North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage

[JakeStarkey]

The trend is against you, bigreb: tuff.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The haters like bigreb and sniper can't get over the fact that 1/4th country lives with universal marriage, the trending for it increases, and the end result is not in doubt, only the timing of it.

Tuff for them.

Since you think everybody has a right to marry, what happens when someone is jilted and the person they love does not want to marry them and has restricted them of their right Can they sue? After all the other person is infringing on their so called universal right to marriage

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you talking about contractual violation or alienation of affection?

Such laws are on the books. Look them up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you talking about contractual violation or alienation of affection?

Such laws are on the books. Look them up.

Human make contracts for animals all the time.

 

[KevinWestern]

and jake is showing his bigotry who are you too restrict people of their rights to marry a family member, have as many spouses as they choice too or even have sex with animals? Who are you to stop them? Once you start giving special right to certain groups you will open the flood gates for other groups.

I mentioned to you that I don't care what people do so long that it doesn't infringe on anyone's personal rights as a citizen.

(I know this post was directed at Jake, but you keep asking me the same ? too).

This includes polygamy (make it legal) and beastiality (make it legal - nothing's going to stop those sickos anyways)....

I mentioned to you we have laws against all that for a reason it because it's not normal just like same sex marriage is not normal and illegal in most states.

So under your Authoritarian Regime, anything deemed "not normal" should be strictly prohibited?

"Freedom to Choose" - so long as the choices are "normal"..

Scary proposal Big, you sound more and more like a communist with each post.......
.

 

[Navy1960]

Okay let's get this right here, first marriage in and of itself is not a right expressed anywhere in the Constitution and as such given the fact that it not expressed in the Consitution, then the 10th Amendment comes into play, in that it falls to the individual states to make laws regulating it. Having said this, the 10th Amendment is not a license for the state to deny other rights in the Constitution to people, for example, if the Federal Govt. or Governmental entity gives a privledge to married couples that are defined by a state as ( man and woman) for example ( tax deductions etc) and the states deny individuals the ability to marry and enjoy such privledges then that sets up a confict with the 14th Amendment in my humble opinion in that you have an *equal protection clause violation*. The best way to resolve this would be to one, disolve marriages all together as a matter of Governmental regulation and leave it to *churches* or disolve ALL privledges accorded to those married under existing laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. Now some have said this is a license to allow human beings to go beyond the definition of marriage i.e. a man falls in love with a plant and wants to marry it, however as a state and the Federal have the ability under many Laws to regulate such things as this, that arguement is nonsense as things such plants, cats, whatever you want to put here, are not subject to Laws other than those that control the human beings that control them. In other words let me give you an example a dog license while for an individual dog is the responsibility of the owner of the dog to comply with it not the dog.

A state is well within its rights to define what a marriage is so long as that state does not deny rights to others under that law. So for example, if a state wishes to pass a laws that defines marriage as man and woman then so long as that state does not accord any privledges under state law for being married then they are well within their rights to do so. My feelings are that this issue is best left to individuals once again to decide whats best for them and Government in general is terrible at passing laws that have anything to do relationships besides protection laws such as domestic battery issues that sort of thing. I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I mentioned to you that I don't care what people do so long that it doesn't infringe on anyone's personal rights as a citizen.

(I know this post was directed at Jake, but you keep asking me the same ? too).

This includes polygamy (make it legal) and beastiality (make it legal - nothing's going to stop those sickos anyways)....

I mentioned to you we have laws against all that for a reason it because it's not normal just like same sex marriage is not normal and illegal in most states.

So under your Authoritarian Regime, anything deemed "not normal" should be strictly prohibited?

"Freedom to Choose" - so long as the choices are "normal"..

Scary proposal Big, you sound more and more like a communist with each post.......
.

And under your Authoritarian Regime only certain people have special right fuck everybody else.

 

[SniperFire]

I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

It is the classic Libertarian fail argument.

Thousands of years of human society and culture has given us the definition of marriage for a reason.

Without government 'intruding' on morality, we have anarchy.

See; Deadwood

 

[KevinWestern]

Okay let's get this right here, first marriage in and of itself is not a right expressed anywhere in the Constitution and as such given the fact that it not expressed in the Consitution, then the 10th Amendment comes into play, in that it falls to the individual states to make laws regulating it. Having said this, the 10th Amendment is not a license for the state to deny other rights in the Constitution to people, for example, if the Federal Govt. or Governmental entity gives a privledge to married couples that are defined by a state as ( man and woman) for example ( tax deductions etc) and the states deny individuals the ability to marry and enjoy such privledges then that sets up a confict with the 14th Amendment in my humble opinion in that you have an *equal protection clause violation*. The best way to resolve this would be to one, disolve marriages all together as a matter of Governmental regulation and leave it to *churches* or disolve ALL privledges accorded to those married under existing laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. Now some have said this is a license to allow human beings to go beyond the definition of marriage i.e. a man falls in love with a plant and wants to marry it, however as a state and the Federal have the ability under many Laws to regulate such things as this, that arguement is nonsense as things such plants, cats, whatever you want to put here, are not subject to Laws other than those that control the human beings that control them. In other words let me give you an example a dog license while for an individual dog is the responsibility of the owner of the dog to comply with it not the dog.

