North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[koshergrl]

Nobody is restricting their liberty to get married.

But being "married" isn't two people of the same sex. The word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "two chicks who like each other a lot".

We provide certain perks to married couples....just as insurance companies give perks for having a good driving record, or people can accrue flight hours for flying a lot. Just because those things are available doesn't mean they are available for the asking to people who haven't participated in the behavior that earns them frequent flier miles or lower insurance rates. I'm not going to call you a woman, or a dog, or a tent, just because you say "I want to be a tent". You wanting it doesn't make it so, and I'm under no obligation to define you as something I know you're not. You don't have the right to force me to provide you with the benefits or the title that is reserved for a specific group of people, that you have chosen not to be included with.

Now if someone said "Gay people can't marry a person of the opposite sex" I would say "that's a violation of their rights". Because it would be. We would be denying them something that anyone else can engage in, just because they're gay.

But they aren't denied marriage because they're gay. That's not what's happening. They are saying "we're not going to participate in this ritual but we still want you to give us the benefits of it."

Sorry. You don't get a self manager button if you refuse to participate in the program.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nobody is restricting their liberty to get married.

But being "married" isn't two people of the same sex. The word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "two chicks who like each other a lot".

We provide certain perks to married couples....just as insurance companies give perks for having a good driving record, or people can accrue flight hours for flying a lot. Just because those things are available doesn't mean they are available for the asking to people who haven't participated in the behavior that earns them frequent flier miles or lower insurance rates. I'm not going to call you a woman, or a dog, or a tent, just because you say "I want to be a tent". You wanting it doesn't make it so, and I'm under no obligation to define you as something I know you're not. You don't have the right to force me to provide you with the benefits or the title that is reserved for a specific group of people, that you have chosen not to be included with.

Now if someone said "Gay people can't marry a person of the opposite sex" I would say "that's a violation of their rights". Because it would be. We would be denying them something that anyone else can engage in, just because they're gay.

But they aren't denied marriage because they're gay. That's not what's happening. They are saying "we're not going to participate in this ritual but we still want you to give us the benefits of it."

Sorry. You don't get a self manager button if you refuse to participate in the program.

And the above is why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from such ignorance and hate, and the desire to codify that ignorance and hate.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody is restricting their liberty to get married.

But being "married" isn't two people of the same sex. The word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "two chicks who like each other a lot".

We provide certain perks to married couples....just as insurance companies give perks for having a good driving record, or people can accrue flight hours for flying a lot. Just because those things are available doesn't mean they are available for the asking to people who haven't participated in the behavior that earns them frequent flier miles or lower insurance rates. I'm not going to call you a woman, or a dog, or a tent, just because you say "I want to be a tent". You wanting it doesn't make it so, and I'm under no obligation to define you as something I know you're not. You don't have the right to force me to provide you with the benefits or the title that is reserved for a specific group of people, that you have chosen not to be included with.

Now if someone said "Gay people can't marry a person of the opposite sex" I would say "that's a violation of their rights". Because it would be. We would be denying them something that anyone else can engage in, just because they're gay.

But they aren't denied marriage because they're gay. That's not what's happening. They are saying "we're not going to participate in this ritual but we still want you to give us the benefits of it."

Sorry. You don't get a self manager button if you refuse to participate in the program.

Sorry but really? "WE" provide perks to married people? So...when they get divorced which happens quite a bit, should "we" ask for the "perks" we provided be refunded? They got divorced, they are no longer exhibiting the behavior to earn the "perks" that "we" are providing?

Nice to know "we" are so powerful to determine who gets the "perks" and that "we" can demand refunds when they take "our" institution and make a sham out of it.

 

[koshergrl]

"We" is my way of saying "the American people" since we're talking about the US.

When they get divorced they no longer get the "married" tax status. No refund required.

Sorry...that obviously chafes you a bit. Too bad.

 

[Richrdh]

I have never seen so many thoughtful, intelligent comments regarding the bigotry, prejudice, and hate that is now constitutional law in North Carolina. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Says who? The Catholic Church? Your local marriage licensing bureau? Now the state law says it is okay. Actually they say it is more than ok, they say anything else is not legal. And how does this help society? How does this get the economy going? How does this do anything other than breed more hate? Just another way to discriminate. You go NC.

