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: 28
21
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
This is exactly the kind of bull# that makes me sad to be an American. When did it happen? When did Republican politics become the politics of hate, of intolerance and demagoguery.

The bitterness of men, who fear the way of human progress.

And the sad farce continues...




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MzMorbid
 


What Part of the First Amendment does this violate? Freedom of Speech...I don't see how a logical connection can be made between marriage and speech so no. Freedom of the Press, not really. Freedom of assembly, possibly if someone can logically stretch assembly to include marriages then maybe I could buy that one. Freedom of Protest, I don't see the connection there. Freedom of religion? The big three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all are against homosexuality to my knowledge. Now I don't know of the other religions so that can be another good point of protest against this bill.

However, I don't see how this marriage restriction can actually be construed as a violation of the first amendment.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I fail to see what business it is of yours what others do behind closed doors. In NC right now is a homosexual man crying himself to sleep because he can't marry the guy he loves. Do you think your heterosexual marriage is strengthened by his tears?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Well I guess so since you and others are picking and choosing what you want to label as civil rights.
If I wanted to marry five women under the age of 18 is it my civil right to be able to do it? If not, why.....


I see little reason why not. I don't see that 18 need be a magic age of consent but that a minor him/herself should petition for when they wish to become emancipated. Further, if there are domestic partnerships then I do not see the harm in having domestic corporations either, which could consist of any number and gender mix of individuals wishing to incorporate in a domestic or household situation.

Churches can grant "marriages" to whomever they choose. It is local government that licenses domestic partners typically thought of as marriages. That kind of partnership should be more than just a license to copulate but a domestic bond that recognizes the partnership for medical consent, visitation, inheritance, any given domestic needs, etc. I see no reason it need be gender-specific. Shouldn't an otherwise single individual be able to name a trusted friend to look after their behalf in event of incapacitation or inability?


edit on 12-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I see little reason why not. I don't see that 18 need be a magic age of consent but that a minor him/herself should petition for when they wish to become emancipated. Further, if there are domestic partnerships then I do not see the harm in having domestic corporations either, which could consist of any number and gender mix of individuals wishing to incorporate in a domestic or household situation.


But for gays they say it is civil rights, and for others it is jail time. I guess my point is how do we as a society determine what behaviors are acceptable or not? Yes, I know many of you feel that ANYTHING should be not only legal but adopted as totally acceptable by all, but that is pure fantasy.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I guess my point is how do we as a society determine what behaviors are acceptable or not? Yes, I know many of you feel that ANYTHING should be not only legal but adopted as totally acceptable by all, but that is pure fantasy.


Your point is what, homophobia? Why are you concerned two men or two women sharing a home are any more than roommates?

My example of a domestic corporation may be extreme for someone strongly opposed to polygamy but I can envision a multitude of domestic situations where several people may wish to unite or co-op together for sake of convenience or making a home to several people.

Your example of "ANYTHING" being acceptable is too all-encompassing and surely there are situations that can be imagined that would overstep fairness and decency. We have a long way to go all within the realm of acceptance to reach those limitations. Given that society finds two men sharing a home situation as being unacceptable there is a VERY long way for us to go yet. If you are concerned what goes on in their bedroom(s) then it really sucks to be you. That is THEIR business and not ours.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


from my perspective, if I have to worry about my spouse or significant other "rolling over" on me, I probably have greater issues than whether or not I've picked the wrong one to hang out with.
i agree with this sentiment entirely but i'm still guessing that quite a few of our esteemed politicians & CEOs have over-used such a privilege.
point is ... it's a privilege. one that is not equally extended to all.


The same people can get married common-law as can obtain a licensed marriage, so that won't change
yes, i undertand this, however, it doesn't change the discriminatory factor invovled and the imbalance of privileges among the people.
if we agree the 'marriage' is a contract, in and of itself, it's agreed that no free man/woman should be forced into a contract, even with the State.


the whole deal with state-sanctioned marriages appears to me to be economic, rather than emotional.
totally, that's why this vote has me wondering in so many different directions.
in todays economy, how is stifling a potential revenue stream as a wise, economic decision ??


I would prefer that ALL State-sanctioned relationships be referred to as "Civil unions", whether hetero or not, because the act of State Sanctioning makes them exactly that.
at least here ^^^, we are completely on the same page.


We probably have different views on what constitutes a "natural right". To my mind, NO natural right begs for State sanction. The very act of State sanctioning makes it artificial, not natural. Legislation, and all the fruits thereof, are synthetic.
i'll go with a yes and no to this only because we've been conditioned to accept 'sanction' as legitimacy. i don't agree but i see how we/it got here.


If it is an amendment to the Constitution, and absorbed into that document, how can it be "unconstitutional"?
the same way other amendments have been repealed. if not at the State level then via SCOTUS.
i'm with you on the "should have done it", heck, i might still - ain't dead yet ... besides, Constitutional arguments sure are plentiful these days.