A state is well within its rights to define what a marriage is so long as that state does not deny rights to others under that law. So for example, if a state wishes to pass a laws that defines marriage as man and woman then so long as that state does not accord any privledges under state law for being married then they are well within their rights to do so. My feelings are that this issue is best left to individuals once again to decide whats best for them and Government in general is terrible at passing laws that have anything to do relationships besides protection laws such as domestic battery issues that sort of thing. I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

I think States have the right to vote and voice their opinion, but I am (and will always be) against measures that unnecessarily restrict our Freedoms and our Liberties under law.

The States have a right to vote for a 90% top tax bracket, and I'll be against that too.

If there exists gays, and they want to marry, I (personally) see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. To allow them has no effect on my life (or anyone else's), and serves to benefit their life greatly.

Therefore I'm pro-SSM..

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

It is the classic Libertarian fail argument.

Thousands of years of human society and culture has given us the definition of marriage for a reason.

Without government 'intruding' on morality, we have anarchy.

See; Deadwood

That's why I can't be a hard core Libertarian I can never support the right of someone that wants to do something abnormal. that's why we have laws against such things.

 

[KevinWestern]

I mentioned to you we have laws against all that for a reason it because it's not normal just like same sex marriage is not normal and illegal in most states.

So under your Authoritarian Regime, anything deemed "not normal" should be strictly prohibited?

"Freedom to Choose" - so long as the choices are "normal"..

Scary proposal Big, you sound more and more like a communist with each post.......
.

And under your Authoritarian Regime only certain people have special right fuck everybody else.

Under my Libertarian gov't, people can do what they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Nothing Authoritarian about it....

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay let's get this right here, first marriage in and of itself is not a right expressed anywhere in the Constitution and as such given the fact that it not expressed in the Consitution, then the 10th Amendment comes into play, in that it falls to the individual states to make laws regulating it. Having said this, the 10th Amendment is not a license for the state to deny other rights in the Constitution to people, for example, if the Federal Govt. or Governmental entity gives a privledge to married couples that are defined by a state as ( man and woman) for example ( tax deductions etc) and the states deny individuals the ability to marry and enjoy such privledges then that sets up a confict with the 14th Amendment in my humble opinion in that you have an *equal protection clause violation*. The best way to resolve this would be to one, disolve marriages all together as a matter of Governmental regulation and leave it to *churches* or disolve ALL privledges accorded to those married under existing laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. Now some have said this is a license to allow human beings to go beyond the definition of marriage i.e. a man falls in love with a plant and wants to marry it, however as a state and the Federal have the ability under many Laws to regulate such things as this, that arguement is nonsense as things such plants, cats, whatever you want to put here, are not subject to Laws other than those that control the human beings that control them. In other words let me give you an example a dog license while for an individual dog is the responsibility of the owner of the dog to comply with it not the dog.

A state is well within its rights to define what a marriage is so long as that state does not deny rights to others under that law. So for example, if a state wishes to pass a laws that defines marriage as man and woman then so long as that state does not accord any privledges under state law for being married then they are well within their rights to do so. My feelings are that this issue is best left to individuals once again to decide whats best for them and Government in general is terrible at passing laws that have anything to do relationships besides protection laws such as domestic battery issues that sort of thing. I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

I think States have the right to vote and voice their opinion, but I am (and will always be) against measures that unnecessarily restrict our Freedoms and our Liberties under law.

The States have a right to vote for a 90% top tax bracket, and I'll be against that too.

If there exists gays, and they want to marry, I (personally) see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. To allow them has no effect on my life (or anyone else's), and serves to benefit their life greatly.

Therefore I'm pro-SSM..

.

Fine gays want to get married it's their right but it's also the right of those people who want to have more than one spouse and the right to marry teenagers above the age of 16 and also people have the right to marry a family member. But then again we do have laws against such rights and for good reason just like homosexual acts.

 

[SniperFire]

I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

It is the classic Libertarian fail argument.

Thousands of years of human society and culture has given us the definition of marriage for a reason.

Without government 'intruding' on morality, we have anarchy.

See; Deadwood

That's why I can't be a hard core Libertarian I can never support the right of someone that wants to do something abnormal. that's why we have laws against such things.

Sadly, us mainstream conservatives believe in so much they believe in, but in the end, they are totalitarians.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So under your Authoritarian Regime, anything deemed "not normal" should be strictly prohibited?

