North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Frigidus]

another completely misleading title by sym, further lowering his credibility. It also provides evidence for how liberals love to create total BS to manipulate the average person.

I look forward to see how sym tries to attack my credibility in his reply

I look forward to see how vodeon tries to stand by his statement that this is a misleading thread title.

Because the thread title states that gays aren't allowed in North Carolina, which is in no way related to what was actually passed by the state.


And of course, the poll question is also completely misleading because homosexuals DO have the exact same rights as every other person. Marriage isn't a right, so defining it certain ways cannot possibly be a violation of rights.

Voting wasnt a right for women either. Until it was.

Everyone knows that the Constitution was perfect from the day it was ratified, and that anything it supposedly lacks is just something that people entitled to.

[Frigidus]

Considering marriage isn't a right for any person, your analogy is invalid.

I'm going to quote the Supreme Court here.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I guess marriage is a right for some people, eh NS?

[Night Strike]

another completely misleading title by sym, further lowering his credibility. It also provides evidence for how liberals love to create total BS to manipulate the average person.

I look forward to see how sym tries to attack my credibility in his reply

I look forward to see how vodeon tries to stand by his statement that this is a misleading thread title.

Because the thread title states that gays aren't allowed in North Carolina, which is in no way related to what was actually passed by the state.


And of course, the poll question is also completely misleading because homosexuals DO have the exact same rights as every other person. Marriage isn't a right, so defining it certain ways cannot possibly be a violation of rights.

Voting wasnt a right for women either. Until it was.

Everyone knows that the Constitution was perfect from the day it was ratified, and that anything it supposedly lacks is just something that people entitled to.

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

[Frigidus]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

[patrickaa317]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Whether something "is" or "should be" is where you are getting stuck. The "is" is a factual statement and can be proven. The "should be" is an opinion that the holder has derived.

I can say that my wife IS sleeping and be able to prove it. If I say my wife SHOULD BE sleeping, that is my opinion and I have no way to stand behind it.

[Night Strike]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Then you use the amendment process to change the Constitution. You can't do it through judicial fiat.

[army of nobunaga]

lol this thread is a nobu whos who of being foed.


Gay marriage.....

I'm against it... because its forbidden in those religious fanatics rites. Or some -maybe a lot of them.

I'm for a union of equal standing for tax and business purposes.

The damn problem is that the government needed to stay out of the marriage business.

That is the problem. Do I think Gays are lower couples in any fashion.. of course not. All of the gay people I know and have known count as some of the most intellectual and responsible people I have been around.

But to demand a religion accept you, then the government take you into its religious acceptance... the whole damn thing stinks to me.

Screw religion. Be united in whatever passage that deems itsself worthy to a gay couple. Then fight for equality. I am for that.

I know I am splitting hairs... but it is how I feel. Strongly.

[Frigidus]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Whether something "is" or "should be" is where you are getting stuck. The "is" is a factual statement and can be proven. The "should be" is an opinion that the holder has derived.

I can say that my wife IS sleeping and be able to prove it. If I say my wife SHOULD BE sleeping, that is my opinion and I have no way to stand behind it.

Sure. My point is that whenever people say that banning gay marriage is denying a right to gays, Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever). My point is that you can't say that something isn't (currently) a right and just end the conversation there. It doesn't get into the more important "why" of the matter. That's where the meat of the argument is, not in what the current status quo might be.

[Frigidus]

lol this thread is a nobu whos who of being foed.


Gay marriage.....

I'm against it... because its forbidden in those religious fanatics rites. Or some -maybe a lot of them.

I'm for a union of equal standing for tax and business purposes.

The damn problem is that the government needed to stay out of the marriage business.

That is the problem. Do I think Gays are lower couples in any fashion.. of course not. All of the gay people I know and have known count as some of the most intellectual and responsible people I have been around.

But to demand a religion accept you, then the government take you into its religious acceptance... the whole damn thing stinks to me.

Screw religion. Be united in whatever passage that deems itsself worthy to a gay couple. Then fight for equality. I am for that.

I know I am splitting hairs... but it is how I feel. Strongly.

