North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[KevinWestern]

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.

Funny, because if I had kids, I wouldn't let them near people like you with a ten foot pole.

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us to enjoy a little thing called liberty, and the ability to make choices for ourselves (as individuals - that is), and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

Why spend your time trying to destroy the core principles that made America great? why not just move to Venezuela, where social communism is more acceptable?


.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Funny, because if I had kids, I wouldn't let them near people like you with a ten foot pole.

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us liberties and the ability to make choices for ourselves, and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

In the 1960's they called people like you "commies". Today, I think America-hating "asshole" does the trick.


.

Our government allows? WTF the government has no authority to allow the government does not give rights. The government is there to protect rights. And their is no right too marry.

 

[skookerasbil]

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

fringe is gay

 

[WillowTree]

They are basically the same thing.

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

Funny, because if I had kids, I wouldn't let them near people like you with a ten foot pole.

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us liberties and the ability to make choices for ourselves, and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

In the 1960's they called people like you "commies". Today, I think America-hating "asshole" does the trick.


.

Our government allows? WTF the government has no authority to allow the government does not give rights. The government is there to protect rights. And their is no right too marry.

shows you how fucked up and ignorant a democrat is?

 

[KevinWestern]

Funny, because if I had kids, I wouldn't let them near people like you with a ten foot pole.

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us liberties and the ability to make choices for ourselves, and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

In the 1960's they called people like you "commies". Today, I think America-hating "asshole" does the trick.


.

Our government allows? WTF the government has no authority to allow the government does not give rights. The government is there to protect rights. And their is no right too marry.

shows you how fucked up and ignorant a democrat is?

Democrat?

Explain how you arrived on that one...


.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our government allows? WTF the government has no authority to allow the government does not give rights. The government is there to protect rights. And their is no right too marry.

shows you how fucked up and ignorant a democrat is?

Democrat?

Explain how you arrived on that one...


.

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us to enjoy a little thing called liberty, and the ability to make choices for ourselves (as individuals - that is), and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

Why spend your time trying to destroy the core principles that made America great? why not just move to Venezuela, where social communism is more acceptable?

LOL, you are soo far of base that you don't even have a clue about me.

I hate communism and and detest socialists with a passion.

And find the liberal left mainly composed of OWS type loons.


Also the rest of your post is equally idiotic.

In that you equate backing the homo agenda with being somehow patriotic.

And that people who don't side with gays are anti-liberty and unAmericam.

What a freaken load of horse manure!!

 

[KevinWestern]

shows you how fucked up and ignorant a democrat is?

Democrat?

Explain how you arrived on that one...


.

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us to enjoy a little thing called liberty, and the ability to make choices for ourselves (as individuals - that is), and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

Why spend your time trying to destroy the core principles that made America great? why not just move to Venezuela, where social communism is more acceptable?

LOL, you are soo far of base that you don't even have a clue about me.

I hate communism and and detest socialists with a passion.

And find the liberal left mainly composed of OWS type loons.


Also the rest of your post is equally idiotic.

In that you equate backing the homo agenda with being somehow patriotic.

And that people who don't side with gays are anti-liberty and unAmericam.

What a freaken load of horse manure!!

Sunni, I admit I lost my temper on that last post. I know a lot of wonderful gay people, and found your bigotry infuriating to somewhat of a personal boiling point.

That said, this has nothing to do with "if you don't back the gay agenda, you're anti-american"; it instead has to do specifically with the fact that you (by promoting an authoritarian government) are restricting the amount of choices we have as free Americans.

More liberty: The individual can choose whatever consenting adult they want to be married to.

Less liberty: The individual can only choose - under law - to get married to a member of the opposite sex.

It's all about the restriction of choice, and the restriction of liberty. Those two things are blatantly Anti-American in my view.

That's my stance.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democrat?

Explain how you arrived on that one...


.

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

 

[KevinWestern]

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

Polygamy - no infringement, I don't care. Same goes with family members marrying, or sex with animals - I don't care.

If a guy ******* wants to blow a goat, let him. Sickos like this are a small, small, infinite minute fraction of the population. And not to mention, no amount of law or government involvement is going to stop him from doing that, so what's the point. Right?