"Freedom to Choose" - so long as the choices are "normal"..

Scary proposal Big, you sound more and more like a communist with each post.......
.

And under your Authoritarian Regime only certain people have special right fuck everybody else.

Under my Libertarian gov't, people can do what they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Nothing Authoritarian about it....

.

Really? No laws protecting people from stupidity?

 

[SniperFire]

So under your Authoritarian Regime, anything deemed "not normal" should be strictly prohibited?

"Freedom to Choose" - so long as the choices are "normal"..

Scary proposal Big, you sound more and more like a communist with each post.......
.

And under your Authoritarian Regime only certain people have special right fuck everybody else.

Under my Libertarian gov't, people can do what they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Nothing Authoritarian about it....

.

Like in Deadwood, for instance.

But you perhaps have another reason for why Libertarian 'government' has never - and will never - exist in the real world?

 

[KevinWestern]

Okay let's get this right here, first marriage in and of itself is not a right expressed anywhere in the Constitution and as such given the fact that it not expressed in the Consitution, then the 10th Amendment comes into play, in that it falls to the individual states to make laws regulating it. Having said this, the 10th Amendment is not a license for the state to deny other rights in the Constitution to people, for example, if the Federal Govt. or Governmental entity gives a privledge to married couples that are defined by a state as ( man and woman) for example ( tax deductions etc) and the states deny individuals the ability to marry and enjoy such privledges then that sets up a confict with the 14th Amendment in my humble opinion in that you have an *equal protection clause violation*. The best way to resolve this would be to one, disolve marriages all together as a matter of Governmental regulation and leave it to *churches* or disolve ALL privledges accorded to those married under existing laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. Now some have said this is a license to allow human beings to go beyond the definition of marriage i.e. a man falls in love with a plant and wants to marry it, however as a state and the Federal have the ability under many Laws to regulate such things as this, that arguement is nonsense as things such plants, cats, whatever you want to put here, are not subject to Laws other than those that control the human beings that control them. In other words let me give you an example a dog license while for an individual dog is the responsibility of the owner of the dog to comply with it not the dog.

A state is well within its rights to define what a marriage is so long as that state does not deny rights to others under that law. So for example, if a state wishes to pass a laws that defines marriage as man and woman then so long as that state does not accord any privledges under state law for being married then they are well within their rights to do so. My feelings are that this issue is best left to individuals once again to decide whats best for them and Government in general is terrible at passing laws that have anything to do relationships besides protection laws such as domestic battery issues that sort of thing. I frankly find it very interesting that many wish a smaller Government like myself and at the same time are constantly wanting Government to pass laws such as these that don't make Government smaller or less intrusive.

I think States have the right to vote and voice their opinion, but I am (and will always be) against measures that unnecessarily restrict our Freedoms and our Liberties under law.

The States have a right to vote for a 90% top tax bracket, and I'll be against that too.

If there exists gays, and they want to marry, I (personally) see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. To allow them has no effect on my life (or anyone else's), and serves to benefit their life greatly.

Therefore I'm pro-SSM..

.

Fine gays want to get married it's their right but it's also the right of those people who want to have more than one spouse and the right to marry teenagers above the age of 16 and also people have the right to marry a family member. But then again we do have laws against such rights and for good reason just like homosexual acts.

Didn't I say about 10,000 times that I think polygamy, ect, should be legal?

You're like a broken record...

 

[KevinWestern]

It is the classic Libertarian fail argument.

Thousands of years of human society and culture has given us the definition of marriage for a reason.

Without government 'intruding' on morality, we have anarchy.

See; Deadwood

That's why I can't be a hard core Libertarian I can never support the right of someone that wants to do something abnormal. that's why we have laws against such things.

Sadly, us mainstream conservatives believe in so much they believe in, but in the end, they are totalitarians.

Libertarians are "totalitarians"?

.

 

[SniperFire]

Didn't I say about 10,000 times that I think polygamy, ect, should be legal?

You're like a broken record...

Do you have an example of a culture or society which worked where people breed like dogs?


(don't use Detroit)

 

[KevinWestern]

And under your Authoritarian Regime only certain people have special right fuck everybody else.

Under my Libertarian gov't, people can do what they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Nothing Authoritarian about it....

.

Really? No laws protecting people from stupidity?

Give me an example. Again, if an act doesn't infringe on personal rights of others, I say legalize it..

 

[KevinWestern]

Didn't I say about 10,000 times that I think polygamy, ect, should be legal?

You're like a broken record...

Do you have an example of a culture or society which worked where people breed like dogs?


(don't use Detroit)

Why? How does this relate to the conversation?

And what % of the population do you realistically think would practice polygamy? Maybe <0.001%?