It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by kaylaluv

Good to know. Thanks.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Myomistress
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb

God does not hate anyone.

God loved Jacob but hated Esau, so it's not quite accurate to make the claim that he hates no one. I'm sure out of the 7 billion souls on Earth at the moment, there are at least a couple more he's not real tickled with.

Besides, by most Christian standards as long as you accept Christ and don't kill anybody then you're already into heaven anyway.

"Not killing anyone" is not a factor in the equation.

Everyone sins, YOU sin and you're no better than anyone else. You're on a level playing field with the "sinning" gays, live with it.

Now THERE'S a fact!

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:25 PM
The gay bashing in this thread has really gotten out of hand. Get a freaking grip people. Maybe talk to some of your gay friends (chance are really high you actually have some) or family. Stop believing the crap you hear on TV or in church. It only shows your ignorance in the matter.

Hypothetical question:

Say you have a happily married couple in NC and years down the line the husband decides to get a sex change, yet they decide to stay together as a couple(yes, this HAS happened).

What then? A state ordered divorce? How will that work?

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:26 PM
Well the voters may be against it but the President isnt

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:32 PM
Just had a thought.

The GOD which I worship gave man free will.

This is what he told Abraham in Genusis. "I set before you this day life and death -- choose life."

In this he gave us a choice. He did not tack a stick and beat Abraham until he picked what God wanted him too.

It would appear many of those here are trying to say they are better at making decisions than God himself.

But, when you guys think about it, which would seem to be a strain for many, you are ready to condemn some other guy for doing things which you very likely encourage your wife and/or girl friend to do. So for that you want to make them all second class persons.

Are you really trying to say that such things would put a man on par with a lot of women.

Ahh-oh! I guess I should have said that another way.

Sorry 'bout that girls. But it might be something to think about tonight !!!

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by dragonsrreal
Well the voters may be against it but the President isnt

thats because the president is a gay have you not seen the photos

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
Every day I read posts that say "why vote", "It's all rigged" yadda-yadda.

And here we have a perfect example of the power, the value of voting.

I wonder how many people are soiling themselves in NC right now that were too damned lazy to vote on this.
edit on 8-5-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Lots! I know one in particular that I've been listening to piss and moan over it since around 7 pm yesterday!

All I can say is "Where were YOU at the polls?" and I've yet to get an answer, but have gained some thoroughly chilling Evil Eyes!

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by dragonsrreal
Well the voters may be against it but the President isnt

IMO Obama is a closet Muslim and if he had it his way he would be way worse than Christians voting against Gay Marriage. He would be executing Homosexuals.

Anyway and on topic, on the way home today I hear talking heads on my local liberal radio station saying we need a national referendum on the issue. They were just frothing over this vote...

Be careful what you wish for. States that have already passed this law surpass the number needed to pass a Constitutional amendment and make this the law of the land, forever baring Gays from marrying anywhere in the United States. I would be all for it myself. Bring it on...

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

Or try since the Declaration of Independence, but think not that the Founding Fathers thought that social justice as perceived by socialist Progressives is what this country is about.

It explicitly states that all men are created equal, not made equal by Progressive mandates or by the State.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

So now you are trying to say that people do not have the right to vote their conscience on something because it goes against the Progressive agenda or because they are church-goers?

People voted their "conscience" when they voted against interracial marriages in most states, but the U.S. Supreme Court said they didn't have that right. So, no - people don't have the right to vote their conscience on something if it takes away the rights of someone who isn't hurting anyone.

The issue here is that people are allowed to vote however they see fit, not that they necessarily vote according to your beliefs and desires. Whether the Supreme Court agrees with your ideas or another's is another story. You and other Progressives consistently think that voting in democratic settings only apply to what you think and not what others think. This is why we have a representative Republic and not a direct democracy, but when given the opportunity for majority vote, if it doesn't go your way suddenly it becomes unfair.

I would also mention that the Supreme Court isn't necessarily always correct or on the moral side of things. Whenever did the Declaration of Independence read that unborn infants are not created equal?
edit on 9-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Honor93

marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State
there's nothing quite like cutting off your nose to spite your face

don't ppl read this legislation anymore ??
hahahahaha, this outta get good, un-married heterosexuals will suffer many unforseen consequences resulting from those few words but i guess they deserve what they voted for, right ??
edit on 8-5-2012 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)

Please assist a feeble minded old man in understanding what you've said here - HOW is it supposed to affect unmarried anyones, hetero or not?

It's like, you know, about MARRIAGE, so how is it supposed to affect those who already forego marriage? Seriously, I want to understand.

This is the same thing I've been listening to from this woman pacing my floors and wringing her hands and whining about it for the last 24 hours or so, so it's really kinda important that someone be able to explain to me how that's gonna work... so far, she hasn't been able to - it's just something she heard somewhere AFTER the vote, and took to heart. No real explanations for it.

Honestly, we've heard a LOT of alleged negative consequences in the last 24 hours, but NONE of them seem to be attached to any explanations. Not a peep about them BEFORE the vote, so why now?

Help me out here...

edit on 2012/5/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:03 PM
You win some - you lose some. But hey, you can still marry your cousin in North Carolina. They are okay with incest, just not the gays.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by Dustytoad

I wonder if the Federal Government could pass a law prohibiting giving government contracts to businesses whom are in States where those states do not recognize civil unions.

I wonder if the a gay couple in North Carolina could form a corporation together, giving all mutual assets to this corporation. Remember, corporations are people too. So then the gay couple can pay a single tax together. Own a home together. And create a business contract to allow health insurance benefits together.