As for underage marriage, it does infringe on the rights of the child and therefore needs to be regulated, because they are not of legal age to consent and say "yes" or "no" in the matter.

.
.

 

[koshergrl]

No. Liberty isn't about doing whatever you WANT to do.

I want to get money from the casinos. I want to get extra points on my applications for being black. I want to get tax breaks rich people get. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to those things.

Marriage is an institution that has a man and a woman. People who entered into this institution get a few perks, to encourage people to participate in the institution as it benefits our society. Just because we #1, identify the institution with the word "marriage" and #2, promote the institution with a few perks doesn't mean that anybody who wants the perks or wants to be called "married" has a RIGHT to be called married and reap the benefits.

They aren't being denied anything. If two gay people want to find members of the opposite sex and get married, they're entitled to. The word "marriage" doesn't mean 'love". Nobody is denything them the right to love each other, to live together, to combine assets, to adopt children.

But they don't have the right to be called something that they aren't. They aren't "married" just because they want to be "married" and they aren't entitled to the benefits we reserve for people who are willing to commit to being part of a traditional family unit. There are benefits for society and for families to engage in traditional hetero marriage...and just because a couple of people want to reap the benefits without actually engaging in the preferred behavior doesn't mean they have a right to the perks we offer those who do.

My daughter wants to be a self manager. Self managers get an ice cream cone or something, and spend some time with the principal...and I don't know what else.

She hasn't earned it yet. There are certain behaviors she has to exhibit before she is awarded those rewards. Does she have a right to the perks and the title anyway? Nope. Neither are gays entitled to the title and perks we give hetero married couples. They aren't hetero, and they aren't married. So they don't get the title, and they don't get the perks. It's their choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm going to teach my children that the reason America is great is because our government allows us to enjoy a little thing called liberty, and the ability to make choices for ourselves (as individuals - that is), and that we will always be battling against folks like you - who hate, and live only to restrict our freedoms through leftist authoritarian policy.

Why spend your time trying to destroy the core principles that made America great? why not just move to Venezuela, where social communism is more acceptable?

LOL, you are soo far of base that you don't even have a clue about me.

I hate communism and and detest socialists with a passion.

And find the liberal left mainly composed of OWS type loons.

Also the rest of your post is equally idiotic.

In that you equate backing the homo agenda with being somehow patriotic.

And that people who don't side with gays are anti-liberty and unAmericam.

What a freaken load of horse manure!!

It is indeed un-American to deny anyone equal access to the law, including same-sex couples, it is illegal and un-Constitutional.

That one perceives homosexuality to be ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ is irrelevant; nor does it give anyone license to subject homosexuals to punitive measures.

It’s not a matter of ‘siding’ with anyone or anything, and you have the right to be ignorant and hate homosexuals if you so desire, but you do not have the right to attempt to codify that hate or ignorance.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

No.

There is no ‘right’ to any of the above.

 

[KevinWestern]

shows you how fucked up and ignorant a democrat is?

Democrat?

Explain how you arrived on that one...


.

I would like for you to explain how the government allows anything? It doesn't have the authority to allow. It's their to protect not allow or give permission

The government "doesn't have the authority to allow"?

The government either makes things legal (allowed), or illegal (not allowed).

In America, I'm allowed a right to free speech. However, I'm not allowed to murder people.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Acts that infringe on the personal rights of other individuals in the society should be regulated. Acts that don't infringe on the personal rights of other individuals shouldn't be regulated.

That's my view.

.

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

Polygamy - no infringement, I don't care. Same goes with family members marrying, or sex with animals - I don't care.

If a guy ******* wants to blow a goat, let him. Sickos like this are a small, small, infinite minute fraction of the population. And not to mention, no amount of law or government involvement is going to stop him from doing that, so what's the point. Right?

As for underage marriage, it does infringe on the rights of the child and therefore needs to be regulated, because they are not of legal age to consent and say "yes" or "no" in the matter.

.
.

Polygamy - no infringement, I don't care. Same goes with family members marrying, or sex with animals - I don't care.

I realize you don't care but what you're doing is picking and choosing who's right's are worth protecting.

Maybe their are laws against that just as gay marriage because it's abnormal to do that.