I probably just didn't make myself clear - I didn't mean there is a body of law that says "this is how you will govern cohabitational relationships" - I meant the laws that say "this is how you will act as a human in our society, regardless of who you hang out with."
likewise, i was probably too vague in my statement as well. i do understand different bodies of law ie.State vs Federal ... perhaps that's where the confusion began.
when i think of separate bodies of law for individuals or groups, the concept of legal fairness gets real fuzzy.
my complaint was focused along the lines of marital protections vs none for others, financial benefits specific to marital couples, things like that.
i just don't believe a status is deserving of special rules or laws.


Divorce law, a subset of marital law.
fyi, i still don't follow how it applies to the story but that's ok.
you lead me to think if they were divorced, they wouldn't permitted to co-habitate or something like that ?
either way, it still emphasizes the specialness assigned to the status and i whole-heartedly disagree with the practice.

i fully understand your stance and am not arguing that obstacles can be surmounted.
however, i still find it completely UnConstitutional and against the very nature of being American.

although i've tried, it's been mighty difficult to convince myself that in a self-governed society, any formal government has authority or purpose for that matter.
but that's my own dilemma i suppose as the gvt i've known often delivers oppression.


I tend to lack respect for people who view a marital commitment as a business arrangement.
i can agree with this but the State forces it upon us, it's not like we really have a choice beyond choosing to remain single and involved.
to be forced to schedule a "break-up" just so you can continue is ridiculous.


HELL no! When the Church works for ny stuff, they can have it - not until then!
unless you participated in Holy Matrimony, this would not apply to you, get it now ??

if you remember, i was talking about reducing divorce or making it less palatable for those religious unions who force the State to intervene when they separate.
no divorces = no need for State sanctioned marriages = no need for State involvement.
let those who wish marry in/by the church, divorce in/by the church and all property reverts to the church ... no need for State intervention at all, they can negotiate with the Church ... since it would become revenue for the Church, tax THEM.

continued ..



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

continued from previous ...

Generally speaking, if the parties are not legally bigamous
if the State isn't involved in or defining marriage, there is no bigamy, is there ?


It's really wierd that an old fart like me got up and out to vote against it, when most of the younger people howling about it NOW couldn't be bothered.
agreed, and as the youth have been conditioned to believe "my vote doesn't count", perhaps this little adventure has educated them more than the textbooks & teachers combined.

gotta say though, big voter turn-outs can be just as bad as it can good. in my younger years, we had many record setting turn-outs, problem was, voters didn't realize or know or care what the material was ... often times, they voted what their pastor or television said and looked no further.
in many ways, that's exactly how we got here ... now, to fix it.
i sure hope that wasn't a generational error, but if it was, we have do better by our youngsters.
their vote does count but only if it reflects their understanding of the material at hand.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by MzMorbid
 


What Part of the First Amendment does this violate? Freedom of religion? The big three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all are against homosexuality to my knowledge.


These religions are against homosexuality due to ignorance of their own books.
The bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality amongst regular men and women.

And even if it did (which it doesn't), their religious opinions shouldn't be allowed to dictate the law.
That's where the cry for religious freedom kicks in. If you're forced to live by someone else's dogmatic ideology, then how can one claim freedom of religion?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I'm from NC, I agree with the people for the change... this shows how out-of-touch Beverly Perdue is with the NC public. I have no problem with Mississppi either btw.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against gay/lesbian, after all its talked about in the Bible. Its just a moral issue. Being married is about having a family of your own... sorry to say cloning is not legal yet...LOL



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shdak

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against gay/lesbian, after all its talked about in the Bible. Its just a moral issue. Being married is about having a family of your own... sorry to say cloning is not legal yet...LOL


And the young hetero couple in church who tried for years to become pregnant - - is now pregnant through artificial insemination - - using a donor sperm because the husband's count was too low.

The pastor offers a special prayer - - and the congregation says Amen.

Hypocrites.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

1st
2nd



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
People like me who are against Gay Marriage have our opinions formed by the very vocal people that want Gay Marriage accepted. There is already a thread on this here at ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the history of America, there has never been such an in your face display of heterosexual pride. I don't think in the history of the world have we seen such a display of debauchery like this in the heterosexual community. This is the basis of my opposition for Gay Marriage.

To me, its not about Gay Marriage. To me and IMO the agenda is to normalize this type of behavior and I think its disgusting. If any heterosexual tried to do some of the things displayed at these events we would be beaten beyond recognition and thrown in the slammer as well as having to register as a sex offender. Yet, at these "Gay Pride" parades they get away with everything from simulating sex in public to actually having sex in public and its considered progressive.

I will never vote for it and I will continue to oppose it. Homosexuals are the largest group in America contracting HIV and there is a reason for that and it is a fact.
www.cdc.gov...

