North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[KevinWestern]

You support gay marriage don't you?

I support liberty and the ability for a citizen to choose - on his/her own (without the help of nanny gov't) - whether or not a same-sex partner would be suitable for his/her own life.

And I repeat, perverts exist in ALL walks of life. No group holds the monopoly.


.


.

Horse shit if that was the case you would be arguing that family member should be allowed to marry abnormal lifestyle is not liberty it's perversion

"abnormal lifestyle is not liberty.. it's perversion"

Classic quote, Big.

.

 

[Seawytch]

It REALLY looks like a lot of people on this board have no concept of consent.

 

[KevinWestern]

Horse shit if that was the case you would be arguing that family member should be allowed to marry abnormal lifestyle is not liberty it's perversion

Big, let me ask you, under your Statist Regime, would all abnormal activity be made illegal? Perhaps wearing only one sock would be punishable with a $25 fine. Maybe spiking your hair with purple dye could land you 2 years in prison?

I’d like to know…

.

 

[Sunni Man]

Big, let me ask you, under your Statist Regime, would all abnormal activity be made illegal? Perhaps wearing only one sock would be punishable with a $25 fine. Maybe spiking your hair with purple dye could land you 2 years in prison?

Not having a good taste in fashion is not perversion.

Although, dressing weird might indicate the person could have a proclivity for perversion.

Case in point: would be Michael Jackson wearing one white glove and singing "Beat it"

 

[Vast LWC]

Horse shit if that was the case you would be arguing that family member should be allowed to marry abnormal lifestyle is not liberty it's perversion

There is a clear, concise reason for laws prohibiting marriage between close family members.

It has nothing to do with "perversion" or "lifestyle abnormality", it is simply because incest produces large amounts of birth defects and mutations.

In fact that is the reason for the social taboo in the first place.

If both close family members agreed to be neutered before getting married, then, sure, why not? But unless that is the case, then, no.

Why? Because, like murder, it is harmful to society.

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that letting two people that love each other to marry one another is harmful to society, because it ISN'T harmful to society.

Therefore, denying a certain group the same rights and privileges that any other group can expect from being an American Citizen, is specifically unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment.

You can go on and on about bestiality and incest all you want, it won't make a whit of difference.

There is no LEGAL reason to deny the right to enter into a marriage contract to these people.

 

[KevinWestern]

Although, dressing weird might indicate the person could have a proclivity for perversion.

Perhaps citizens who dress strange should be placed on a High-Risk of Perversion watch or something of that nature.

You might also want to look into installing bedroom cams that transmit a 24hr feed to an underground Washington D.C. monitoring station.

And then there's always government-sanctioned chastity belts.

.
.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It REALLY looks like a lot of people on this board have no concept of consent.

As it already has been pointed out do animals consent when they are used for breeding stock?> Do animals consent when their OWNERS SIGN A CONTRACT FOR THEIR USAGE?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, quiet,quiet, and learn.

Animals can't contract. They are not humans.

You have no point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Horse shit if that was the case you would be arguing that family member should be allowed to marry abnormal lifestyle is not liberty it's perversion

There is a clear, concise reason for laws prohibiting marriage between close family members.

It has nothing to do with "perversion" or "lifestyle abnormality", it is simply because incest produces large amounts of birth defects and mutations.

In fact that is the reason for the social taboo in the first place.

If both close family members agreed to be neutered before getting married, then, sure, why not? But unless that is the case, then, no.

Why? Because, like murder, it is harmful to society.

There is nothing you can say that will convince me that letting two people that love each other to marry one another is harmful to society, because it ISN'T harmful to society.

Therefore, denying a certain group the same rights and privileges that any other group can expect from being an American Citizen, is specifically unconstitutional, as per the 14th amendment.

You can go on and on about bestiality and incest all you want, it won't make a whit of difference.

There is no LEGAL reason to deny the right to enter into a marriage contract to these people.

And that's why gays should never be allowed to marry. It is wrong for a reason, maybe because it's not natural.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, quiet,quiet, and learn.

Animals can't contract. They are not humans.

You have no point.

Shut up stalker humans sign contracts for animal all the time.

