North Carolina voters approve gay mar...

North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

There are 5908 comments on the NJ.com story from May 8, 2012, titled North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban. In it, NJ.com reports that:

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment today defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NJ.com.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2856 May 28, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot to ask: If the marriage is redundant, how do they get more benefits under marriage than they did under biological kinship.
it is different, isn't it?
Are you retarded?

You must be kidding me.
1 post removed

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2858 May 28, 2012
Sawber wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why is it offered?
Marriage isn't "offered".

Don't confuse the words for the reality they attempt to communicate.

It's called "confusing symbol with referent".
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2859 May 29, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As if you would ever support any rights/benefits/protections for same-sex couples.
You're a typical anti-gay bigot. You'll never change. We just wait for enough of you die (
see, you are arguing with an illusion you created.

I fully support CU's...why wouldn't you think I do?

But it is easy to hate than to justify why you should have more than a CU...
you want sameness...you are not the same...
but you are entitled to love whom you want and get equal protections...
but all other things being equal, a mom and dad is better. this relationship is "marriage". end of story.

Anything else is coming from you...

any feel free to hold onto doing better in a vote you lose or believing your polls...in reality they show that most people understand there is no real justification for gays having marriage and there is every justification for gays having a CU...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2860 May 29, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Fall in love with a member of the opposite sex.
Actually, that's not true.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2861 May 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bet you cherry pick the Bible too don't you. How about the first six chapters of Leviticus? You follow those or make lame excuses for not doing so?
That quote is from Skinner which was a case about mandatory serialization and a violation of fundamental rights with established marriage as a fundamental right. You sure you want to go there?
It's not him that cherry picks...it's you and those like you that like to post repeatedly about how marriage is a 'fundamental right', you conveniently leave out the rest of that quote because you know it has nothing to do with ssm.....
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2862 May 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradict yourself much? First you say marriage isn't a right, and then you quote SCOTUS "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Which is it?
And why is gay marriage not fundamental to our very existence and survival? You automatically assume that means procreation. If SCOTUS had meant that, they would have said it. They didn't. So maybe they meant pair bonding is important to quality of life. It's a fact that married people live longer than singles.
Procreation is the right, and marriage is protected to the extent it relates to that right...
its simple.
and when the SCOTUS said that sentence they attributed it to another case(where it originated)...the citation was to SKINNER, a forced STERILIZATION case...
so the dots are connected...you just don't like it...so you refuse to understand it...
luckily, we don't need your agreement, reality exists apart from you and your approval.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2863 May 29, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradict yourself much? First you say marriage isn't a right, and then you quote SCOTUS "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Which is it?
And why is gay marriage not fundamental to our very existence and survival? You automatically assume that means procreation. If SCOTUS had meant that, they would have said it. They didn't. So maybe they meant pair bonding is important to quality of life. It's a fact that married people live longer than singles.
Finish the phrase....don't stop at 'basic civil rights of man'....
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2864 May 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not him that cherry picks...it's you and those like you that like to post repeatedly about how marriage is a 'fundamental right', you conveniently leave out the rest of that quote because you know it has nothing to do with ssm.....
and the very real and undisputed fact that when the scouts was specifically asked about gay marriage, they denied any federal right even existed to it. Just after finding marriage is a fundamental right for straights too...
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2865 May 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Finish the phrase....don't stop at 'basic civil rights of man'....
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."

lets look at page 541 of skinner:

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2866 May 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
It's not him that cherry picks...it's you and those like you that like to post repeatedly about how marriage is a 'fundamental right', you conveniently leave out the rest of that quote because you know it has nothing to do with ssm.....
Can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry, yes or no?

Who do you suppose is cherry picking if a procreative requirement is applied to marriage solely applicable to same sex couples, and exclusively to deny equal protection of the laws.

