North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by korathin

Homosexuals are free to move to the EU. We see what is going on in states that try to be tolerant and accommodating. Homosexuals use that little inch and attempt to stamp out hetero sexual culture and social norms.

I'm not seeing this. I've lived up north in Pennsylvania (Philly to be precise), as well as down in Virginia, and currently in North Carolina. If anything, I've seen the opposite. Any sources to back up your claim?

America isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic. If you want a Democracy, move to Europe and leave the Americans alone.

True the U.S. is supposed to be a Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Republican form of government controlling each said state, harnessed within a representative democracy, where the citizens elect their representatives for fixed terms of office).
However, the U.S. hasn't operated in this manner in quite some time. Everytime an election rolls around there are reports of rampant fraud and bribery. Take the North Carolina Amendment One vote, where many people across the state were denied the ability to vote on the Amendment, as well as the bias spending on the effort to get A-1 passed, using ads that blatantly lied about what exactly A-1 was, which led to the ignorance at the polls.
Roughly 60% of voters had no idea what exactly they were voting on, 20% believing that A-1 only dealt with gay marriage. My own father-in-law's Pastor told him to. his. face. that A-1 dealt soley with gay marriage, and nothing else. Luckily my father-in-law was wise enough to have already read the Amendment, and wiser still in walking out of that church never to return.

I've spoken with several people who didn't get educated on the matter until after they voted for the Amendment, and were shocked to learn that they actually voted against their own circumstances.

Yes, this is supposed to be a Republic, but instead it's become a horrid mix between an Oligarchy and a Theocracy.

Ok that is just history, but here is the fun part and ingenious...how does the gay community get back at the straight community...Well by creating a mental disorder for anyone that may disagree with the gay lifestyle...like I said ingenious...lol

Yeah, trying to level the playing field so that they can be treated as equal human beings is a real lulz moment.

Homosexuality was considered a disorder, but now disagreeing with their lifestyle is labeled a phobia i.e. a disorder. You don't see the irony in that... Homophobia was a term invented by gay activists and as I said it is just ingenious...

BTW no you know understand what a phobia is.....

Originally posted by toochaos4u


The small majority that will honestly say they are gay is far different than the numbers of men that self-identify as not gay but, have exclusive relations with men while being married.

I'm sure you believe what you will...but in the end no one knows which way people want to vote, so we would be a gay society long ago with your numbers.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Homosexuality was considered a disorder, but now disagreeing with their lifestyle is labeled a phobia i.e. a disorder. You don't see the irony in that... Homophobia was a term invented by gay activists and as I said it is just ingenious...

You keep saying "Gay Activists", but that's a little misleading to people unfamiliar with the origins of the term "homophobia." While a gay activist did coin the term, he wasn't homosexual, he was heterosexual; a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg.

In all of your babbling you did manage to spew out one fact, though. Homophobia is not a recognized disorder, however, the behavior of people labelled as "homophobes" is very much real, and very accurately describes a specific group of people, and the people that display this sort of behavior have been found, by a vast majority, to be "closeted" homosexuals themselves, deeply repressing their feeling and desires behind a wall of anger and self-hatred. Generally speaking, religion is to blame for that self-loathing, religiously influenced society to be more to the point.

BTW no you know understand what a phobia is.....

That sentence is unintelligible.


[eta]
It's 2:00am here. I'm off to bed.
Feel free to justify yourself further.
I'll be back..... who knows when I'll be back?
Big day tomorrow. Later, gator.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Many Straight Men Have Gay Sex

Nearly 10% of Self-Proclaimed 'Straight' Men Only Have Sex With Men And 70% of those straight-identified men having sex with men are married. In fact, 10% of all married men in this survey report same-sex behavior during the past year.

In nearly every study of sexual behavior, the percentage of men who report sex with men is higher than the percentage of men who report being gay

Many Straight Men Have Gay Sex

It is not only my opinion lol. There are a lot of DL men. As to the NC vote I was surprised support against was 40%. I underestimated NC in the first place. I think my prediction was going to be 80-20 considering the town meetings were like Westboro camp gatherings. But, time changes and this vote will in time.

Originally posted by korathin

Homosexuals are free to move to the EU. We see what is going on in states that try to be tolerant and accommodating. Homosexuals use that little inch and attempt to stamp out hetero sexual culture and social norms.

P.S

America isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic. If you want a Democracy, move to Europe and leave the Americans alone.

There are currently 7 states in the US that have eliminated the ban on gay marriage. There are 10 countries that legally allow gay marriage - Please give us specific examples of where the heterosexual culture has been stamped out in any of these states or countries. Please tell us which states/countries have fallen to ruin as a result of eliminating the ban on gay marriage. Please give specific examples.