I don't think anyone is trying to legislate religious acceptance of gay marriage. It isn't like if a church refuses to marry two individuals that you can sue them. I mean, shit, if we're going to require every religion to agree on something before we allow it we're going to have very little we're allowed to do.

[notyou2]

another completely misleading title by sym, further lowering his credibility. It also provides evidence for how liberals love to create total BS to manipulate the average person.

I look forward to see how sym tries to attack my credibility in his reply

I look forward to see how vodeon tries to stand by his statement that this is a misleading thread title.

Because the thread title states that gays aren't allowed in North Carolina, which is in no way related to what was actually passed by the state.


And of course, the poll question is also completely misleading because homosexuals DO have the exact same rights as every other person. Marriage isn't a right, so defining it certain ways cannot possibly be a violation of rights.

Voting wasnt a right for women either. Until it was.

Considering marriage isn't a right for any person, your analogy is invalid.

Who says it isn't a right? Some church that speaks for everyone???? Show me a church that speaks for everyone. Religion only sows dissent. "Conform or we will ostracize you." Come on NS, we all know you secretly long to marry your gay lover.

People can marry whomever they want, provided they are both legal consenting adults, it's just that the state may not recognize it as such.

Many people don't need a church or state to confirm their marriage. They only need to recognize it between themselves in my opinion.

[patrickaa317]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Whether something "is" or "should be" is where you are getting stuck. The "is" is a factual statement and can be proven. The "should be" is an opinion that the holder has derived.

I can say that my wife IS sleeping and be able to prove it. If I say my wife SHOULD BE sleeping, that is my opinion and I have no way to stand behind it.

Sure. My point is that whenever people say that banning gay marriage is denying a right to gays, Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever). My point is that you can't say that something isn't (currently) a right and just end the conversation there. It doesn't get into the more important "why" of the matter. That's where the meat of the argument is, not in what the current status quo might be.

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to prove how it is a right; or if you agree that it is not a right, why it should be one? I'm pretty sure the onus is on the person trying to prove why a change should be implemented. I will show you where rights such as free speech or freedom of religion are outlined. Can you show me where the right to marriage is outlined? That will be a good place to start.

[army of nobunaga]

And to be honest that is where gay couples went wrong. If I was their statagist 20 years ago they would own washington by now.


They decided to start grassroots and make some churches have ofshoots that would marry them first. Like the episcopal sects that do now.

They should have from the fucking start demanded equality... not from a religious right, but from a right of all people equal.


All that gay couples have done is just headbutt their asses through the wall of religion and then religious/government acceptance.. By trying to take down religion first...

and guys religious assholes vote.

[Night Strike]

Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever).

How is marriage a right?

[pimpdave]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY. And it wasn't that long ago, either!

Those same pieces of shit exist today. They are these self-righteous religious people. The only reason they're opposed to gay marriage is because they think they're entitled to be. It's beyond stupid, it's plain fucking evil.

That's probably the reason why I'd vote to enshrine gay marriage for eternity, because f*ck those dudes and f*ck their false god.

[Frigidus]

Anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that this statement isn't true. If it were, they wouldn't have included a specific process for amending the Constitution.

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Whether something "is" or "should be" is where you are getting stuck. The "is" is a factual statement and can be proven. The "should be" is an opinion that the holder has derived.

I can say that my wife IS sleeping and be able to prove it. If I say my wife SHOULD BE sleeping, that is my opinion and I have no way to stand behind it.

Sure. My point is that whenever people say that banning gay marriage is denying a right to gays, Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever). My point is that you can't say that something isn't (currently) a right and just end the conversation there. It doesn't get into the more important "why" of the matter. That's where the meat of the argument is, not in what the current status quo might be.

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to prove how it is a right; or if you agree that it is not a right, why it should be one? I'm pretty sure the onus is on the person trying to prove why a change should be implemented. I will show you where rights such as free speech or freedom of religion are outlined. Can you show me where the right to marriage is outlined? That will be a good place to start.

Outlined? In what, the Constitution? Who cares what the Constitution says, I'm not arguing the current legality of gay marriage in the particular part of the world I live in, I'm arguing whether it is morally acceptable to outlaw it.

