Quantcast

North Carolina gets it Right! Will the other states follow??

BrianD3 2012/05/09 10:49:49
You!
Add Photos & Videos

The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment appeared on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. Approveda

The measure would define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.[1][2]


Same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state of North Carolina. The proposed measure, however, would add the ban to the state constitution.[3]


Debated in the state legislature during the Spring 2011 legislative session, the amendment failed to receive sufficient votes to qualify for the ballot. However, the measure was debated during the Fall session which began September 12, 2011.[4] That very day, the House voted 75-42 in favor of referring the proposed amendment to the statewide ballot.[5] The State Senate echoed the House with a 30-16 approval vote a day later on September 13, 2011.[6

Read More: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Ca...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • tncdel 2012/05/09 13:59:09
    YES! they totally got it right
    tncdel
    +81
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT as does a heterosexual man to marry a woman under the Constitution. If he chooses to not avail himself of that right, which is his prerogative, that doesn't create for him another right, such as a "right" to change the heterosexual definition of marriage.

    If homosexuals want to enter into a civil union with the same legal obligations as a marriage, contractual law will apply and I see no problem with it. But in no event should same sex pairings be construed as a legitimate alternative to a married couple.

    Moreover, by allowing homosexuals to adopt or have children via the wonders of science, that is putting secondary the child's right to have the best chance of becoming a normal adult.

    I've seen firsthand the CHILD ABUSE caused by two lesbians having a lovely baby girl via "the wonders of science," who they have been forcing to wear boy clothes and a "butch" haircut. And it seems that they are always yelling at the little girl if she behaves normally.

    I believe homosexuality is an aberration of nature, as is Downs syndrome [mongoloidism]. So I don't blame or hate homosexuals for being what they are. But, unlike mongoloidism, impressionable children can acquire the traits of homosexuality if it...



    Marriage is between a man and a woman. A homosexual man has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT as does a heterosexual man to marry a woman under the Constitution. If he chooses to not avail himself of that right, which is his prerogative, that doesn't create for him another right, such as a "right" to change the heterosexual definition of marriage.

    If homosexuals want to enter into a civil union with the same legal obligations as a marriage, contractual law will apply and I see no problem with it. But in no event should same sex pairings be construed as a legitimate alternative to a married couple.

    Moreover, by allowing homosexuals to adopt or have children via the wonders of science, that is putting secondary the child's right to have the best chance of becoming a normal adult.

    I've seen firsthand the CHILD ABUSE caused by two lesbians having a lovely baby girl via "the wonders of science," who they have been forcing to wear boy clothes and a "butch" haircut. And it seems that they are always yelling at the little girl if she behaves normally.

    I believe homosexuality is an aberration of nature, as is Downs syndrome [mongoloidism]. So I don't blame or hate homosexuals for being what they are. But, unlike mongoloidism, impressionable children can acquire the traits of homosexuality if it is "force-fed" to them in an environment where homosexuality is the role model.

    So I think that is one area where the rights of children should supersede any supposed "right" for homosexuals to adopt children or have them by artificial means.

    P.S. When PC Libs come at me ranting that I'm a Bible-totin' religious fanatic, they always wind up embarrassing themselves because I'm a Conservative who is not into religion at all, so I have no religious axe to grind against anyone.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Doc 2012/05/24 18:51:11
    YES! they totally got it right
    Doc
    I'm not against gay couple havign the same rights as straight couples, I'm against calling it "marraige"
    Why? Because it's about trying to control how people think.

    And before you say it's a civil rights issue, think about this.

    When blacks wanted the same rights as whites, they didn't want to be called "white", did they?
    NO, they just wanted the same rights.

    If gay-marraige activists would just back having the same rights, no one could deny them.

    But it's not about rights, it's about forcing people to act a certain way.
  • BrianD3 Doc 2012/05/31 11:48:19
    BrianD3
    +1
    not because I want to control people but because I dont want them telling me that I have to change MY traditions to accomodate their deviant choices
  • Doc BrianD3 2012/05/31 22:27:56
    Doc
    +1
    That works for me, my friend. I know for a fact that you don't want to control anyone who isn't messing with you. And if they are messing with you, Then I pity their foolishness.
  • Doc Doc 2012/05/31 22:29:10
    Doc
    +1
    In case it's not clear, what I mean is that gay activists want to force non-gay activists to act a certain way.
  • darlene 2012/05/12 22:33:18
    YES! they totally got it right
    darlene
    +2
    We as a nation are supposed to change our constitution to meet the needs of the immorals. Think again. no gay marriage south carolina
  • Cordingly 2012/05/11 20:09:49
    NO, they got it wrong
    Cordingly
    Really unfortunate that a person growing up gay will have to stay in the closet in fear in the state of North Carolina.
  • Doc Cordingly 2012/06/01 13:50:54
    Doc
    In fear of what?
  • Cordingly Doc 2012/06/01 15:37:48
    Cordingly
    +1
    Fear of persecution, attack, bullying, basically being thought of as "sub-human".
  • Doc Cordingly 2012/06/04 16:46:07
    Doc
    And how is changing the definition of a word is going to end that?
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/05/11 15:08:35
    YES! they totally got it right
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +4
    I do not like homosexuality expressed in my surrounding and forced in my face they act weird and I never expressed my love in public it as if it is a sick act for attention!!!!
  • mustangluver 2012/05/10 22:35:18
    YES! they totally got it right
    mustangluver
    +6
    Gays have always had the right to a civil union and they can have a living will and a real estate will...just like everyone. What more do they want? They need to get back in the damn closet!!!
  • BrianD3 mustang... 2012/05/11 10:49:01
    BrianD3
    +6
    I agree! I have no problems with the ones that just live their life like everyone else, it is these prancing drama queens that are pissing me off
  • mustang... BrianD3 2012/05/11 15:23:41
    mustangluver
    +2
    I am of the mindset that they want equal rights when in fact they are NOT equal.
  • Cordingly mustang... 2012/05/11 20:13:06
    Cordingly
    You ask what more do they want then wish that they would all go away.

