North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[bigrebnc1775]

Who cares ?

This is about North Carolina voting on state ballot intiative using a democratic process.

All of sudden North Carolina is evil ?

Didn't it go for Obama in 2008 (I can't recall).

It was a 50/50 split.

 

[Dot Com]

Wheres Willow?!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

**** wit does a person have a right to have sex with an animal if they want too? If you are afraid that I am a stalker why don't you stop posting?

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

**** wit does a person have a right to have sex with an animal if they want too? If you are afraid that I am a stalker why don't you stop posting?

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

Don't the people who like doing those doings don't they have rights? Why is one abnormal group more special than the other abnormal groups?

Could it be they are abnormal just like gays are abnormal?

 

[Listening]

**** wit does a person have a right to have sex with an animal if they want too? If you are afraid that I am a stalker why don't you stop posting?

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

There is no such test for constitutionality.

There is no class of persons singled out for exclusion when same sex marriage is banned.

No man can marry any man.

And any man can marry any woman (relations prohibitions notwithstanding).

 

[Peach]

**** wit does a person have a right to have sex with an animal if they want too? If you are afraid that I am a stalker why don't you stop posting?

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

Don't the people who like doing those doings don't they have rights? Why is one abnormal group more special than the other abnormal groups?

Could it be they are abnormal just like gays are abnormal?

Welcome to the 1950's! Interracial marriage is still illegal in many states, and the same hollow arguments were made to support anti miscegenation....

 

[Sunni Man]

Trolls are confusing sex with animals and gay marriage as a comparison.

They are basically the same thing.

Bestiality and homosexuality are both animalistic and border line sub human behavior.

 

[peach174]

Bestiality cannot be contract between a human and an animal because animals do not have contractual rights.

You do understand that now, I hope?

Do you need to have a contract before you have sex?

Why do those who are against same-sex marriage always - without fail - turn the discussion into one of where we're talking about animal sex?

Bizarre occurrence I've noticed in just about every SSM thread...

Because when one sin gets recognition, the rest always follows. A proven fact throughout civilizations in history.
If you have noticed those who love to have sex with beasts are starting to speak out about their rights. Take a look on the internet. Then comes pedophiles.
This is stage two of civilizations who have fallen.

Stage three is violence in society and this is where we are heading.

Stage one which has already occurred is sexual revolution ( started after WWII ). This leads to heterosexual immorality, premarital sex, adultery, living with each other without marriage, having children with out marriage, raising children with one parent, wide spread use of drugs and alcohol.
This starts the breakdown of civilized societies. Then the other two follow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

Don't the people who like doing those doings don't they have rights? Why is one abnormal group more special than the other abnormal groups?

Could it be they are abnormal just like gays are abnormal?

Welcome to the 1950's! Interracial marriage is still illegal in many states, and the same hollow arguments were made to support anti miscegenation....

Interracial marriage? nice spin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is a contract. No, bigrebnc you cannot contract with an animal for marriage. You can force you way (I hope you don't) sexually with animal, but that is disgusting.

 

[Peach]

Trolls are confusing sex with animals and gay marriage as a comparison.

They are basically the same thing.

Bestiality and homosexuality are both animalistic and border line sub human behavior.

No, you must add in ADULTERY, and sexual relations with those of other races, and creeds.

 

[koshergrl]

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

These and other laws prohibiting such activities are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion. The state also has a compelling reason to prohibit such activities, it can provide objective evidence in support of the prohibition, and because no particular class of persons is excluded, the state is not motivated by animus alone.

This is why, then, prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional, because none of the above provisions apply.

No, a person has no right to have sex with an animal, or marry multiple spouses, or one’s sister. or the like.

Don't the people who like doing those doings don't they have rights? Why is one abnormal group more special than the other abnormal groups?

Could it be they are abnormal just like gays are abnormal?

Welcome to the 1950's! Interracial marriage is still illegal in many states, and the same hollow arguments were made to support anti miscegenation....

That was before the child molester Kinsey presented his "studies" of sex with children, and de-criminalized all sorts of deviant behavior!

Yay!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Distraction. Answered and dismissed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Marriage is a contract. No, bigrebnc you cannot contract with an animal for marriage. You can force you way (I hope you don't) sexually with animal, but that is disgusting.

You can have sex without being married welcome to 2012 You don't need a contract to have sex, but in your case I'm sure you need one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What point are you trying to make Windbag? That's what I'm trying to get at....


.

Just wanted you to be aware that it is not simply a matter of two consenting adults making choices that do not affect anyone else. Children have actually suffered bullying and physical assault because they were in a family with gay parents. People might like to pretend the world is perfect, but it isn't, and any discussion of marriage involves more than the two people involved. This is especially true if we are talking about state sanctioned legal benefits that accrue from a recognized marriage. It imposes a burden on people who choose not to get married if we expand the tax benefits of marriage to more people than were able to grab it before, it can impose financial obligations on others if one. or more, of the people involved are members of the military or otherwise employed in the public service sector.

We should simply eliminate all state involvement in marriage, and end all the debate about the subject.

Yes, but is it the gay parent's fault that society bullies their children, and is that grounds to outlaw same-sex all together?

During the 1960's, a kid might have gotten bullied because his parents supported equal rights for blacks, but that was hardly a reason to give up the fight.

What I'm saying is that if same-sex marriages become recognized by the state, over time "opposing" adults will become less hateful, and will pass on less of that hate to their children, which in turn will result in less bullies.

But I'd be fine (like you said) with the state exiting out of the marriage business all together. I think it's clear that there are too many people who want to keep the term marriage all for themselves, and this might be the only viable solution...

.

