North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[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.

.
.

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.

So I imagine you would consider yourself more of a collectivist than an individualist. Again, that's fine. I'm just a person who wants more liberty versus less - that's all.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

Yada yada yada yada blah blkah blah balh
when will you stop side stepping that question? Do people who like to have sex with animals have the right to do so? If not why are you infringing on their right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yes the constitution protects gays it does not give them the right too marry

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Sure, but it is still false and you are still wrong.

You are on the backside of history and will be forgotten by 2100 other than one of the sillies.

Yawn.

 

[koshergrl]

Huh?

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

.

Yada yada yada yada blah blkah blah balh
when will you stop side stepping that question? Do people who like to have sex with animals have the right to do so? If not why are you infringing on their right?

I said "YES, they have the right" to that question about 25 times already throughout the course of this thread. Why do you keep asking over, and over, and over, and over......?

 

[Sunni Man]

Huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Huh?

 

[Vast LWC]

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

You can point that out all you want, it doesn't make it true.

The exact same arguments were used to argue against both inter-racial and gay marriage, and the same type of laws existed for both.

Both are in clear violation of the 14th amendment, and for the exact same reason.

The only way you can in fact deny homosexuals the right to marriage is if you take away all the benefits and rights that are given by law to married couples.

Otherwise, it's unconstitutional.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes the constitution protects gays it does not give them the right too marry

So, in order to make your position a Constitutional one, are you willing to remove all the rights and benefits married people enjoy that other citizens don't?

If you are, then you have a point.

If you aren't, then you don't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes the constitution protects gays it does not give them the right too marry

So, in order to make your position a Constitutional one, are you willing to remove all the rights and benefits married people enjoy that other citizens don't?

If you are, then you have a point.

If you aren't, then you don't.

Are you willing to give everybody rights to do what they want too do? Such as marry a family member?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

.

Yada yada yada yada blah blkah blah balh
when will you stop side stepping that question? Do people who like to have sex with animals have the right to do so? If not why are you infringing on their right?

I said "YES, they have the right" to that question about 25 times already throughout the course of this thread. Why do you keep asking over, and over, and over, and over......?

They don't have a right because it's deemed to be abnormal for a person to want to have sex with an animal. But now we have dropped our values so dick suckers can legally suck dick.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Next week, in NC, 96yo is marrying his 16yo cousin.

So much for 'protecting the sanctity of marriage'.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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. [/QUOTE]

32 states...'Nuff said. Yer done.

 

[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.

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.

32 states...'Nuff said. Yer done.[/QUOTE]

Down from 50 states and the district, in fifteen years. You are done.

 

[Sunni Man]

Next week, in NC, 96yo is marrying his 16yo cousin.

So much for 'protecting the sanctity of marriage'.

And exactly how is that disparaging the sanctity of marriage??

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

So I imagine you would consider yourself more of a collectivist than an individualist. Again, that's fine. I'm just a person who wants more liberty versus less - that's all.

.

Nice try. Doesn't wash

 

[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.

So I imagine you would consider yourself more of a collectivist than an individualist. Again, that's fine. I'm just a person who wants more liberty versus less - that's all.

.

Nice try. Doesn't wash

Universal marriage is a principle that real conservatives and true libertarians support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This just in: South Carolina approved an amendment to change geography given that for them the earth is flat everywhere they walk. One of the sponsors of the amendment had this to say, 'I aint never seen no end to wheres I walks and drives, dis was just some northerner's idea, down here we believes whats we sees.' End of quote.

Bigot

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are saying that animals are the equals of humans?

You are a secret member of PETA and earth liberation movement philosophy?

Your arguments dissolve like the dew on the grass beneath the rising sun.

Dew doesn't dissolve when the sun comes up, it evaporates.