North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Listening]

Well then it's a good thing we have separation of church and state, innit.

But you just used the bible to justify no plural marriage.

You are so cute. The way you try to come off as an adult.

Now run along and let the adults take care of things.

No, what it shows is we have laws on the book in all 50 states that provide a contractual basis between two people to form a union. The bible has nothing really to do with that fact. Denial of a class of people, based on their sexual orientation, which is completely legal, and no longer considered any sort of debilitating disease, is a deprivation of equal protection.

There is no class of people as you like to call them.

There are men and there are women.

Someone was arguing the other day for gay marriage (who or she loves) and against polygamy (total abuse of women....even thought marriage is never an abuse of women ?)

I asked about a bisexual ?

They walked out of the lunch room.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not really.

I do neg rep pukes who support Nazi propaganda, and who stalk me and track my rep.

Which are you?

I'm a part of the group who disagrees with your lies, which is why you neg people.

And it sounds like your secret is out lol.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't lie.

Unlike you and the Pooper, and Ravi, and a few others.

I also don't abuse the rep system.

Unlike a few others.

 

[Listening]

Looks like recess is over.

Poop has left the conversation.

 

[koshergrl]

She needs a drink, and some more rep. Her hangover is bringing her down...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like recess is over.

Poop has left the conversation.

I think it was the Bible reference that got her.

 

[KevinWestern]

Don't look for an answer....other than BDPoop will tell you it's your fight.

You see....it's O.K. to scream about rights as long as they are right "rights".

But use the same argument to justify something they don't like and they turn tail and head for the nearest cave.

Plain and simple, in the context of this conversation it is your “side” - and not BDBoops – who is trying to reduce the amount of personal liberties we have as citizens of the United States. It is your side who is trying to grow the Authoritarian reach of the government, to make it larger and more powerful, in turn diminishing the power of the individual.

It is your group – this time – pushing through left-leaning policy.

And I don’t like it.

I’d rather give the citizens of the United States the power to choose – under law – who they want to marry, vs use the “big nanny” government to make that choice for us. It’s totally anti-American what they did in NC, and they should not be congratulated for it.



.

I congratulate N.C. for exercising the democratic process that is available to them.

If you don't like it....don't live there.

You see, that is why I would never want a federal anti gay marriage bill. That way if a state wants to allow gay marriage they can.

You can shove the rest....I really don't care how you view it.

THEY voted for what THEY wanted in THIER state.

I'm not against our voting process, I'm against the tyranny they've voted for.

When fellow citizens willingly vote away their liberties and the amount of choices they have under law, it just boils my blood.

Again, sad day for America, small gov't, and freedom.

I guess I'm just a small gov't guy, that's all...

 

[koshergrl]

It's not tyrannical to refuse to reward people who don't participate in a particular program or construct for not participating.

It would be tyrannical if they decided to make those people PAY because they don't participate. Sort of like people who don't participate in Obamacare are fined for not participating in that particular program...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Plain and simple, in the context of this conversation it is your “side” - and not BDBoops – who is trying to reduce the amount of personal liberties we have as citizens of the United States. It is your side who is trying to grow the Authoritarian reach of the government, to make it larger and more powerful, in turn diminishing the power of the individual.

It is your group – this time – pushing through left-leaning policy.

And I don’t like it.

I’d rather give the citizens of the United States the power to choose – under law – who they want to marry, vs use the “big nanny” government to make that choice for us. It’s totally anti-American what they did in NC, and they should not be congratulated for it.



.

I congratulate N.C. for exercising the democratic process that is available to them.

If you don't like it....don't live there.

You see, that is why I would never want a federal anti gay marriage bill. That way if a state wants to allow gay marriage they can.

You can shove the rest....I really don't care how you view it.

THEY voted for what THEY wanted in THIER state.

I'm not against our voting process, I'm against the tyranny they've voted for.

When fellow citizens willingly vote away their liberties and the amount of choices they have under law, it just boils my blood.

Again, sad day for America, small gov't, and freedom...

What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?

 

[koshergrl]

Seriously. Is it discriminatory to afford the winner of a race more $$ than the loser?

The payment is for WINNING. Not losing. If you WIN, you get the $$. If you lose, you don't.

Marriage is for heteros who are MARRIED. Not for people who aren't. If you want the perks, participate in the program.

 

[Listening]

Plain and simple, in the context of this conversation it is your “side” - and not BDBoops – who is trying to reduce the amount of personal liberties we have as citizens of the United States. It is your side who is trying to grow the Authoritarian reach of the government, to make it larger and more powerful, in turn diminishing the power of the individual.

It is your group – this time – pushing through left-leaning policy.

And I don’t like it.

I’d rather give the citizens of the United States the power to choose – under law – who they want to marry, vs use the “big nanny” government to make that choice for us. It’s totally anti-American what they did in NC, and they should not be congratulated for it.



