North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[KevinWestern]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?

Do people like you reduce liberty for fun, or do you do it because you want everyone else to behave and make the same exact choices as you do?

.
.

 

[WillowTree]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?


.
.

The question is do you believe in the vote and do you believe in States Rights.. That is the question.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?

Do people like you reduce liberty for fun, or do you do it because you want everyone else to behave and make the same exact choices as you do?

.
.

Seems like both to me. Obviously they take joy in knowing gays can't get married and they want their lifestyle legislated by all knowing, all moral father government.

There's all sorts of insecurities that result in people being homophobes.

 

[bodecea]

"Sounds very Carolina" is what a bigot would say. You also have a lot of class, all of it low.

It's not bigotry if North Carolina earns that moniker. It just did.

Let me see you print "sounds very Californian" since they also voted no to gay marriage.

Barely...and that is being rectified.

 

[KevinWestern]

Why stomp on a man's liberty to marry his cousin or his sister? shit

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?


.
.

The question is do you believe in the vote and do you believe in States Rights.. That is the question.

I am not fighting against the concept of voting, what I'm fighting against the thing they have voted for.

If 70% of Americans vote to raise the top tax bracket up to 95% (in order to distribute all of the nation's wealth equally), I'll be against that too.

I believe in individual choice, and think that this is something the people of NC have voted away for themselves with regards to "who is an acceptable marriage partner?".

 

[WillowTree]

The real question is, why stomp on a man's liberty when the choice you're preventing him from being able to make doesn't have any effect the personal rights of you or any other individual within that society?


.
.

The question is do you believe in the vote and do you believe in States Rights.. That is the question.

I am not fighting against the concept of voting, what I'm fighting against the thing they have voted for.

I believe in individual choice, which is something the people of NC voted away with regards to "who is an acceptable marriage partner?".

so sister should be allowed to marry brother?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

 

[KevinWestern]

The question is do you believe in the vote and do you believe in States Rights.. That is the question.

I am not fighting against the concept of voting, what I'm fighting against the thing they have voted for.

I believe in individual choice, which is something the people of NC voted away with regards to "who is an acceptable marriage partner?".

so sister should be allowed to marry brother?

To be perfectly honest, Willow, I don't personally care. It won't affect my life (or your life) in any way, and therefore I don't see the need to legislate laws against it.

And what % of the population are we talking here too (brothers marrying sisters), like maybe <0.001% or less?




.
.

 

[Katzndogz]

Do people have the right to live in an ordered society and do they have the right to order that society? They do not have the right to deny someone else what they consider their "rights", they do have the right to say "you can't do that here".

One of the things that made California's medical marijuana laws palatable is that cities had the right to say "not here". And, could even change their minds if it didn't work out as they thought it would.

 

[WillowTree]

I am not fighting against the concept of voting, what I'm fighting against the thing they have voted for.

I believe in individual choice, which is something the people of NC voted away with regards to "who is an acceptable marriage partner?".

so sister should be allowed to marry brother?

To be perfectly honest, Willow, I don't personally care. It won't affect my life (or your life) in any way, and therefore I don't see the need to legislate laws against it.

And what % of the population are we talking here too (brothers marrying sisters), like maybe <0.001% or less?




.
.

well if it won't bother anybody then what does it matter the percentage?

 

[KevinWestern]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

Leave the specifics and the defining of acceptable social "norms" up to whatever private institutions or communities you happen to be a part of.

We all aught to be able to choose.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

so sister should be allowed to marry brother?

To be perfectly honest, Willow, I don't personally care. It won't affect my life (or your life) in any way, and therefore I don't see the need to legislate laws against it.

And what % of the population are we talking here too (brothers marrying sisters), like maybe <0.001% or less?




.
.

well if it won't bother anybody then what does it matter the percentage?

The % doesn't matter, I just wanted to point out the irrelevancy of your specific example.

.

 

[Dick Tuck]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

Since when is there a right to be married?

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

 

[WillowTree]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

Since when is there a right to be married?

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Oh goody then sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry.. We're moving right along in this equal rights thingy..

 

[Dick Tuck]

Lesbians don't get aids. maybe he should ask himself why that is.

So are you cool with lesbians marrying each other then?

I'm on records as saying I don't care.. what i care about is States Rights the Constitution and the right to Vote.. all of which you would take away from me in a heartbeat.. so **** ewe running.

So it would be fine with you if a State ignored Loving v Virginia? Damn you're a pig.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

So...

(1) People could be in a civil union, but not married
(2) People could be married, but not in a civil union

The issue is (2), where a husband/wife does not have the privileges of a husband/wife unless they pettition the state.

 

[WillowTree]

So are you cool with lesbians marrying each other then?

I'm on records as saying I don't care.. what i care about is States Rights the Constitution and the right to Vote.. all of which you would take away from me in a heartbeat.. so **** ewe running.

So it would be fine with you if a State ignored Loving v Virginia? Damn you're a pig.

damn you're a fool.. what does loving v virgina have to do with homosexual marriage?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

Since when is there a right to be married?

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Dick tuck did you get dick fucked really hard last night? Let's take a look at the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since no power as been granted to the federal government about marriage it's left up to the states to decide. North Carolina just did it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Since when is there a right to be married?

10th Amendment and Equal Protection. Is it a right of nearest of kin, starting with a spouse, to make end of life decisions; purchase property in common; and right to receive heir rights under common law? A homosexual relationship isn't my cup of tea, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight for the deprivation of civil liberties and equal protection for all.

The amending a state constitution to deprive certain rights of a minority, that is legally available to a majority, is bullshit.

Oh goody then sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry.. We're moving right along in this equal rights thingy..

Considering you sound so inbred that you could be a sandwich, I'm surprised you aren't arguing for that.

 

[bodecea]

I am... intrigued... by those who argue for same-sex marriage because it denies privileges, and then argue that the state should remove itself from marriage altogether.

The State AND Federal Government should get out of the business of defining marriage all together. They should issue civil unions (for legal purposes) to those who want to build a life around each other, but that should be the extent.

Leave the specifics and the defining of acceptable social "norms" up to whatever private institutions or communities you happen to be a part of.

We all aught to be able to choose.

.

What are you doing to make that happen?