 

[Listening]

I have never seen so many thoughtful, intelligent comments regarding the bigotry, prejudice, and hate that is now constitutional law in North Carolina. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Says who? The Catholic Church? Your local marriage licensing bureau? Now the state law says it is okay. Actually they say it is more than ok, they say anything else is not legal. And how does this help society? How does this get the economy going? How does this do anything other than breed more hate? Just another way to discriminate. You go NC.

Sorry Richard....but it is the law.

Suck on it.

And don't move there if you don't like it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

So people have a right to marry and have as many spouses that they want too? People have a right to marry family members?
People have a right to have sex with animals?
Yes you are picking and choosing special rights that fit the political flavor of the day.if you say it's not an infringement and you don't care. Deal with it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nobody is restricting their liberty to get married.

But being "married" isn't two people of the same sex. The word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "two chicks who like each other a lot".

We provide certain perks to married couples....just as insurance companies give perks for having a good driving record, or people can accrue flight hours for flying a lot. Just because those things are available doesn't mean they are available for the asking to people who haven't participated in the behavior that earns them frequent flier miles or lower insurance rates. I'm not going to call you a woman, or a dog, or a tent, just because you say "I want to be a tent". You wanting it doesn't make it so, and I'm under no obligation to define you as something I know you're not. You don't have the right to force me to provide you with the benefits or the title that is reserved for a specific group of people, that you have chosen not to be included with.

Now if someone said "Gay people can't marry a person of the opposite sex" I would say "that's a violation of their rights". Because it would be. We would be denying them something that anyone else can engage in, just because they're gay.

But they aren't denied marriage because they're gay. That's not what's happening. They are saying "we're not going to participate in this ritual but we still want you to give us the benefits of it."

Sorry. You don't get a self manager button if you refuse to participate in the program.

And the above is why we have a Constitution, to protect citizens from such ignorance and hate, and the desire to codify that ignorance and hate.

There is no right to getting married dumb ass.

 

[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

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.

.

Laws are created by the people by voting for an elected Representative. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO CREATE LAWS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nobody is restricting their liberty to get married.

But being "married" isn't two people of the same sex. The word has a meaning, and it doesn't mean "two chicks who like each other a lot".

We provide certain perks to married couples....just as insurance companies give perks for having a good driving record, or people can accrue flight hours for flying a lot. Just because those things are available doesn't mean they are available for the asking to people who haven't participated in the behavior that earns them frequent flier miles or lower insurance rates. I'm not going to call you a woman, or a dog, or a tent, just because you say "I want to be a tent". You wanting it doesn't make it so, and I'm under no obligation to define you as something I know you're not. You don't have the right to force me to provide you with the benefits or the title that is reserved for a specific group of people, that you have chosen not to be included with.

Now if someone said "Gay people can't marry a person of the opposite sex" I would say "that's a violation of their rights". Because it would be. We would be denying them something that anyone else can engage in, just because they're gay.

But they aren't denied marriage because they're gay. That's not what's happening. They are saying "we're not going to participate in this ritual but we still want you to give us the benefits of it."

Sorry. You don't get a self manager button if you refuse to participate in the program.

**** you bigot.

Blow it out of your ass transformer boy.

 

[nitroz]

"A few thoughts on gay marriage.

For thousands of years marriage has been the purview of the church. A rite sanctioned, controlled and, in some cases, arranged by the church. That's all well and good BUT... somewhere along the way of America becoming what it is today, the government started giving cetrian benifits to those that are married.

These benifits include special tax rates, survivor benifits for social security, defacto power of attorney, inheritance rights, as well as specific responsibilities and obligations toward children and debts created as a result of the act of marriage.

This creates a special class of people recognized by the government known as "married".

Now, lets leave sexual orientation completely out of the discussion for a moment. Our constitution, as well as several federal, state and local laws make it clear that if the government offers benifits, rights, and privledges to one class of people, it cannot deny those benifits to any other people based on race, creed, color, age, or SEX.

This means that, by default, gay marriage is already legal in the united states. The government doesn't have the authority to prevent such a union.

The only way the government would be able to stop same sex marriage would be to stop recognizing marriage of any kind. Cancel all the benifits and rights assigned to straight couples, then marriage would revert back to the church and they could decide who deserves to experience such religious rights (rites?).

Until that happens, I don't see any legitimate reason to ban same sex couples from getting married and receiving the same rights and benifits as opposite sex couples.

If you have a legitimate argument against that I would love to listen to it. Otherwise I think it's time to admit that gays getting married was never the problem. The problem is the government usurping religious rites and practices and then being obligated to provide those same benifits to all citizens."

