North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[WillowTree]

Ok if it's self inflicted than you have nothing to worry about, right? So why not let them get married to each other. Since you're straight (presumably) and AIDS is self inflicted, unless you decide to be gay or give yourself AIDS (by your definition) than you have nothing to fear.

What if you're gay, get aids and then have sex with a woman?

So are you trying to outlaw being gay or gays being allowed to marry? Because what does what you said have any relevance on gays being allowed to marry other gays.

the question was asked.. "is there second hand gay" and how is "gay" hurting anybody.. I'm telling you circumstances in which it might. can you absorb this knowledge or not?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia. Perhaps we should outlaw them too.

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Ok if it's self inflicted than you have nothing to worry about, right? So why not let them get married to each other. Since you're straight (presumably) and AIDS is self inflicted, unless you decide to be gay or give yourself AIDS (by your definition) than you have nothing to fear.

I don't **** around anymore never never shot heroin or did crack never hug around people who were gay or bisexual, so no I am not worried but what does concern me is that what gays carry can accidentally infect those who are not gay.

 

[WillowTree]

Actually since you asked there is second hand gay. Have you heard of gay men who marry straight women? That's a good example of second hand gay,, the woman is forced to have gay sex and she doesn't even know it.

**** you...**** you for posting something this stupid.

Maybe that's what happened to her....lol. She can't even see that if gays were allowed to marry each other they wouldn't be marrying women without her knowledge.

that's a false assumption do ewe do that often?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia. Perhaps we should outlaw them too.

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Nobody goes out looking for aids moron.

No they don't moron, but AIDS because of the homosexual and bisexual life style has found it's way into the life of those who are not gay.

 

[RDD_1210]

What if you're gay, get aids and then have sex with a woman?

So are you trying to outlaw being gay or gays being allowed to marry? Because what does what you said have any relevance on gays being allowed to marry other gays.

the question was asked.. "is there second hand gay" and how is "gay" hurting anybody.. I'm telling you circumstances in which it might. can you absorb this knowledge or not?

So are you trying to outlaw being gay or gays being allowed to marry? Because what does what you said have any relevance on gays being allowed to marry other gays.

 

[WillowTree]

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Nobody goes out looking for aids moron.

No they don't moron, but AIDS because of the homosexual and bisexual life style has found it's way into the life of those who are not gay.

Lesbians don't get aids. maybe he should ask himself why that is.

 

[asaratis]

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

Here are some....trivial reasons.

1
It requires the re-definition of other terms such as "aunt", "uncle", "married couple", "married" and possibly others.

2
It provides a way for one to mislead others (should they have need to) by insinuating that they are not homosexual.

3
To the vast majority of straight married people, it denigrates the word "marriage" and makes them no better than "those abominable gays and lesbians".

I suspect the third is not trivial to many, especially in the bible belt. So be it. It is still a reason for many people objecting.

You'll not find any objection to matching benefits for gay/lesbian couples from me. I think they should have all and equal rights regarding wills, conjugal visits at detention centers and hospitals, insurance, tax breaks and whatever else applies to man/woman couples (whether they were legally married by way of ceremony or common law). Just pick a different word to describe the relationship.

If you say it's the benefits you want, then what could possibly be wrong with making up a name for the union and going on about your business?

So far, I have not seen a single legitimate reason to claim a NEED to be called "married".

Spit it out!

 

[Caroljo]

Carol it's sad to read that you agree with the ability of the majority to vote away the rights of the minority.

It's basically the opposite of what this country was founded on.

But, i never said i agreed with voting away someone's rights.

Gays never had the right to marry so if i voted against this, i'm not taking away something they already had! They never had the right because our founding fathers never put it into the constitution...maybe believing it would never be an issue? I don't know....but now that it is, it's up to the people to decide, and that's what they're doing.

Just like Willow brought up....the issue of smokers. In michigan, the state decided there would be no smoking in public places. As a smoker...the state has taken away one of MY rights that i've had all of my life. So i've had a right taken away from me by the government. Gays never had the right to marry, so nothing was taken away from them...they just aren't getting what the "want".

You still have the right to smoke, and your ability to smoke in certain places wasn't taken away from you because of you being a minority.

Gays should be able to get married, churches who don't want to marry gays shouldn't be forced too. So essentially it'd be the same law as the smoking law you have to deal with. Still have the right to smoke, just not everywhere. Gays would have the right to get married, just not everywhere in terms of which facility to get married in.

