thumbs up" for saying it)?

What kind of anti-Americans are you two?

.

 

[RDD_1210]

Still a non answer

How long have you been gay?

Hint the first time you had sex you became gay....since you never know who your partner had been with before, or who they were with, etc...

What a stupid thing to write. If I was gay wouldn't it be logical for me to support gay marriage?

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

You're right it is stupid. Hence why you and Willows entire argument is bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How long have you been gay?

Hint the first time you had sex you became gay....since you never know who your partner had been with before, or who they were with, etc...

What a stupid thing to write. If I was gay wouldn't it be logical for me to support gay marriage?

Still a non answer

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

You're right it is stupid. Hence why you and Willows entire argument is bullshit.

A non answer is a non answer.

in the early 80's how many gays died with aids versus non gay people?

 

[Sunni Man]

Who's team will you be on when these same nanny stater fundamentalists are trying to restrict your religious liberties?

I personally don't envision that happening.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

North Carolina approves a constitutional amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that in heavily African-American counties, the vote went as much as 60% FOR THE AMENDMENT. I correctly heard this morning a commentator wondering how this will turn out, since these are two very basic Democratic constituencies and they are apparently at odds on this issue. I would just interject here that when asked if same-sex marriage is the same as their fight for civil rights, 65% of the African-American respondents answered that it was not.

I have said many times that Oklahoma has a similar constitutional amendment. I supported it, I voted for it, and I gave money to the campaign. In Oklahoma, the amendment was over-whelmingly approved. It has with stood several attempts to over turn it. I support each states RIGHT to decide on their own how their state will stand on this issue and I support that states RIGHT to choose its direction. As I support each states RIGHT to decide how it will stand on abortion.

I have read on other threads that people have said that the amendment is a reason why they will not come to Oklahoma. Now, there are around 30 states with such amendments. The right of a people to CHOOSE the direction of their government is a cornerstone of the constitution and the intricate relationship between the states and the federal government. We have for too long, been dictated to by a bunch of faceless beaurocrats living in a city so removed from our state that we are tired of it. IF you feel that you cannot come to Oklahoma because of this law (as in 30 other states), then PLEASE - STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

I wanted to also say, that simply because of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage, it does NOT give creedence to, nor does it in anyway advocate for actions or hostile words of any type against a same-sex couple. Regardless of our disagreement regarding this issue, citizens of this country have basic rights which may NOT be infringed upon. I will stand up vigorously for their right to live in peace and dignity...

I agree that people have a right to vote for whatever they want; that’s America. But, I will not sit here and keep quiet when I see people in Oklahoma, people in NC vote away their personal rights and freedom to choose.

To set in stone rigid social standards (such as defining marriage) is voting away personal liberties. It’s a LEFT way of thinking.

It’s the same as saying, “I don’t want to be able to choose who I can marry, I want INSTEAD the government to make that choice for me”. It's putting the collective choice over and beyond the choice of the individual, and quite frankly I believe it's anti-American!

Let me ask you a quick question (if you don’t mind), do you identify yourself as right leaning or left leaning?

.
.

First, I wanted to tell you that I appreciate your desire to have an intellectual discussion on this topic, minus the knee-jerk name calling of someone with whom you do not agree. And I am obviously a conservative and lean to the right regarding my political views, although as Sallow has taken pains to point out, not on all of them. I do not take lightly the passage of an amendment to the state constitution regarding such an issue, and I must say that I have done a lot of soul-searching regarding such an action. As a conservative and as an American, government is NOT a friend. However, several things come into play here.

Can we agree that the state of Oklahoma, and every state for that matter, has an interest in defining what a lawfully recognized marriage is? Without providing for that definition, you open up the door for those who would 'game' the system (tax laws, estates, etc.) with psuedo-marriages that we have not even begun to contemplate. Therefore unfortunately, it is the states right and I believe obligation to codify that definition into its law. Additionally, to avoid the definition of marriage from being DICTATED to the state by a federal judge (who may have NEVER set foot in this state), this definition needs to have the full weight of the state constitution behind it.

Since I believe the need righteously exists, it then becomes necessary to define exactly what a 'marriage' is. To satisfy this need, I can only point to my personal beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage, what provides society the greatest benefit as a marriage, and to ask myself IF there MUST be a correlation between that lawful definition and a societal definition. After being a cop for 20 years, I can tell you that children are more likely to thrive in a family unit where there is a mother and a father. You do NOT sentence a child to failure if they are raised by a same-sex couple, but it is more difficult. Additionally, being older, I can tell you that the 'slippery slope' arguement does come into play. If today same-sex couples are allowed to be married, then next it will be? And don't tell me that it won't happen, I see the 'slippery slope' happening every day. Entitlements are EXACTLY a product of the slippery slope.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not state that I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that a same-sex marriage is wrong. It is a personal decision, and if a same-sex couple wants to be together, then that is their decision. I will not condemn it, BUT I will also not give it a tacit blessing by allowing it to be codified into law. Religious views are part of our morals and our morals find our ways into our laws. You cannot separate one from the other. To say that I am imposing my religious views on you ignores the fact that by including same-sex marriages into a legal definition, you impose your morals on me. Sunni Man, who posts here on this forum, is vehemently anti-gay. I understand why... I do not agree with the degree that he exhibits, but I understand why. Luckily, there are not many who agree with the degree of his stance.

So there you have my reasoning. There is a verifiable reason for the definition and I have used the best reasoning as to why I believe like I do. And I pray everyday for insight...