This amendment is full of loopholes, just waiting to be challenged. All it takes is some creative people and they can easily go around this amendment, obtain the benefits of marriage without it actually being called a "marriage."

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:11 PM

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Dustytoad

All it takes is some creative people and they can easily go around this amendment, obtain the benefits of marriage without it actually being called a "marriage."

And that is the rub right there! Gays already can do that everywhere through living wills or whatever legal loopholes they can find. It's not about that! It's about marginalizing marriage and further eroding morality. Next it will be, "we want to have a right to marry a 10 year old boy and we demand you recognize this!"

Gays have all kinds of ways around the "marriage" equality issue. They want to devolve the rest of society and bring civilization down to their level. Its a huge joke and 30+ other states see it this way.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by randomquestions

It is quite possible that people vote this way because they are not sure how the gays will act/react with a change/privilege made new law as a result of favourable vote from previously opposed groups.

I have to believe the fear of the unknown they may harbour does, indeed, carry a lot of weight if wide-spread reactions, generalizations, and opinions asserted by the gay community are anything similar to your opinion.

Approaching the topic with a response and rationale as displayed in your post is, at the extreme minimum, counter-productive and likely allows many, who were on the fence, the ability to justify their logic for voting to continue the ban after reading things like this.

I know we as a population can't be considered wholly ingenious, however, I do hope individuals can see through posts like yours and realize that it is not the opinion held by the majority of those in favor with your overall outlook - atleast I hope they do not feel that way... if that is the case, then maybe it is good that things are turning out this way, for now.

Either way, I agree with SeaBag, stop pursuing the right for gay 'marriage'. Move to pursue a civil union, take the benefits and move on to something else.

My turn to sound more ignorant than I already do...

This matter has been a hot topic for years. If it were ever brought to a close, with an outcome that is fair and agreeable to all parties involved, would that really be the end to the friction between the gay and straight communities across the country?

I know this is a broad sweeping generalization of the gay community and I do not mean for it to be taken that way, but many of the gays that I have known seem to be very vocal and desire to be out... way, way out. So far out that they need to be sure everyone around them not only knows they are gay, but are reminded of their sexuality every few minutes.

If the spotlight was extinguished and there was no longer a platform to be in the public's eye & in the face of those who may not agree with their life-style choice... would that be ok? I mean to ask, if this issue were settled, what would the next issue be that would once again place the individuals of the gay community, who need to have everyone constantly aware of their presence and life-style choice, back into the public's eye? Or... do you think this would allow the friction to subside between gays and straights to a point where normal life could be resumed by both groups, whatever normal is..... or should an ongoing controversy, addressing multiple topics, be expected?

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by TruckDriver69

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Dustytoad

All it takes is some creative people and they can easily go around this amendment, obtain the benefits of marriage without it actually being called a "marriage."

Next it will be, "we want to have a right to marry a 10 year old boy and we demand you recognize this!"

I can't believe you used this as an argument. Gay people are not pedophiles.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:13 PM
I've never understood why some people care that much about the private life of others. It's just not logical in any sense.
edit on 9/5/2012 by MushroomWig because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by grayghost
Way to go N.C.

Keeping family values intact. At least we still have values and morals in N.C.

The whole USA should use this as an example and turn back to God.

Lack of values and morals and taking God out of government,local and state issues

is the reason America is suffering now.Take God out of every thing and forget him and he will

forget you.The American people need to wake up and turn back to God before it is to late.

This is my opinion and i will stand buy it. If you do not like it tuff. The Bible says Adam and Eve not

not Adam and Steve.

So you believe the litteral story in the bible? that we call came from Adam and Eve? If so, tell me this...after they had kids, how did their kids have kids? Incest I guess since there as nobody else. So you must support incest then, but not gay marriage? Why is that?

God does not's a story made up to keep people in order and for the church to make money. Basing your live on a fairy tale is kinda pathetic. I pitty you.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
This will surely annoy some people, but I am all for what they did in NC. The people of the state have a right to make such decisions, and they decided that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that other definitions that would change this basic arrangement aren't wanted there. We also, if all can remember, have the Defense of marriage Act. This is on a national level, and is what the majority of the people wanted.

From my understanding, this NC amendment simply means that people can't join up just any old way and get marriage benefits as a result. That's not a bad thing. A marriage, one man, one woman, is a standard building block of stable societies, and has been throughout history. Encouraging such unions is good for society as a whole. Deviations from this, undermining this, leads to problems. No, that doesn't mean that all such marriages are perfect, but that some fail doesn't mean that the basic model is wrong. That's a result of deviations, in fact. Divorce for basically any reason or no reason is a HUGE problem. Marriage is supposed to be for life. Short of someone cheating, or some sort of serious abuse, that's how marriage should be treated. "Till death do us part". Historically, when nations fall morally, they fail. That is the reason that traditional marriage should be protected, why we passed the DOMA, and why NC passed their amendment.

This isn't about some "rights violation" either, as there are restrictions on marriage for all of us. Sensible, good restrictions. No marrying a close relative, a child, an animal, more than one person, etc. If we state that we must allow a homosexual union to be called a marriage, what restrictions, from a legal standpoint, could we then place on the other types of marriage? Laws about age of consent could be changed, remember, and already vary widely from state to state. There are currently challenges against bigamy laws, based on the same arguments as those for gay marriage. If anything can be called a marriage, then really, what is the point? Think about it.

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Danbones

My name is MAMABETH,not mommabeth.

The member was only incorrectly interpreting words, just like christians do with the bible.

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in