 

[Old Rocks]

orth Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.
With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.


Read more: North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage | Fox News










Is evolver in chief too late?

OK. So you really are concerned with who is ******* whom. I am not. If a man wants to marry another man, none of my business. Or a woman another woman.

Given that over half the man-woman marriages end in divorce, I hardly see an arguement for the sanctity of marriage.

 

[koshergrl]

Who cares what you think about anything?

 

[KevinWestern]

No. Liberty isn't about doing whatever you WANT to do.

I want to get money from the casinos. I want to get extra points on my applications for being black. I want to get tax breaks rich people get. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to those things.

Marriage is an institution that has a man and a woman. People who entered into this institution get a few perks, to encourage people to participate in the institution as it benefits our society. Just because we #1, identify the institution with the word "marriage" and #2, promote the institution with a few perks doesn't mean that anybody who wants the perks or wants to be called "married" has a RIGHT to be called married and reap the benefits.

They aren't being denied anything. If two gay people want to find members of the opposite sex and get married, they're entitled to. The word "marriage" doesn't mean 'love". Nobody is denything them the right to love each other, to live together, to combine assets, to adopt children.

But they don't have the right to be called something that they aren't. They aren't "married" just because they want to be "married" and they aren't entitled to the benefits we reserve for people who are willing to commit to being part of a traditional family unit. There are benefits for society and for families to engage in traditional hetero marriage...and just because a couple of people want to reap the benefits without actually engaging in the preferred behavior doesn't mean they have a right to the perks we offer those who do.

My daughter wants to be a self manager. Self managers get an ice cream cone or something, and spend some time with the principal...and I don't know what else.

She hasn't earned it yet. There are certain behaviors she has to exhibit before she is awarded those rewards. Does she have a right to the perks and the title anyway? Nope. Neither are gays entitled to the title and perks we give hetero married couples. They aren't hetero, and they aren't married. So they don't get the title, and they don't get the perks. It's their choice.

Kosher, my case is this. Our liberties should only be restricted when they infringe on another person's rights. Here's some examples of actions that infringe:

(group 1)
1.) Stealing
2.) Assault
3.) Extortion
4.) Rape
5.) Murder
6.) Gov't mandating contraception on employee plans

I'm totally fine with those types of activities being prohibited.

Now, here's some examples of actions that don't infringe on anyone else's personal rights or freedoms within a society:

(group 2)
1.) Wearing purple T-shirts
2.) Protesting peacefully in a public space
3.) Singing quietly in a public park
4.) Dancing at a bar
5.) Smoking pot in your own home
6.) Two consenting adult females getting married

I happen to think that when we restrict any of those things in group 2, we are unnecessarily reducing the amount of free choice we have, and ultimately are unnecessarily stepping closer (no matter how small the step) towards a scenario of government tyranny.

.
.

 

[KevinWestern]

Like those who would like to have more than one spouse? Or those who would like to marry a family member? Or someone who would like to have sex with an animal? Or even marry someone who is under age? Are those acts that infringe on someones rights?

Polygamy - no infringement, I don't care. Same goes with family members marrying, or sex with animals - I don't care.

If a guy ******* wants to blow a goat, let him. Sickos like this are a small, small, infinite minute fraction of the population. And not to mention, no amount of law or government involvement is going to stop him from doing that, so what's the point. Right?

As for underage marriage, it does infringe on the rights of the child and therefore needs to be regulated, because they are not of legal age to consent and say "yes" or "no" in the matter.

.
.

Polygamy - no infringement, I don't care. Same goes with family members marrying, or sex with animals - I don't care.

I realize you don't care but what you're doing is picking and choosing who's right's are worth protecting.

Maybe their are laws against that just as gay marriage because it's abnormal to do that.

How am I picking and choosing anything? Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion....

My philosophy is that if an action infringes on another person's personal rights it should be prohibited. If it does not infringe, it shouldn't be prohibited.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How am I picking and choosing who's rights are worth protecting? Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion....

Nor does anyone else, including the poster.

My philosophy is that if an action infringes on another person's personal rights that it should be prohibited. If it does not infringe, it shouldn't be prohibited.

Obviously you’d make a bad social conservative.