You may say that these Gay Pride parades are a small representative minority of the Gay Community. If that's the case, they are always the ones grabbing the headlines and throwing it in our face so IMO they are the majority until I am proven wrong. I would say if you really wanted Gay Marriage accepted, you need to shut that Gay Pride crap down and normalize the debate.

I don't care what you say, Gay Pride Parades are not normal and do not represent civilized society. They are abnormal and putting it mildly, those that participate are mentally imbalanced. To compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement doesn't sway me one bit and I really think its a straw man argument.

African Americans were not simulating sex in the streets or being irresponsible by spreading a civilization ending plague for the rest of us to "enjoy." TO this day, they still do not get it. They are the largest group today still spreading that wicked disease.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


So by your logic, All Christians are bigots and fire-bombing murderers, who hate and condemn anyone who isn't like them, because they're the ones we see at rallies, and the ones who show up on the news, and who burn children alive in Africa. Since that's what we see on the TV, that must be what Christianity is all about, right?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


So by your logic, All Christians are bigots and fire-bombing murderers, who hate and condemn anyone who isn't like them, because they're the ones we see at rallies, and the ones who show up on the news, and who burn children alive in Africa. Since that's what we see on the TV, that must be what Christianity is all about, right?



Well, I would say that we don't have fire-bombing murders parading in the streets naked and simulating sex every chance we get. They are also not parading in the streets fire-bombing christens or homosexuals so your argument falls flat once again. btw... Where are children being fire-bombed in the name of Christianity here in America? Do we have that here? I am sure the media would be all over that?...

The fact is, far more children are dying from AIDS than from fire-bombing incidents and homosexuals are the largest group that continue to spread that disease here in America. They in turn spread it to drug users who in turn spread it to women who then spread it to their children.

The agenda should be to wipe out a disease that started in the homosexual community with patient zero who was a homosexual male. Then maybe we can move on to Gay Marriage. I don't think that's too much to ask. Its a very preventable disease and the responsibility falls on them to clean it up.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
This is Awesome! I applaud N.C. voters !!!

Why? Because The People have collectively spoken making their wishes known. This is true democracy in progress.

Another state's population may not feel the same way and they may allow gay marriage. That's just as good too!

This cannot be a Federal Law, for or against because that is not the role of the federal government. The role of the federal government is to be a mediator between the states. Only the states themselves can decide if this or any issue is right for them.

The people of NC have spoken. Here is a tip. if your gay and you just have to get married and you live in NC - MOVE !
edit on 12-5-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
And the Band Played on sums up my opinion on homosexuals today. Looking at the stats from the CDC they have learned nothing from the early days of GRID or whats now known as AIDS.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.cdc.gov...

You would think that the Gay Community would think AIDS is a more important issue than wanting to bring the level of morality down a notch or two by bastardizing the term Marriage to further a political agenda.IMO that is all it is. It's a political agenda to get back at the rest of us for some perceived slight... Its a vindictive movement that needs to be opposed.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruckDriver69

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


So by your logic, All Christians are bigots and fire-bombing murderers, who hate and condemn anyone who isn't like them, because they're the ones we see at rallies, and the ones who show up on the news, and who burn children alive in Africa. Since that's what we see on the TV, that must be what Christianity is all about, right?


Well, I would say that we don't have fire-bombing murders parading in the streets naked and simulating sex every chance we get. They are also not parading in the streets fire-bombing christens or homosexuals so your argument falls flat once again.


So because they're not parading in the streets. They're just killing people willy nilly, it's okay?




btw... Where are children being fire-bombed in the name of Christianity here in America? Do we have that here? I am sure the media would be all over that?...


Never said it was in America, but it happens nonetheless, thus making them a part of the Christian Identity.

Christianity is a stain on the page of human history.



The fact is, far more children are dying from AIDS than from fire-bombing incidents and homosexuals are the largest group that continue to spread that disease here in America. They in turn spread it to drug users who in turn spread it to women who then spread it to their children.


Wrong. The majority of the people in the world who have HIV/AIDS are straight. 75% of the world's AIDS victims are women and their children, and a majority of them got infected through heterosexual rape. Aids doesn't choose people based on their sexual orientation. It's a virus, and likely one that was man made and designed to wipe out a specific group of people, like lyme disease.



You would think that the Gay Community would think AIDS is a more important issue than wanting to bring the level of morality down a notch or two by bastardizing the term Marriage to further a political agenda.


Actually the religious connotations with the term "Marriage" is what's bastardized. Marriage is just another in a long line of cultural institutions that's been hijacked by Abrahamic religions.




edit on 12-5-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

The people of NC have spoken. Here is a tip. if your gay and you just have to get married and you live in NC - MOVE !
edit on 12-5-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


No. Ignorance won the day. 60% of the people who voted on Amendment one didn't even know what they were voting on.

I'm guessing all of the elderly widows, single parents, abuse victims, and heterosexual couples who had civil unions should move too then, huh?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join