It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I find it truly disheartening and downright disgusting to see individuals on here support the ban on same sex marriage. Who the hell are you to judge anyone? Just because it (for some sickening reason) offends you, means two people aren't allow to participate in marriage?

Grow the hell up already and realize that not everyone believes in your religious opinions. Also, this is the United States. Everyone deserves equal treatment whether they're gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, straight, black, hispanic, Asian, white, etc. Everyone deserves equality.


Get over it.


Clearly in NC the majority of people who bothered to vote are against gay marrige. so instead of throwing you handbag out the pram and telling people they would be better off in some middle eastern country bye and getting on you high horse why dont you get over it




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


Well, to be fair, it is "Legal" to marry your 16 y/o first cousin in North Carolina.


51-3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages. All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void.


www.cousincouples.com...

www.ncsl.org...

www.buzzfeed.com...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 





Why would gays and lesbians not be o.k. with just calling their partnership a civil union?


I don't know what a homosexual persons response would be, but I would imagine it's because of equality.

Why are they of a lesser status to call their union a marriage? They are no less human than you. They were born with no fewer rights than you, so why should they pander to someone that doesn't share their personal views on sexuality and love, to make that person more comfortable.

This is going to be an absurd scenario, but stick with me.

A woman becomes a doctor. She always felt that it was the right career path for her, so she does it.

Once she enters the medical field, however, the male doctors don't quite see her as their equal so they say,

"Well, we can't deny you from being in this field..but instead of calling yourself a doctor, we would feel more comfortable if you call yourself "The Feel Better Lady".

Sure, people probably won't take you as seriously, and when you have to write "Feel Better Lady" at the end of your signature, instead of MD, it will probably make people think a slight bit less of you, but hey, you get the same benefits we do. So, it's all good, right?"

No, it's not all good. If a woman entered into the same career field as a man, she would and should expect to have the same benefits and job title as a man.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


Another example of southern discrimination...

Yeah, and Texas wants to be its own country. Don't judge the rest of us by southern intelligence.


All of us are not discriminatory. Also...not all of us "southern intelligences" are a collective of one train of thought.
It is hard to unlearn what you have been taught as a child, but there are a lot of people here who are trying hard to change old ways. It is a slow process, but it is getting there.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I live in NC and I voted for this. I do not understand why people think anyone other than a man and a woman can get married. Words have meanings and we don't go changing them just because someone feels put out. Marriage means the union of a man and a woman. That is what the word means. It doesn't mean the union of two people. That is something else. A contract maybe? Anyone who wants to be married can find a partner of the opposite sex and marry them. That is fair and it works. If two gays want to be married badly enough, let one of them have a sex change. That is legal for some reason. Shouldn't be, but it is. I am glad I voted for it and am glad it passed. A man should never be able to marry another man. Nor should a woman marry a woman.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


The original definition was determined by the Church.

In other words, you're catering to religious hatred on a first come, first serve basis. Is this fair?

Definitions change over time. Why can't this one? Especially if the first definition is logically unsound...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


What about those that are comfortable in their own skin and enjoy being men/women? How is that fair to them? Also: Marriage IS a contract. Whenever you get married and sign your marriage license, you're signing a binding contract. Marriage wasn't always religiously based anyway (and shouldn't be) . It was once used as a tool to write off women as a man's property. It has also been around before the Christian faith even became a thing. It is not bound by religion and people need to stop associating it that way.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The group that passed this say they aren't 'anti-gay', but just 'pro-marriage'.

So, let's get them to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce.

To, you know, protect the sanctity of marriage.
edit on 9-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: typo



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ookie
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman. That is what the word means.


Really? Based on what definition?

Because, etymologically speaking, the word 'marriage' merely means to join, or bring together.

edit on 9-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Who issues a marriage license, the church or the government? Most places I know of it is the local or county government that issues the marriage license which makes it NOT a church issue. Equal protection under the law. The contract should not be restricted by gender. I believe that will be the high court decision.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Eh I don't think anyone expected this to not go through. I was surprised the amount that voted against. So NC you have come a long way, not far enough yet. I mean the town meetings on the issue were like mini Westboro Baptist services and went something like this.

"Theres a storm a brewin...Gawds wra~ith is upawn norf caroliner fer its sin o seeun these homer sexals. Thays gut an I on mi kussin an Ima gunna merry him m'self.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


It amuses me how many people pretend to understand "god" just to rationalize and justify their own stupid ideals...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





So, let's get them to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce. To, you know, protect the sanctity of marriage.


Great idea.

I mean, "Til death do us part." That's a promise before God. Right?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by toochaos4u
Eh I don't think anyone expected this to not go through. I was surprised the amount that voted against. So NC you have come a long way, not far enough yet. I mean the town meetings on the issue were like mini Westboro Baptist services and went something like this.