Hypocrite.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2867 May 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can infertile heterosexual couples legally marry, yes or no?
Who do you suppose is cherry picking if a procreative requirement is applied to marriage solely applicable to same sex couples, and exclusively to deny equal protection of the laws.
Hypocrite.
exceptions not negating the rule is not cherry picking...

just like the fact that transgenders are often straight and not gay, but that exception does not negate the fact that the LGBT is related to being gay...

but some straights ARE LGBT?
why doesn't this exception negate that LGBT is related to gays?
or are you suggesting LGBT includes ALL straights?

marriage is as much about procreation as being LGBT is about being gay.

your are merely arguing that exceptions negate the rule and you know what this "rhetorical demand" is worth...
nothing.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2868 May 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
exceptions not negating the rule is not cherry picking...
Actually, it is just that.
Reality wrote:
just like the fact that transgenders are often straight and not gay, but that exception does not negate the fact that the LGBT is related to being gay... but some straights ARE LGBT? why doesn't this exception negate that LGBT is related to gays? or are you suggesting LGBT includes ALL straights?
No one could really be as dumb as you are pretending to be. Are you done playing word games like a child?
Reality wrote:
marriage is as much about procreation as being LGBT is about being gay.
No, it is not. A fact that is proven when infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. The reality is that there is no legitimate state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage. This entire argument is a infantile rationalization.
Reality wrote:
your are merely arguing that exceptions negate the rule and you know what this "rhetorical demand" is worth...
nothing.
Funny, is this just because the reality of the situation devastates your rationalization? Feel free to offer a big boy argument against allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Thus far, you haven't even offered a rational basis for such a restriction.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2869 May 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Finish the phrase....don't stop at 'basic civil rights of man'....
Is it a civil right or not?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2870 May 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is the right, and marriage is protected to the extent it relates to that right...
its simple.
and when the SCOTUS said that sentence they attributed it to another case(where it originated)...the citation was to SKINNER, a forced STERILIZATION case...
so the dots are connected...you just don't like it...so you refuse to understand it...
luckily, we don't need your agreement, reality exists apart from you and your approval.
How's that tuition refund coming along?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2871 May 29, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not him that cherry picks...it's you and those like you that like to post repeatedly about how marriage is a 'fundamental right', you conveniently leave out the rest of that quote because you know it has nothing to do with ssm.....
You are quite mistaken. Each phrase primarily refers to the associated case, then to the underlying Constitutional principal. Denying rights and abridgment of freedom is contrary to those principals.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2872 May 29, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)."
lets look at page 541 of skinner:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects."
Skinner are a case about denying the plaintiffs fundamental right to procreation. That quote speaks directly to fundamental rights and freedom. Why do you hate freedom and the American way?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2873 May 29, 2012
Skinner is.....
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2874 May 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Skinner are a case about denying the plaintiffs fundamental right to procreation. That quote speaks directly to fundamental rights and freedom. Why do you hate freedom and the American way?
the case speaks to what is really fundamental to our EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL...procreation.

When did you stop kicking injured puppies and why wont you stop burning crosses?

You seek "freedom" in govt recognition which I find repugnant.
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2875 May 29, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is just that.
<quoted text>
No one could really be as dumb as you are pretending to be. Are you done playing word games like a child?
<quoted text>
No, it is not. A fact that is proven when infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. The reality is that there is no legitimate state interest in procreation relative to the legal protections of marriage. This entire argument is a infantile rationalization.
<quoted text>
Funny, is this just because the reality of the situation devastates your rationalization? Feel free to offer a big boy argument against allowing same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Thus far, you haven't even offered a rational basis for such a restriction.
so exceptions negate rules?
then provide a law with no exceptions.

As I said, there are exceptions to LGBT members being gay, so all straights must also be LGTB???

Murder is wrong, except when it isnt, so no laws against murder since we find it just fine during wars and self defense?

this IS dumb since exceptions dont negate rules,

and consistency is not even on your radar...

procreation and marriage are linked with exceptions, as LGBT and being gay are linked with some exceptions...

you should read "not yet equal", he has a clue, you just make yourself and your side look very bad...
Reality

Montpelier, VT

#2876 May 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Skinner is.....
I dont think you should have to correct yourself, every single person knows what you meant...
and only faux elitists make a big deal about that stuff anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min USAsince1680 1,233,952
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min State the Obvious 309,909
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Wow 164,268
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? (Sep '14) 8 min Bea5xl 3,521
News Cleveland protests erupt after officer found no... 13 min BoneYard 115
News Hillary Clinton rolls out the pantsuit tee 21 min Tazo 42
News Biden reassures Iraqi prime minister of US support 21 min Le Jimbo 14
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 23 min BoneYard 2,445
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 25 min Taletha 328,575
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 2 hr mjjcpa 222
News GOP's fight for 2016 nomination likely to drag ... 2 hr Synque 147
More from around the web