There are those that classify homosexuality as a behavior, but that is not what we are learning through science and research. There are studies that have done, that test the brains reaction to male pheromones and female pheromones in male heterosexuals and homosexuals and in female heterosexuals and homosexuals and it has been found that there is a distinct measurable difference in the brains response.

A homosexual male's brain reacts to male pheromones, in the same manner as a heterosexual male's brain reacts to female pheromones. But does not respond to female pheromones.

A homosexual female's brain reacts to female pheromones, in the same manner as a heterosexual female's brain reacts to male pheromones.But does not respond to male pheromones

When a heterosexual male is exposed to male pheromones, the brain does not respond as it does to female pheromones

When a heterosexual female is exposed to female pheromones, the brain does not respond as it dose to male pheromones.

The first 2 urls are an easier read on the subject

"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says

Lesbians Respond Differently to "Human Pheromones," Study Says

The second set of urls will take you to at least the abstracts and provide you with the proper titles for the studies, if you are up for some serious in depth reading. Having been a research field in the past, I was surprised at how thorough the studies are, following scientific methods they offer valid results.

Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men.

Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women

Aside from these studies that focused on specifically homosexual responses, the researchers in the past performed a similar study on heterosexual.responses.

There are also people born with indeterminate gender, now if people are born androgynous, or those born hermaphrodites, and we know for a fact that these sex related biological differences exist where one is not specifically MAN or WOMAN, why is it so hard to believe that people can be born biologically attracted the same gender

Some info on indeterminate gender

And with science proving that these people are biologically different than heterosexual's, this indicates that they have no choice in the matter, they are born that way. And deserve equal protections under the law.

Just because they are born with a condition that someone else finds disturbing, or is not acceptable in their religious belief system, does not justify condemning them to a miserable existence to keep the aforementioned comfortable not having to deal with it.

When I was a young girl my mother worked at a special hospital, for downes children. Parents who gave birth to these children would turn them over to the hospital for life, never even visiting them again...simply because at that time people were uncomfortable with the idea of a child born with a birth defect. NOW people would be horribly outraged at the practice as people born with downs syndrome in many cases can live a happy and productive life.and should not be prevented from an equal chance for life and happiness.

This is really not that different aside from not throwing people with sexual differences away and locking them up, people are fighting very hard to prevent them from an equal chance for life and happiness.

I find it very disturbing that at a time when our economy is crumbling, and we are facing much bigger problems in the world, people are so determined to expend their energies and voice not to fixing the economy, hunger, corruption in our government, but instead their energy goes towards controlling and limiting the lives of others. AT the rate we are going our children will not be able to support themselves or live without hunger and a roof over their heads, why not fight as hard for their futures.

As Jesus said (paraphrased) how do you intend to remove the speck from your brothers eye, with a log in your own. I know it's inaccurate but you get the idea.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
and the people that display this sort of behavior have been found, by a vast majority, to be "closeted" homosexuals themselves,

I guess it all fits nicely in one package...large percent of the population is homosexual, anyone who disagrees with the activists aspect of gays is homophobic, anyone homophobic is a closet gay...

Nice...so what is the problem?

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
There are those that classify homosexuality as a behavior, but that is not what we are learning through science and research. There are studies that have done, that test the brains reaction to male pheromones and female pheromones in male heterosexuals and homosexuals and in female heterosexuals and homosexuals and it has been found that there is a distinct measurable difference in the brains response.

Can we not say the same thing about any number of other abnormalities too? I agree with you that something physically different is going on in their brain than what a we would call a normal sexual response, but I also think that is the case with the vast majority of behaviors too.

My point to all this is I believe in States having the right to vote on what the majority want in their States. I don't see homosexuality as being something special (like a civil right) over any other behavior, and so we as a society need to determine what is acceptable or not. Some States you can get married at the age of 14 and in others you would go to jail marrying someone at that age... Some states have the death penalty, some do not...and so on.

To make it all fair to EVERYONE I think we should do away with any privileges marrying may provide and keep it strictly a religious event without the states involvement.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Can we not say the same thing about any number of other abnormalities too? I agree with you that something physically different is going on in their brain than what a we would call a normal sexual response, but I also think that is the case with the vast majority of behaviors too.

Well see we do say the same about any number of other abnormalities. The same protections that are based on religion, and race are also in writing to protect people with disabilities. Again, if it is a biological aspect of their bodies that they are unable to control....It is not really just a behavior, it is a natural biological response for them.

Alcoholism might be classified as a behavior, drug abuse, adultery and so forth are behaviors.

But a naturally occurring biological difference, is just that a difference in how a person's body works, not a intentional choice of behavior.