And gays still have the right to live together and do what they please...this vote wasn't against them because they're a "minority". It went against them because the majority of people voted against something they didn't believe in. They never had a right taken away from them because it was never a right to begin with.

If my right to smoke in public had been taken away from me by the "people" of Michigan, i wouldn't complain because it then is obviously something the people wanted. What i don't like about this is it was taken away by our own government.

You also know that all too often it only takes a small group of people to change something...like athiests that want the ten commandments removed from buildings because it offends them. Then don't look at it! But no, they have to push their weight until they get what they want. It doesn't matter that the majority of people want it there. Most of the time the minorities get just what they want....no matter what others think.

 

[Dick Tuck]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A constitutional amendment that deprives civil liberties is certainly nothing new in the South.

Since when is there a right to be married?

 

[RDD_1210]

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Ok if it's self inflicted than you have nothing to worry about, right? So why not let them get married to each other. Since you're straight (presumably) and AIDS is self inflicted, unless you decide to be gay or give yourself AIDS (by your definition) than you have nothing to fear.

I don't **** around anymore never never shot heroin or did crack never hug around people who were gay or bisexual, so no I am not worried but what does concern me is that what gays carry can accidentally infect those who are not gay.

Oh yeah, you should be all good then.

But how do you know that the person you had sex with, didn't have sex with a gay person? Or perhaps they didn't but someone they had sex with, had sex with a gay person. Or someone that person had sex with, had a whole orgy with the Village People? I mean, how do you know for sure.

Dude, you're probably gay....by proxy at least.

The only way to fix this is to not let gay people marry each other.

BOOM! Problem solved, and your gayness is wiped away.

 

[garyganu]

And blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia. Perhaps we should outlaw them too.

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Nobody goes out looking for aids moron.

YES, some people do go out looking for aids.

Bugchasing is a slang term for the alleged practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers.

Bugchasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RDD_1210]

Nobody goes out looking for aids moron.

No they don't moron, but AIDS because of the homosexual and bisexual life style has found it's way into the life of those who are not gay.

Lesbians don't get aids. maybe he should ask himself why that is.

So are you cool with lesbians marrying each other then?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

What was the group that AIDS was found to have come from when it finally came to America?

Syphilis spread via heterosexual sex has killed millions. But yet heterosexuals were never denied legal protections.

 

[Too Tall]

Yeah! One more example of the New Right suppressing the Freedom and Liberties of a minority of our citizens. Ya gotta love those North Carolinians, real Americans (the last sentence [you do know what a sentence is, don't you Willow Tree?] is sarcasm (you can look up sarcasm at dictionary.com).

Nobody's freedom or liberty was suppressed here.

When people are denied legal benefits for capricious reasoning then yes freedom is suppressed.

Why can't same sex couples enter into the same legal agreements as hetero couples and be given the same legal rights and benefits?

If you were told that blue eyed people were not allowed legal representation in court cases would you not call that a suppression of freedom?

If left handed people were excluded from public schools would you not say their rights were violated?

Comparing being left handed and having blue eyes to being homosexual is quite a stretch IMO.

 

[KevinWestern]

They are not voting away liberty,, anyone who disagress with the voters of North Carolina can move to some place more to their liking. It has nothing to do with "Authoritarian Republican" asswipe. do you know who brought down the gay marriage issue in California? the black vote.. so then of course the liberals pitched their fit said they had "NO right to vote" and had the whole thing overturned.. Now all the black people who voted were disenfranchised. That's what's unconstitutional.

Liberty is an individual’s right to govern themselves – it’s free choice.

And it’s my personal view that if an action in no way infringes on the rights of other individuals within that society – NOT things like murder, stealing – it should not be governed. Because to govern it would only work to grow the power of the government unnecessarily, and would serve as a step towards the direction of “tyranny” where no personal liberties are allowed.

Willow, if you are in support of this this NC measure, you really need to re-examine yourself to determine where you fall on the political spectrum. This is a “left” piece of legislation, 100%.


.
.

explain why California and Ny are allowed to ban guns..

Willow, seriously?

Why do I have to explain why California and NY are allowed to ban guns? Can’t you infer from our conversation that I am likely highly opposed to that type of legislation, and it is exactly the thing I’m arguing against?