.

I congratulate N.C. for exercising the democratic process that is available to them.

If you don't like it....don't live there.

You see, that is why I would never want a federal anti gay marriage bill. That way if a state wants to allow gay marriage they can.

You can shove the rest....I really don't care how you view it.

THEY voted for what THEY wanted in THIER state.

I'm not against our voting process, I'm against the tyranny they've voted for.

When fellow citizens willingly vote away their liberties and the amount of choices they have under law, it just boils my blood.

Again, sad day for America, small gov't, and freedom...

You'll get over it.

There are many things.....like Obamacare & Social Security & Medicare & Selective Incorporation....that burn my ass.

You'll just have to work harder at this one.....and I'll work just as hard against you.

Isn't America great !!!!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I congratulate N.C. for exercising the democratic process that is available to them.

If you don't like it....don't live there.

You see, that is why I would never want a federal anti gay marriage bill. That way if a state wants to allow gay marriage they can.

You can shove the rest....I really don't care how you view it.

THEY voted for what THEY wanted in THIER state.

I'm not against our voting process, I'm against the tyranny they've voted for.

When fellow citizens willingly vote away their liberties and the amount of choices they have under law, it just boils my blood.

Again, sad day for America, small gov't, and freedom...

What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?

I guess I have to keep repeating my answers to the same questions.

Beastiality is animal abuse, animals can't consent.

Polygamy should be legal.

We determine an age where lawfully people can consent or not, that's 18, so it doesn't matter if a 14 year old "wants" to marry a 40 year old.

I need to copy and paste, cuz i'm sure i'll have to repeat myself again.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's not tyrannical to refuse to reward people who don't participate in a particular program or construct for not participating.

It would be tyrannical if they decided to make those people PAY because they don't participate. Sort of like people who don't participate in Obamacare are fined for not participating in that particular program...

It reduces our choices - under law - that we can make as citizens.

It's a reduction of personal Liberty, and an expansion of gov't authority.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just negged alliebaba for talking stupid. She is koshergirl in this incarnation.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the expansion of government authority is the government forcing us to afford the same privileges to gay couples that we have always extended only to hetero ones, and forcing us to change our terminology against our will.

That is the reduction of liberty. I have no interest in providing homosexuals the same perks as married couples. Those perks are meant to encourage stable, traditional families which have been proven to be the backbone of a strong and healthy society.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, the expansion of government authority is the government forcing us to afford the same privileges to gay couples that we have always extended only to hetero ones, and forcing us to change our terminology against our will.

That is the reduction of liberty. I have no interest in providing homosexuals the same perks as married couples. Those perks are meant to encourage stable, traditional families which have been proven to be the backbone of a strong and healthy society.

And you as an authoritarian, feels it's your determination based on sexuality as to what gov't perks to give out.

The more gov't side you push for is very liberal, the gov't forcing your views on others is very authoritarian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the argument used to prohibit women and younger adults and men without or only limited property or folks of color from voting. There is no difference. And the tide of history will sweep the alliebabakoshergirl objections away within the next twenty years.

 

[koshergrl]

Correct me if I'm wrong..I believe gays are allowed to vote.

Provided they aren't felons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm not against our voting process, I'm against the tyranny they've voted for.

When fellow citizens willingly vote away their liberties and the amount of choices they have under law, it just boils my blood.

Again, sad day for America, small gov't, and freedom...

What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?

I guess I have to keep repeating my answers to the same questions.

Beastiality is animal abuse, animals can't consent.

Polygame should be legal.

We determine an age where lawfully people can consent or not, that's 18, so it doesn't matter if a 14 year old "wants" to marry a 40 year old.

I need to copy and paste, cuz i'm sure i'll have to repeat myself again.

Beastiality is animal abuse, animals can't consent

How do you know it's abuse is it because society perceives it as abuse and is abnormal?

Polygame should be legal.

We do have laws against it and no one is complaining selective rights I guess?

We determine an age where lawfully people can consent or not, that's 18, so it doesn't matter if a 14 year old "wants" to marry a 40 year old.

You're talking about rights being taken away but you aren't defending the rights of those who like to have sex with animals or who like to have more than one spouse or like to marry someone who might be a teenager. Selective rights that's what you believe in.

 

[Listening]

No, the expansion of government authority is the government forcing us to afford the same privileges to gay couples that we have always extended only to hetero ones, and forcing us to change our terminology against our will.

That is the reduction of liberty. I have no interest in providing homosexuals the same perks as married couples. Those perks are meant to encourage stable, traditional families which have been proven to be the backbone of a strong and healthy society.

Correct !

Group rights don't exist.

Everyone man has the right to marry a woman.

No man has the right to marry a man.

How is that so complex.

It is simply what society does to preserve itself.

Now, ask me about our divorce rate !!!!

That does not help things (and it puts women in poverty).