I have lumbar spinal stenosis, I look completely normal if you see me but I can only stand or walk at best for 10 minutes before I am in too much pain to practically even move, I take pain pills daily just to get through the days and face the prospect of eventually losing my ability to walk and living out the rest of my life in a wheel chair. Now although you can't see it on the outside, I am different, and my body doesn't work like the average person of my age. Some may consider my use of pain meds a weakness, but defy anyone to deal with the pain I deal with, which is so great that just to keep it at a manageable level with Norco on a daily basis, every 6 months I have to have the nerve endings in my lower back burned off. The law protects me from discrimination as I am disabled. It's not a choice or behavior it is a biological response.

I'm of the personal belief that with our economy so messed up, our government is so messed up, the world pretty much all over is going to hell......and with all this around us that we have to struggle through....It is so offensive to see others attacking and trying to restrict the love and future happiness of another as their top priorities.

The New Testament, which is core to the Christian religion does not instruct it's followers to force others adhere to the laws outlined in the Bible, it tells the followers that THEY are to adhere to the laws, People need to read more

Originally posted by Pixiefyre


I'm of the personal belief that with our economy so messed up, our government is so messed up, the world pretty much all over is going to hell......and with all this around us that we have to struggle through....It is so offensive to see others attacking and trying to restrict the love and future happiness of another as their top priorities.

I think society swings are slow but still happen. Just think about what was illegal 40 years ago that is concidered a norm today.

I just don't see it as others like yourself sees it as restricting love and happiness in anyway. My neighbors are gay and they been together for about 30 plus years. Both are named Bill so I call them Bill square, but they are good folk that if I needed someone to watch my two boys on a no notice situation they would be the first I would ask. I asked them once why were they not married and they laugh and said only their heterosexual friends want them to marry. They have all the legal aspects of their relationship in place for a very long time, and they just do not see any benefit to marrying.

I would also be careful what one wishes for. I do not like Government control on marriage. I believe more along the lines that if a couple is together 7 plus years then in the eyes of court they are considered partners. This concept that to get married and 6 months later get a divorce, and oh BTW give me 1/2 of everything you own is really stupid. There are much better ways to create a legal partnership for all. I would also go with an example that if a couple files their taxes jointly then that could be viewed as a legal document that determines they are a couple with all rights under the law.

So in the end I think we should not step on those who feel a "marriage" is define a certain way, but revamp the system as to how the Government recognizes a partnership for legal and tax reasons.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I would also be careful what one wishes for. I do not like Government control on marriage. I believe more along the lines that if a couple is together 7 plus years then in the eyes of court they are considered partners. This concept that to get married and 6 months later get a divorce, and oh BTW give me 1/2 of everything you own is really stupid. There are much better ways to create a legal partnership for all. I would also go with an example that if a couple files their taxes jointly then that could be viewed as a legal document that determines they are a couple with all rights under the law.

So in the end I think we should not step on those who feel a "marriage" is define a certain way, but revamp the system as to how the Government recognizes a partnership for legal and tax reasons.

I don't so much see it as a government control on marriage, but instead a release of control, tearing down restrictions for this group of people. Let them have the choice to get married or not. Some states do not recognize common law marriages or partnerships. I just hate the idea that someone could love another for years, and say one ends up in intensive care in the hospital due to illness or injury and their partner is barred from being there with them because visitation is "family only" That along with all the other "family" exceptions and allowances.

I feel they should be equal and not have so many people wanting to restrict their happiness.

I have at least a little experience in having my happiness restricted and it really sucks sometimes. In my situation I married a man from Canada (UK citizen) in 2002. Through the K3 visa program I was allowed to have him come here and live with me as the immigration process progressed. Well..it's been 10 years now and although we are still together, he can't work and over the time we've been together I have become disabled and it's difficult for him not providing. My disability income is sufficient as I did work mid to high end careers through my life, but still it's hard for him. So it's hard for me.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I guess it all fits nicely in one package...large percent of the population is homosexual...

Who said that a large percent of the population is homosexual?

...anyone who disagrees with the activists aspect of gays is homophobic, anyone homophobic is a closet gay...

No. Anyone who tends to disagree with the activists are bigots or religious nuts, and only 80% of homophobes are closeted gays.

Nice...so what is the problem?

You tell me.

reply to post by Xtrozero

What I am suggesting is that the media already portrays heterosexual behavior in 99% of the time, even though it may represent 95% of the population. The majority of what is seen, shows nothing but what would be considered normal, in the eyes of the public, often changing as the times change.

And what is wrong with cultural acceptance? Any group out there that identifies as one group or another, wants such.