"Theres a storm a brewin...Gawds wra~ith is upawn norf caroliner fer its sin o seeun these homer sexals. Thays gut an I on mi kussin an Ima gunna merry him m'self.



HaaaaHaaa...you are just terrible....funny.!!! But in all honesty..it was a church issue here...many of the members of a church above me took quite a few people to vote.
I dun't tawlk lack 'at...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 



Another sad day in the USoA. I guess the first amendment only applies to some people.


Why is it sad when the people of a STATE exercise their rights granted by the 10th amendment right?? Is same-sex marriage a constitutional right??


And what the hell is the 1st amendment an issue in this case??


What did I miss??


Yes, it is called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness....

Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, so by your thinking, you don't have the right either.
edit on 9-5-2012 by nixie_nox because: BRAINFART



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by grayghost
 


Yep, here we go, right on cue. What I don't like about most "christian" excuses to deny Civil Rights to citizens is the self-righteous presumption that just because "christians" believe something, that makes it the objective "truth" for everyone. And if you buy into that chain of logic, then of course everyone should live by "christian" standards. To prove my point, your comment starts with the premise that the only valid morality is based upon "christian" beliefs.Religious dogma is not a prerequisite for having morality or ethics.
I wonder if you can comprehend the fact that there are other ways of believing, thinking, and being, beyond your own lifestyle.

For example; I'm not a "christian", nor would I ever want to be one. For me personally, the bible is a fabricated work made by men, contrived in part to establish control over people, amongst other non-spiritual purposes.
For me, the bible has all of the spiritual and religious authority of a Harry Potter book.
So why am I expected to accept having those values imposed on me?
When are we going to have legislation authored within the framework of the Harry Potter mythos?
A whole segment of our law abiding, tax paying community is denied the Right to marry the person of their choice because there are some superstitious people who don't like it? REALLY??
When are we going to make walking under a ladder a Felony ?
It's easy to spot the ignorance of magical thinking when you just open it up and look inside and apply basic logic.

I wholeheartedly believe in everyone's Right to believe anything they want to, including Atheism.
In fact, I believe that Right should be protected by law. I have no problem with the fact that there are millions of people who believe in something that I never will.

Gay marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of any "christian" anywhere, however, "christians" have no problem with curtailing the Rights of other groups. It's their religious imperative after all, correct?

Last time I checked, this country was founded in part upon the principles of freedom of religion, and FROM religion, if you so choose. The only "valid" ( and I use that term loosely in this context ) argument against gay marriage is a religious one.
There are no healthcare dangers.
Public safety / security is not affected.

Since when do people get to use religious belief as a basis to deny Civil Rights to their fellow citizens?
Is marriage ( by anyone ) not one our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights in the pursuit of happiness?
You can't have it both ways ( unless you're bisexual, LOL. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one! ).
The Constitution either applies to us all, or none of us. You can't ( Constitutionally ) cherry-pick segments of the population to give Rights to while denying those same Rights to others ( Slavery, anyone??? ).
That kind of thinking is not even logical. But religion isn't based on logic at all; it's about "faith" and emotion.
I think we clearly see what happens when you legislate based on emotions rather than the Constitution and logic.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
The contract should not be restricted by gender. I believe that will be the high court decision.



Well, again, this ruling makes ANY kind of 'civil union' illegal, not just same sex. That means that if you are in a common law marriage ( a form of civil union), your marriage is now illegal in NC.

Pretty much everyone expects the NC Supreme Court (not federal) to strike this down.

It wasnt meant to actually succeed as a law. It's just a wedge issue, meant to throw red meat to the social conservatives who are scared to death by the modern world.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ellieN
 


Hey I lived in Western NC (Wilkesboro) for two years. It was like a whole town of Deliverance.
I think we were the only people in town that didn't go to a church. When they
found out we were a gay couple the church invitations stopped cold turkey. My co-workers
called me "City Slicker" even though I came from a small town in SC of about 22,000. Just
a weird experience.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Wait wait wait....


Let me repeat this back, you are not ok with gay marriage but you still consider it legal if the person has a sex change???!??

*laughs*

No wonder N. C ranks so low in math in science.

And people like you pass an amendment denying people their rights.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Well howdy, ex-neighbor. I live just 30 minutes outside of Wilkes.

I'm sorry that you experienced that while living here. (Although honestly, maybe the church invitations ceasing was a good thing...) Just know that not everyone here is like that, and not everyone elsewhere is super accepting, either. Which I'm sure you've discovered.

I'm hoping this will be put down quickly by the state Supreme Court, despite how many were in favor of it.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join