Of course not, but ignoring it and pretending we live in a perfect world is stupid. Thinking that state approval of something will eventually end bullying is, at beast, self deluding and, at worst, an excuse to get the government involved in things it has no business being involved in. Even outlawing bullying is not going to end it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's false, at least in this country people thought they were doing the moral thing because blacks couldn't control/govern themselves, and others thought slavery was immoral. Slavery has a lot to do with morals and always has at least in this country.

I disagree with you on that Drock. Buying slaves and using slavery was as normal in our recent human history as is paying people compensation for work today.

Did some people find it immoral? Of corse, but it was the norm in the world....and all races were slave owners/enslaved its not some "White/black" thing, no race was exempt from slavery in the history of humankind.

Wow, my public education exposed. I never knew there were black people who owned white men and women and held them in slavery. Thanks for filling in that gap in US Historyy for me.

You do know the world is a little bit larger than the US, and existed long before the Constitution was written, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it wasn't as normal. Even slave owners talked about the morality of slave owning. And I'm sure most slaves had an opinion on the morality of being kidnapped, tortured, abused, and often killed.

I'm just talking about this country, dunno enough about slavery in other countries to comment, but in this country there's always been a moral component to it from the slave owners to the slaves to the people who opposed slavery.

If you look at just the history of the 13 colonies up to the civil war you are correct. I was taking a long view of slavery throughout human history.

Did you know we had both white and black slave owners in this country? Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

How about we take this approach:

If you apply your current “moral standards” to American society in 1800 to American society in 2012, which society wins out?

If 1800 wins out, that means morality is on the decline. If 2012 wins out, that means morality is on the incline.

Simple as that… right?


.

It is really easy to take today's standards and apply them retroactively to prove we are better and smarter than people in the past, but it is extremely arrogant. In 200 years they may look back at us and conclude that the 1800s were more moral. I won't make that judgement just so they can't laugh at me in 200 years.

 

[theHawk]

Can you tell me how it affects you.

let's pretend a gay couple (male or female, doesn't matter) get married and move in next door to you.

Habits aside (maybe they like loud music, or rev up their car at 5.30 every morning), how does their maritial status impact on your life one iota.

If anybody could give me one example where a gay couple getting married impacts on their life, then please do...but be prepared for your answer to be eviscerated....

If you could give us one example where a neighbor who doesn't recognize gay marriages impacts the gay couple's lives, then please do so....because thats what this "issue" is really about. Gays can get married in any state at any "church" that performs them. All these so called "gay marriage bans" do is say that the government won't recognize gay marriages.

Why do gay people care so much if everyone else doesn't care about their so-called marriages? None of their rights are being denied or violated, they enjoy the same rights as non-married folks.

It doesn't matter if the neighbour does or does not recognise the marriage, only what the law says.

IMO it is about certain citizens having rights and others not. That has been tried over the eons in many civilisations - never ends well.

Also, why shouldn't they have these rights for the sake of it? What gives anybody the right to take them away - especially when they hae no affect on you?

And what rights are denied exactly?

Certain tax breaks? We're not all taxed equally to begin with, regardless of marriage status.

 

[KevinWestern]

If you look at just the history of the 13 colonies up to the civil war you are correct. I was taking a long view of slavery throughout human history.

Did you know we had both white and black slave owners in this country? Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

How about we take this approach:

If you apply your current “moral standards” to American society in 1800 to American society in 2012, which society wins out?

If 1800 wins out, that means morality is on the decline. If 2012 wins out, that means morality is on the incline.

Simple as that… right?


.

It is really easy to take today's standards and apply them retroactively to prove we are better and smarter than people in the past, but it is extremely arrogant. In 200 years they may look back at us and conclude that the 1800s were more moral. I won't make that judgement just so they can't laugh at me in 200 years.

Committing mass genocide against an entire population of Africans, killing +22 million of them in the process is pretty clear cut. Not much room for "objectivity" and interpretation there...

I don't think it's 'arrogant' to think we've gotten better than that, do you?

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Just wanted you to be aware that it is not simply a matter of two consenting adults making choices that do not affect anyone else. Children have actually suffered bullying and physical assault because they were in a family with gay parents. People might like to pretend the world is perfect, but it isn't, and any discussion of marriage involves more than the two people involved. This is especially true if we are talking about state sanctioned legal benefits that accrue from a recognized marriage. It imposes a burden on people who choose not to get married if we expand the tax benefits of marriage to more people than were able to grab it before, it can impose financial obligations on others if one. or more, of the people involved are members of the military or otherwise employed in the public service sector.

We should simply eliminate all state involvement in marriage, and end all the debate about the subject.

Yes, but is it the gay parent's fault that society bullies their children, and is that grounds to outlaw same-sex all together?

During the 1960's, a kid might have gotten bullied because his parents supported equal rights for blacks, but that was hardly a reason to give up the fight.

What I'm saying is that if same-sex marriages become recognized by the state, over time "opposing" adults will become less hateful, and will pass on less of that hate to their children, which in turn will result in less bullies.

But I'd be fine (like you said) with the state exiting out of the marriage business all together. I think it's clear that there are too many people who want to keep the term marriage all for themselves, and this might be the only viable solution...

.

Of course not, but ignoring it and pretending we live in a perfect world is stupid. Thinking that state approval of something will eventually end bullying is, at beast, self deluding and, at worst, an excuse to get the government involved in things it has no business being involved in. Even outlawing bullying is not going to end it.

Of course we don't live in a perfect world, but I don't think the fear of bullying is a strong reason for reducing our personal liberties, expanding an authoritarian gov't, and denying an entire group of human beings a chance at equality and happiness.

.