 

[KevinWestern]

It REALLY looks like a lot of people on this board have no concept of consent.

As it already has been pointed out do animals consent when they are used for breeding stock?> Do animals consent when their OWNERS SIGN A CONTRACT FOR THEIR USAGE?

How did we get from a discussion about (a) letting people choose which adult human partner they wish to marry to one about (b) breeding livestock?

Got animals on the mind? Are you some sort of livestock farmer? Horse molester?



.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb, quiet,quiet, and learn.

Animals can't contract. They are not humans.

You have no point.

Shut up stalker humans sign contracts for animal all the time.

Animals can't contract, my little stalker troll.

That's the point. They are not human.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It REALLY looks like a lot of people on this board have no concept of consent.

As it already has been pointed out do animals consent when they are used for breeding stock?> Do animals consent when their OWNERS SIGN A CONTRACT FOR THEIR USAGE?

How did we get from a discussion about (a) letting people choose which adult human partner they wish to marry to (b) breeding livestock?

Got animals on the mind? Are you some sort of livestock farmer or something? Horse molester?



.

It all has to do with rights and the argument about consent and contracts. But do keep trying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As it already has been pointed out do animals consent when they are used for breeding stock?> Do animals consent when their OWNERS SIGN A CONTRACT FOR THEIR USAGE?

How did we get from a discussion about (a) letting people choose which adult human partner they wish to marry to (b) breeding livestock?

Got animals on the mind? Are you some sort of livestock farmer or something? Horse molester?



.

It all has to do with rights and the argument about consent and contracts. But do keep trying.

Humans have the right to contract and consent.

Animals don't.

Stay on track.

 

[KevinWestern]

As it already has been pointed out do animals consent when they are used for breeding stock?> Do animals consent when their OWNERS SIGN A CONTRACT FOR THEIR USAGE?

How did we get from a discussion about (a) letting people choose which adult human partner they wish to marry to (b) breeding livestock?

Got animals on the mind? Are you some sort of livestock farmer or something? Horse molester?



.

It all has to do with rights and the argument about consent and contracts. But do keep trying.

Now (I think this question was posed before), but you do realize that we - as humans - apply a different set of "rights" to livestock than we do to other fellow human beings?

That's why we allow the slaughter of cows for food, but not the slaughter of humans for food.

SSM is a human rights conversation, not an animal rights one.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

.
.

Here's the deal. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....
Happiness is NOT a right. Pursuit of happiness IS.
Until this society drops all references and beliefs in deities, marriage will be defined and a union between ONE man and ONE woman. No matter what the law says, the majority of us will not accept or be forced to sanction something with which they disagree.
Look, this vote in NC is NOW NEW ground. 31 other states have the same or similar laws.
You can scream and carry on as much as you like. It is not going to change a thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, right.

*coughbullshitcough*

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's the deal. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....
Happiness is NOT a right. Pursuit of happiness IS.
Until this society drops all references and beliefs in deities, marriage will be defined and a union between ONE man and ONE woman. No matter what the law says, the majority of us will not accept or be forced to sanction something with which they disagree.
Look, this vote in NC is NOW NEW ground. 31 other states have the same or similar laws.
You can scream and carry on as much as you like. It is not going to change a thing.[/QUOTE]

Silly spoon, of course it is changing. Mere road bump, NC will change, as the rest of the country has been trending for the last fifteen years. Silly spoon, little cute tantrum.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's the deal. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....
Happiness is NOT a right. Pursuit of happiness IS.
Until this society drops all references and beliefs in deities, marriage will be defined and a union between ONE man and ONE woman. No matter what the law says, the majority of us will not accept or be forced to sanction something with which they disagree.
Look, this vote in NC is NOW NEW ground. 31 other states have the same or similar laws.
You can scream and carry on as much as you like. It is not going to change a thing.

Now, I know this has been mentioned before, but that's exactly what they said about inter-racial marriage.

The constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And the United States is a nation of LAWS.

It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the people want something to be the case, if the constitutional rights of the .1% are being tread upon by a law, then that law is illegal.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, and it has been pointed out that the parallel is a logical fallacy.