Or are you trying to use that as some sort of justification for what they did in NC?

.
.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Difference is AIDS is a self inflected disease caused by a life style sickle cell anemia is not.

Nobody goes out looking for aids moron.

YES, some people do go out looking for aids.

Bugchasing is a slang term for the alleged practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers.

Bugchasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't call them bug chasers I would call them suicidal

 

[WillowTree]

No they don't moron, but AIDS because of the homosexual and bisexual life style has found it's way into the life of those who are not gay.

Lesbians don't get aids. maybe he should ask himself why that is.

So are you cool with lesbians marrying each other then?

I'm on records as saying I don't care.. what i care about is States Rights the Constitution and the right to Vote.. all of which you would take away from me in a heartbeat.. so **** ewe running.

 

[Dr.Drock]

But, i never said i agreed with voting away someone's rights.

Gays never had the right to marry so if i voted against this, i'm not taking away something they already had! They never had the right because our founding fathers never put it into the constitution...maybe believing it would never be an issue? I don't know....but now that it is, it's up to the people to decide, and that's what they're doing.

Just like Willow brought up....the issue of smokers. In michigan, the state decided there would be no smoking in public places. As a smoker...the state has taken away one of MY rights that i've had all of my life. So i've had a right taken away from me by the government. Gays never had the right to marry, so nothing was taken away from them...they just aren't getting what the "want".

You still have the right to smoke, and your ability to smoke in certain places wasn't taken away from you because of you being a minority.

Gays should be able to get married, churches who don't want to marry gays shouldn't be forced too. So essentially it'd be the same law as the smoking law you have to deal with. Still have the right to smoke, just not everywhere. Gays would have the right to get married, just not everywhere in terms of which facility to get married in.

And gays still have the right to live together and do what they please...this vote wasn't against them because they're a "minority". It went against them because the majority of people voted against something they didn't believe in. They never had a right taken away from them because it was never a right to begin with.

If my right to smoke in public had been taken away from me by the "people" of Michigan, i wouldn't complain because it then is obviously something the people wanted. What i don't like about this is it was taken away by our own government.

You also know that all too often it only takes a small group of people to change something...like athiests that want the ten commandments removed from buildings because it offends them. Then don't look at it! But no, they have to push their weight until they get what they want. It doesn't matter that the majority of people want it there. Most of the time the minorities get just what they want....no matter what others think.

That's a silly comparison. Slaves had the right to live with their slave owners (I'm not comparing the struggles of slaves to gays mind you). It went against them because the majority voted against the liberties of a minority. Exactly what should never happen in this country.

But you still have the liberty to smoke, gays don't have the liberty to get married.

I agree it shouldn't take a small group to change something. I wish the large group respected minority rights, a critical aspect to this country's foundation. Because in one way or another, we're probably all minorities. But we let our bigotries cloud our common sense.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

North Carolina approves a constitutional amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that in heavily African-American counties, the vote went as much as 60% FOR THE AMENDMENT. I correctly heard this morning a commentator wondering how this will turn out, since these are two very basic Democratic constituencies and they are apparently at odds on this issue. I would just interject here that when asked if same-sex marriage is the same as their fight for civil rights, 65% of the African-American respondents answered that it was not.

I have said many times that Oklahoma has a similar constitutional amendment. I supported it, I voted for it, and I gave money to the campaign. In Oklahoma, the amendment was over-whelmingly approved. It has with stood several attempts to over turn it. I support each states RIGHT to decide on their own how their state will stand on this issue and I support that states RIGHT to choose its direction. As I support each states RIGHT to decide how it will stand on abortion.

I have read on other threads that people have said that the amendment is a reason why they will not come to Oklahoma. Now, there are around 30 states with such amendments. The right of a people to CHOOSE the direction of their government is a cornerstone of the constitution and the intricate relationship between the states and the federal government. We have for too long, been dictated to by a bunch of faceless beaurocrats living in a city so removed from our state that we are tired of it. IF you feel that you cannot come to Oklahoma because of this law (as in 30 other states), then PLEASE - STAY WHERE YOU ARE!

I wanted to also say, that simply because of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage, it does NOT give creedence to, nor does it in anyway advocate for actions or hostile words of any type against a same-sex couple. Regardless of our disagreement regarding this issue, citizens of this country have basic rights which may NOT be infringed upon. I will stand up vigorously for their right to live in peace and dignity...