North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[Mr.Nick]

You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen, koshergirl.

I think she's more a sociopath lost in a bubble of conspiracy theories, but that's just me...

i think she is a worthless sack of shit.

Of course you do.... Because you're only half-Centar.

 

[koshergrl]

It's a conspiracy theory that Kinsey abused children and faked his studies?

Perpetrated by whom? He outlines his sick methods in the studies themselves. The APA and academia were fine with it at the time. They didn't mind that he was sexually molesting infants and publishing the results...cuz he said they LIKED it. He made the cover of Time!

But when it came to light that he lied about his research subjects...the males he offered up as representative of the average dude, then they suddenly didn't feel so comfortable with his findings.

Torturing kids...ok.

Lying about research...not so much.

His research partners spilled the beans, as well as victims...and his own material. He filmed a lot of his "research".

 

[BDBoop]

It's a conspiracy theory that Kinsey abused children and faked his studies?

Perpetrated by whom? He outlines his sick methods in the studies themselves. The APA and academia were fine with it at the time. They didn't mind that he was sexually molesting infants and publishing the results...cuz he said they LIKED it. He made the cover of Time!

But when it came to light that he lied about his research subjects...the males he offered up as representative of the average dude, then they suddenly didn't feel so comfortable with his findings.

Torturing kids...ok.

Lying about research...not so much.

His research partners spilled the beans, as well as victims...and his own material. He filmed a lot of his "research".

Are you in the wrong thread?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I think you are, pooper. If there are facts that show the pap you regurgitate on a regular basis comes straight from a pedophile who duped the world into accepting his shop of abuses and porn films as "research", I imagine you wouldn't want to be within a mile of them.

 

[BDBoop]

No, I think you are, pooper. If there are facts that show the pap you regurgitate on a regular basis comes straight from a pedophile who duped the world into accepting his shop of abuses and porn films as "research", I imagine you wouldn't want to be within a mile of them.

I've never quoted Kinsey.

I am seriously worried about you. You're not making any sense.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said you quoted Kinsey. But you do spread his garbage every time you open your stupid mouth about sexuality.

Not that you'd know that, since you refuse to read.

 

[BDBoop]

I never said you quoted Kinsey. But you do spread his garbage every time you open your stupid mouth about sexuality.

Not that you'd know that, since you refuse to read.

/hugs

Be at peace.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said you quoted Kinsey. But you do spread his garbage every time you open your stupid mouth about sexuality.

Not that you'd know that, since you refuse to read.

/hugs

Be at peace.

 

[nitroz]

Now that's a thought.

That thought goes both ways.
There ARE churches who have no problem with Gay Marriages and infact, it could rise that way.

 

[koshergrl]

So? I don't care if clergy marry gays. That's their business.

I don't want the state dictating that they must, however.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, there is a difference between marriage and civil unions.

I suppose I could care less if gays want civil unions, however I am opposed to gay marriage.

I view marriage as a religious based sacrament which has First Amendment implications...

So a word can't have multiple connotations?

A marriage is nothing but a union of two entities.

Legally speaking, marriage is nothing more than a specific type of property contract. In fact the state should not recognize a religious marriage ceremony as being a legal contract. I mean since when do religious organizations get to preside over legal matters?

Let me ask you, do you consider people who are legally married by an officer of the court in a nonreligious ceremony to be married?

IMO all people should have to have a civil ceremony in order to be considered married. The state should never recognize a religious ceremony as a binding legal contract.

 

[KevinWestern]

The same rights that they have in any marriage. I don't really know what they are, not being a family law specialist.

What point are you trying to make Windbag? That's what I'm trying to get at....


.

Just wanted you to be aware that it is not simply a matter of two consenting adults making choices that do not affect anyone else. Children have actually suffered bullying and physical assault because they were in a family with gay parents. People might like to pretend the world is perfect, but it isn't, and any discussion of marriage involves more than the two people involved. This is especially true if we are talking about state sanctioned legal benefits that accrue from a recognized marriage. It imposes a burden on people who choose not to get married if we expand the tax benefits of marriage to more people than were able to grab it before, it can impose financial obligations on others if one. or more, of the people involved are members of the military or otherwise employed in the public service sector.

We should simply eliminate all state involvement in marriage, and end all the debate about the subject.

Yes, but is it the gay parent's fault that society bullies their children, and is that grounds to outlaw same-sex all together?

During the 1960's, a kid might have gotten bullied because his parents supported equal rights for blacks, but that was hardly a reason to give up the fight.