While there are those that mention about the polygamy or polyamourous relationship, the issue here is not that, as such has been discussed, debated on and even went through the courts before. For the longest times, even some acts that take place in the bedroom, were and have been considered against the law, but through challenges in the law, have changed said laws.

What was stated, has been done before over and over again, to try to get the public to accept change, and ultimately that is what this is about, social change. Hollywood, once glorified smoking, yet now rejects it. The media was used to show one group or the other as being evil, only to turn around and change their minds later on about one group or the other that it once demonized, redefining the actual group itself.

While including actions and behaviors may be bad as being included as a civil right, at the same time is denying the freedom of choice a good idea? While there are those that would argue, a gay man can marry a woman, that is not only an insult, but also denying that man the right to choose to marry and settle down with someone that he or she may love and want to spend the rest of their life with. And is that not the very essence of freedom and the very idea in this country?

The idea of gay marriage is not an old idea, it is a new one. Never before has it been asked about or even suggested before. It has not been through the courts, it has not been discussed or even debated on until recently. No point in history has shown that, however, it is no the first time when the discussion about accepting a behavior has come about. Several years back, back in the late 1990’s there was a large push for the country to accept Ebonics, as a form of language for the rest of the country to accept. There was a huge push for such, and even Hollywood got in on the deal. And before that, where was the antiwar movements, where people protested against the draft, and before that other movements, beyond the civil rights movements, where the actions and ideas were pushed and tried to get to be accepted. Even the reproductive rights of women were put on trial, as at one time it was against the law for contraceptives to be used or even developed to prevent a woman from getting pregnant. In New York, there were laws that were changed, to allow for greater freedom for women, to include smoking, before that it was the right to vote. Even the rights of women to be accepted as equals, were also a movement. Recent history is loaded with such, including different behaviors, that not every one agreed with.

Is it right to demand one group follow the laws and rules, while denying them the same rights and privileges as the rest of society?

Originally posted by seabag
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??

I completely agree with you. The states have a right to determine their own laws, based on majority voting UNLESS those laws are in violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment does not apply to the issue of gay marriage. However, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment does apply. Laws that provide for heterosexual marriages must equally apply to same-sex marriages, otherwise they are in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

While the 10th Amendment gives states limited sovereignty and freedom to determine their own laws, such laws that the states may impose are considered null if they are in violation of the US Constitution or any of its amendments. For example, In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes". Therefore, a state law that infringes on the rights of the individual, or creates an environment of inequality, is unconstitutional and invalid.

Originally posted by Pixiefyre
I just hate the idea that someone could love another for years, and say one ends up in intensive care in the hospital due to illness or injury and their partner is barred from being there with them because visitation is "family only" That along with all the other "family" exceptions and allowances.

I feel they should be equal and not have so many people wanting to restrict their happiness.

From what I know that is an easy fix with creating legal documents to give all rights and privileges to anyone you so deem. I also think no matter what laws are on the books partnerships are not uncommon so I would say most if not all institutions understand the situations.

I have at least a little experience in having my happiness restricted and it really sucks sometimes. In my situation I married a man from Canada (UK citizen) in 2002. Through the K3 visa program I was allowed to have him come here and live with me as the immigration process progressed. Well..it's been 10 years now and although we are still together, he can't work and over the time we've been together I have become disabled and it's difficult for him not providing. My disability income is sufficient as I did work mid to high end careers through my life, but still it's hard for him. So it's hard for me.

He hasn't been able change his K3 status to get a green card and SS number after 10 years?

The sad reality is, the gay community of today is in the same place as the black community was in the 60's, I think the little poster I posted above pretty much sums up the situation. many of the same arguments are being used today, as was used then, for the same closed minded ignorant and bigoted reasons.

Originally posted by draco49
Therefore, a state law that infringes on the rights of the individual, or creates an environment of inequality, is unconstitutional and invalid.

Exactly!

Civil Rights Act
Disability Act
Fair Housing Act

and I'm sure - - soon to be: Federal Marriage Act

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At one time there may have been logical real reasons for States to have their own marriage laws.

There is no real legitimate logical reason today.

Going to be pretty embarrassing for Obama to lose a state where he is holding his convention.

North Carolina gays still have the right to get married. They can do what Obama (the first gay president according to Newsweek) did, marry a member of the opposite sex.

Equal rights for all, Special rights for none.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Going to be pretty embarrassing for Obama to lose a state where he is holding his convention.

Why?

The embarrassment is those who can't understand equality.

North Carolina gays still have the right to get married. They can marry a member of the opposite sex.

Still the dumbest statement ever - - on this subject.

Equal rights for all, Special rights for none.

The 2nd dumbest statement ever - - on this subject.