North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[firstdown]

I wonder how big of a deal this would be if there was no money involved? This probably another good example of what happens when the federal gov get to involved in our lives and hands out money to some based on certain status.

BTW This law does not stop gays from getting married its just that the state does not recognize the marriage. See above. Its about the money.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I wonder how big of a deal this would be if there was no money involved? This probably another good example of what happens when the federal gov get to involved in our lives and hands out money to some based on certain status.

BTW This law does not stop gays from getting married its just that the state does not recognize the marriage. See above. Its about the money.

Your first paragraph is a valid argument. If those incentives are not there it becomes a question of what is right and wrong.

If heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the state why can't same-sex couples' if everyone is equal? To me, having certain marriages recognized, based on identity, sexuality, etc., while others aren't is a form of discrimination.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Your first paragraph is a valid argument. If those incentives are not there it becomes a question of what is right and wrong.

If heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the state why can't same-sex couples' if everyone is equal? To me, having certain marriages recognized, based on identity, sexuality, etc., while others aren't is a form of discrimination.

I agree with First's first point too.

I wonder if we see a Civil Rights Bill type thing at some point if it will cause states to just not recognize marriage, samesex or traditional, at all. Or if without a Civil Rights style bill we will see the Fed govt just back out of marriage completely? Whats sad is that if these types of things happen people will blame the gays for ruining it for everyone.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Are you disagreeing with me...because if you are MAY MODS HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!!!!!

No but seriously, I couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my post, or neither

I agree with your post. Perhaps my reply was better suited for Mattyk's post.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

This

[SmootSmack]

Let's not start generalizing

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Let's not start generalizing

I made the clear distinction of "why does it seem", and not a "why are all".

No generalizing was done here.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I made the clear distinction of "why does it seem", and not a "why are all".

No generalizing was done here.

Smootsmack probably never went to college, youll have to forgive him.....



Come on man! You cant just remove the most important adjective of the sentance in trying to make your point. Its:

"why does it seem all" vs "why are all"

Both are generalizations.

[firstdown]

For the people who do not understand the opposition to gay marriage are you not religious at all, atheist, or what? I'm neither but I understand the opposition.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

For the people who do not understand the opposition to gay marriage are you not religious at all, atheist, or what? I'm neither but I understand the opposition.

The problem here is that this amendment or any of the legislation being passed isn't asking if you agree with homosexuality. It's asking if you agree to give them equal rights. That's the problem here. By voting against it, it doesn't mean you are in favor of homosexuality.

If you were to ask most of the people voting for it, they were probably voting for it for the wrong reason and were "proving their morality" by denying gays rights. This is where I think ignorance plays a part. It's learning to find out what the real issue here is, and what am I really voting for and does that in some way change my morality. Most people went into it thinking "I do not believe in homosexuality, so therefore I'm voting in favor of anything against homosexuality, regardless of what harm it causes." Instead of saying......."I'm voting against anything that would restrict the rights of a fellow human being even though I do not agree with homosexuality."


According to the Bible, we should stone gay people. People of different religions should not marrying. Divorce is not a option.

So how about those beliefs? You want me to believe that they are voting because of their religious beliefs, yet they choose to ignore those other requirements set forth by their own religion. This isn't about their beliefs, it's about using their beliefs as a means to hate and discriminate against.

God is against pornography. (porn is one of biggest business on internet) This value is ignored.
God is against divorce. ....yet divorce rate is well above 50%. This value is ignored.
God is against crime. Crime rates are high. This value is ignored.
God is against destroying your body. (obesity rates sky high, smokers, drinkers) This value is ignored.

God is against gays. OMG WE MUST HOLD TRUE TO OUR VIRTUES AND MORALITY.


Yeah guys, we aren't really going to hold to our morality ground unless it involves gay people!! THEN we'll make a stand!!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

For the people who do not understand the opposition to gay marriage are you not religious at all, atheist, or what? I'm neither but I understand the opposition.

Was that directed at me?

For clarity, I'm opposed to any and all religions. Not exactly an Atheist, more anti-theist.

If you're neither religious nor Atheist are you an Agnostic? That always seems to be a bizarre position.

More clarity: Marriages are formal union within a religion between a man and a woman, recognized by law. This means to me that religion and religious groups have the right to say no to gay marriage. This also means that anyone should see that there is an inherent flaw (but this is just one of many) in religion.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Was that directed at me?

For clarity, I'm opposed to any and all religions. Not exactly an Atheist, more anti-theist.

If you're neither religious nor Atheist are you an Agnostic? That always seems to be a bizarre position.

More clarity: Marriages are formal union within a religion between a man and a woman, recognized by law. This means to me that religion and religious groups have the right to say no to gay marriage. This also means that anyone should see that there is an inherent flaw (but this is just one of many) in religion.

It was not directed at anyone I was just curious. One of the main reason marriage was originally formed was for procreation. Last time I checked two women nor two men can have children on their own so I'm not sure thats a flaw.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

One of the main reason marriage was originally formed was for procreation. Last time I checked two women nor two men can have children on their own so I'm not sure thats a flaw.

You don't need to be married to procreate, so that's clearly not true.

[firstdown]

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;917181]You don't need to be married to procreate, so that's clearly not true.[/QUOTE

We do see that and with the tearing down of the family clearly we see the results of single parent families on society and children today.

[Chico23231]

House rejects Thorne-Begland for judgeship as social conservatives prevail | Richmond Times-Dispatch

House of Delegates embarrassing again.