But, you know what, fine. We'll talk about the Constitution. Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, so I apologize that I'm just going to cite (again) what the Supreme Court has said on marriage in the past:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was in regards to banning interracial marriage, but it still recognizes marriage as a right.

[Night Strike]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

[AAFitz]

Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever).

How is marriage a right?

I notice you avoided my pointing out that Women did not have the right to vote, until it was granted by the Constitution.

Are you suggesting they did not have that right, and that it was not wrongly held from them all along, simply because the Constitution did not grant them that right, at that time?

Further, would you suggest that slaves, did not have the right to be free, simply because that right was not granted by the Constitution at that particular point in time....

or... is it possible, that people have unalienable rights...despite what the current community and laws have provided?

[Frigidus]

Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever).

How is marriage a right?

See above.

[AAFitz]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

More importantly, in twenty years...people will say the same about your twisted views, and most likely...they will be your children or grand children.

In the movie of life NS, you, are the bad guy. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

There is still time to learn though.

Good luck with that.

[Night Strike]

Outlined? In what, the Constitution? Who cares what the Constitution says, I'm not arguing the current legality of gay marriage in the particular part of the world I live in, I'm arguing whether it is morally acceptable to outlaw.

But, you know what, fine. We'll talk about the Constitution. Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, so I apologize that I'm just going to cite (again) what the Supreme Court has said on marriage in the past:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was in regards to banning interracial marriage, but it still recognizes marriage as a right.

Considering the 14th amendment includes equal-protection for people of all races, it makes sense that it would be used to keep states from outlawing interracial marriages.

However, that still doesn't make marriage itself a right. If marriage were a right, then no one could ever deny you marriage because they would be denying your rights.

[Night Strike]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

Actually, Christianity specifically speaks against homosexual activities and actions. However, that still doesn't indicate how rights are being violated by barring same-sex marriage.

[AAFitz]

Outlined? In what, the Constitution? Who cares what the Constitution says, I'm not arguing the current legality of gay marriage in the particular part of the world I live in, I'm arguing whether it is morally acceptable to outlaw.

But, you know what, fine. We'll talk about the Constitution. Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, so I apologize that I'm just going to cite (again) what the Supreme Court has said on marriage in the past:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was in regards to banning interracial marriage, but it still recognizes marriage as a right.

Considering the 14th amendment includes equal-protection for people of all races, it makes sense that it would be used to keep states from outlawing interracial marriages.

However, that still doesn't make marriage itself a right. If marriage were a right, then no one could ever deny you marriage because they would be denying your rights.

If freedom were a right, then no one could ever deny you your freedom, because they would be denying your rights.

There are a few slaves, that may disagree with such a sentiment...

[AAFitz]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

Actually, Christianity specifically speaks against homosexual activities and actions. However, that still doesn't indicate how rights are being violated by barring same-sex marriage.

Your version of it does, because, as I said, you simply fail to understand it...

[Frigidus]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

Actually, Christianity specifically speaks against homosexual activities and actions. However, that still doesn't indicate how rights are being violated by barring same-sex marriage.

Night Strike...I don't know if you just missed this twice or are straight up ignoring it, but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that marriage is a right. I'm going to post it one more time.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Whether or not you are in favor of gay marriage, banning it is just flat out putting restrictions on a, and I quote, "basic civil right of man".

[Frigidus]

Outlined? In what, the Constitution? Who cares what the Constitution says, I'm not arguing the current legality of gay marriage in the particular part of the world I live in, I'm arguing whether it is morally acceptable to outlaw.

But, you know what, fine. We'll talk about the Constitution. Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, so I apologize that I'm just going to cite (again) what the Supreme Court has said on marriage in the past:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was in regards to banning interracial marriage, but it still recognizes marriage as a right.

Considering the 14th amendment includes equal-protection for people of all races, it makes sense that it would be used to keep states from outlawing interracial marriages.

However, that still doesn't make marriage itself a right. If marriage were a right, then no one could ever deny you marriage because they would be denying your rights.

Haha, what? They said that marriage is a right in the first sentence. It is a right. Just becuase the 11th amendment didn't say "Oh, by the way, marriage is a right" doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't cover gay marriage.