What I'm saying is that if same-sex marriages become recognized by the state, over time "opposing" adults will become less hateful, and will pass on less of that hate to their children, which in turn will result in less bullies.

But I'd be fine (like you said) with the state exiting out of the marriage business all together. I think it's clear that there are too many people who want to keep the term marriage all for themselves, and this might be the only viable solution...

.

 

[jillian]

Should Catholic churches be forced to marry gay people??

No. Nor should they have any say in same sex couples going to the registry office and getting married.

Hence Civil Unions......

no, because people don't need to be religious to be married. marriage is something that is a fundamental right of everyone.

once again... from Loving v Virginia:

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.

try to get your religious zealotry out of the way of your consideration of issues, pretend libertarian.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. Nor should they have any say in same sex couples going to the registry office and getting married.

Hence Civil Unions......

no, because people don't need to be religious to be married. marriage is something that is a fundamental right of everyone.

once again... from Loving v Virginia:

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.

try to get your religious zealotry out of the way of your consideration of issues, pretend libertarian.

So Jillian you're comparing gay marriage to race? Neither are the same and their is no right to be married.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Poor form....

And if you debate intelligence with her, you'd lose every time...

To bad you have yet to show any intelligence. Stop being a bludge

That piece of wind your boyfriend just passed showed more signs of intelligence than you ever will...

You have yet to show any still waiting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well one is authorized and endorsed by the church/temple/mosque, the other is endorsed by the state.

I realise this. Therefore if gay couples went to the registry office they would be getting a marriage license, yeah?

I do realise that there are some Christian gays who would want the Church to force them to be married, and yes, that would be an issue. I know that Church of England pastors etc marry gay couples in the UK. Sure there would be a few happy to do the same in the US..

It's not a marriage license - it's a contract....

They should change the name of the certificate (contract) if they're going to be issuing them for civil unions...

When they first started issuing the contracts/certificates no one would have ever thought that gay "marriage" would ever be a realistic social issue......

This isn't exactly Rome....

Speaking of Rome when the gay lifestyle started growing within that system didn't it fall? Wasn't that one of the reasons for it's collapse? No moral?

 

[candycorn]

One thing that Mr. Obama's support for SSM does is that it short of shoves Romney into a box to where he took the bait and came out on the other side. It was a politically calculated move on his part--one that he didn't need to make in my view--but what it does do is make it harder for Romney to appeal to the middle.

Voters in the middle don't vote on single issues; they look at the collage of the positions, not the individual pictures. Where Obama has a lot of purple in his collage; Romney is being painted dark red right now.

 

[Sunni Man]

Speaking of Rome when the gay lifestyle started growing within that system didn't it fall? Wasn't that one of the reasons for it's collapse? No moral?

Historically, whenever a culture/society embraced homosexuality as normal and good. It was a just another sign that it was in moral decay and rapidly descending towards it's ultimate destruction.

 

[SniperFire]

Speaking of Rome when the gay lifestyle started growing within that system didn't it fall? Wasn't that one of the reasons for it's collapse? No moral?

Historically, whenever a culture/society embraced homosexuality as normal and good. It was a just another sign that it was in moral decay and rapidly descending towards it's ultimate destruction.

This is how and why society and culture has evolved into today's definition of marriage.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[KevinWestern]

Speaking of Rome when the gay lifestyle started growing within that system didn't it fall? Wasn't that one of the reasons for it's collapse? No moral?

Historically, whenever a culture/society embraced homosexuality as normal and good. It was a just another sign that it was in moral decay and rapidly descending towards it's ultimate destruction.

Yes Sunni Man, and BigrebNC - incredibly insightful. Perhaps we should go back to a time in America when the church had a stronger hold on society, homosexuality was scoffed at, and our "morals" were shining in full strength.... you know, like when we used to ship black humans from Africa like commodities, and work them on the fields for 16 hour days until they died of heat exhaustion. I heard they packed the slave ships full with about 400 slaves apiece, and 2/3 of the "cargo" died on every single journey.

Or how about we go back to the days of Columbus, when the Native Central Americans were forced to provide him an allotment of gold every single month. If an individual didn't meet his/her quota, Columbus would chop off their hands. We sure knew how to be gracious "guests" back then... pure moral excellence, right?

But forget all that, I will take your word that we're all "much less" moral now - in fact, in a state of decay - given that we now have less people treating gays like dirt.

I like to stay away from personal attacks, but I just need to say: You guys are fucking idiots.



.
.