.

 

[koshergrl]

Tripe.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A few thoughts on gay marriage.

For thousands of years marriage has been the purview of the church. A rite sanctioned, controlled and, in some cases, arranged by the church. That's all well and good BUT... somewhere along the way of America becoming what it is today, the government started giving cetrian benifits to those that are married.

These benifits include special tax rates, survivor benifits for social security, defacto power of attorney, inheritance rights, as well as specific responsibilities and obligations toward children and debts created as a result of the act of marriage.

This creates a special class of people recognized by the government known as "married".

Now, lets leave sexual orientation completely out of the discussion for a moment. Our constitution, as well as several federal, state and local laws make it clear that if the government offers benifits, rights, and privledges to one class of people, it cannot deny those benifits to any other people based on race, creed, color, age, or SEX.

This means that, by default, gay marriage is already legal in the united states. The government doesn't have the authority to prevent such a union.

The only way the government would be able to stop same sex marriage would be to stop recognizing marriage of any kind. Cancel all the benifits and rights assigned to straight couples, then marriage would revert back to the church and they could decide who deserves to experience such religious rights (rites?).

Until that happens, I don't see any legitimate reason to ban same sex couples from getting married and receiving the same rights and benifits as opposite sex couples.

If you have a legitimate argument against that I would love to listen to it. Otherwise I think it's time to admit that gays getting married was never the problem. The problem is the government usurping religious rites and practices and then being obligated to provide those same benifits to all citizens."

.

Now, lets leave sexual orientation completely out of the discussion for a moment.

No let's not. Why do you pick and choose what rights you defend and not all rights?
Oh and another thing their is not right to marry

 

[tjvh]

North Carolina has spoken. This whole Gay marriage debate seems to center around whether marriage is between a man, and a woman. The real argument is about the Financial benefits that come to those Married people, who actually DO make babies, being desired by those who ARGUABLY do not. Bottom line is a person who is Gay should have NO more Rights, and rewards ( reduced Taxes, and lower cost Healthcare, etc.) than a single person who is NOT Married, that is also ARGUABLY not producing babies either. I've said it before, NOBODY is more discriminated against in America than a single heterosexual male without children... And that's a FACT.

 

[koshergrl]

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Marriage is a protected social construct that consists of a man and a woman.

It has existed since man has existed. Homosexuals have, and still, enter into it. Nobody wants to prevent homosexuals from entering into marriage just like everyone else. When they decide to contract with a person of the opposite sex they will be offered the benefits of marriage just like anyone else. They can still be as gay as they want. Nobody gives a crap if they ever touch their spouses, or if they bring their lovers into the house.

Therefore it's not discriminatory. Anybody can enter into a marriage contract, provided they're old enough to consent, not currently married to someone else, and of a different sex than their spouse.

 

[koshergrl]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

yep but let's not worry about that now, let future generations hash that out

 

[candycorn]

"We" is my way of saying "the American people" since we're talking about the US.

When they get divorced they no longer get the "married" tax status. No refund required.

Sorry...that obviously chafes you a bit. Too bad.

So if they got married just for the tax beaks; they should have to return the balance. Since 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, "we" should demand the money back; obviously some of these marriages are just for the tax breaks. Agree?

 

[candycorn]

I have never seen so many thoughtful, intelligent comments regarding the bigotry, prejudice, and hate that is now constitutional law in North Carolina. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Says who? The Catholic Church? Your local marriage licensing bureau? Now the state law says it is okay. Actually they say it is more than ok, they say anything else is not legal. And how does this help society? How does this get the economy going? How does this do anything other than breed more hate? Just another way to discriminate. You go NC.

Well what is the point of being in power if you can't oppress others? "We" clawed our way to the top of the power structure just so we can keep others down obviously.

 

[SniperFire]

Though I guarantee that once it's legal across the land for homosexuals to marry, the next group up with be pedophiles, who will claim (they do already) that it's "discriminatory" to deny marriage to people based on their age.

I believe the pedophiles will be the third group.

First group will be the polygamists. Traveling salesman marrying and abandoning 85 wives around the Nation.

Second group will be the incestuals. Bob marrying his mother and 6 sisters.


Preventing such unions would be 'discriminatory' under any redifiniing of marriage.

I'm still not sure yet when the Sheep herder makes his plea pretaining to his beloved ewes.