    Do you see the irony?
  • Doc Cordingly 2012/05/31 22:30:34
    Doc
    no more ironic than them saying they want equal rights by taking ours away.
  • Cordingly Doc 2012/06/01 15:38:21
    Cordingly
    What rights are they taking away?
  • Doc Cordingly 2012/06/04 16:47:51
    Doc
    The right to have word that has described hetero relationships be left alone. Get your own word, don't take this one.

    The right to think as you choose.
  • moonbaby 2012/05/10 22:08:46
    NO, they got it wrong
    moonbaby
    +1
    “So congratulations, North Carolina. Last night, you struck a decisive blow for loneliness. And tonight, as you go to sleep beside your heterosexual life mate, you can rest assured that all across your great state, a gay man or lesbian woman is crying themselves to sleep in solitude and making your relationship stronger with each tear.”

    -- Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
  • keeper 2012/05/10 17:01:31
    YES! they totally got it right
    keeper
    +6
    Without a doubt...
  • EdWhiteSpace 2012/05/10 16:32:22
    NO, they got it wrong
    EdWhiteSpace
    +2
    Passing laws based on certain religion's principles is not right. Passing laws to treat some Americans differently than others and deny them the same rights is never right. Just as some states passed laws to okay slavery and to restrict interracial marriage, a majority opinion does not mean it is correct. Hopefully this will be overturned at some point.
  • BrianD3 EdWhite... 2012/05/10 17:05:21
    BrianD3
    +5
    biology has more to do with it than religion
  • EdWhite... BrianD3 2012/05/10 17:26:49
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    Biology may have to do with being gay, but nothing to do with passing laws.
  • BrianD3 EdWhite... 2012/05/10 17:28:41
    BrianD3
    +4
    it has more to do with the proper functioning of a marriage and a family than merely religion
  • EdWhite... BrianD3 2012/05/10 17:40:07
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    The 'proper functioning' is a term based on your societal beliefs derived from religious teachings. There are gays in every species. A minority, sure, but so are blonds and those who need glasses. The point is, how society defines a marriage is not biological but is simply how the majority has done it. The fact they don't want that to change - even though nothing would change for the heterosexual - is because those opposing it are basing their definition on religious doctrine.
  • BrianD3 EdWhite... 2012/05/10 17:43:59
    BrianD3
    +4
    proper functioning in a biological context (which was the base of the discussion) is about the right parts fitting into the right places and functioning like they were designed to.
  • EdWhite... BrianD3 2012/05/10 20:16:33
    EdWhiteSpace
    For conceiving, nothing else. So unless the only sex you think should be legal is heterosexual sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting pregnant, your argument holds no water.
  • BrianD3 EdWhite... 2012/05/11 10:50:37
    BrianD3
    +4
    not just sex, procreation and not just that either, it is about common sense. It might make YOU feel good to open a jar with a hammer but it really does not make sense at all. Got to use the right tool for the right job.....
  • EdWhite... BrianD3 2012/05/11 13:10:55
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    Again, if you only think that sex is for procreation and other sex should biologically stop you from marriage, then you should want all other forms of sex and sex for expressing love to be banned, and you should not want infertile people to be allowed to marry, right? Your determining factor in not letting gays marry is that they are not meant to be together and your proof is the inability to conceive children, so only sex to procreate and conceive should be allowed, right?

    You might want to rethink your 'arguments' before you actually voice them.
  • BrianD3 EdWhite... 2012/05/11 14:53:48
    BrianD3
    +3
    my argument is that they do not comprise a family nor do they fit the definition of marriage. Having to break it down for idiot why is getting tiring. You want to tighten a bolt with a file, go ahead; I guess the world does not have to make sense to some.
  • Diane S... BrianD3 2012/05/11 15:11:48
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +2
    Exactly you are correct have a niceday !!!
  • EdWhite... BrianD3 2012/05/14 13:19:50
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    They do comprise a family as they are two people living together, often with a child or children as they can currently have kids and can adopt. They do not fit YOUR definition of marriage, but if the definition is "two consenting adults making a lifetime commitment to one another" then many do. As many heterosexual couples divorce and don't intend on having kids or can't have kids, why is that 'more' of a marriage than gay couples who want to?

    What makes sense if that governmental recognition of marriage should be the legal bonding of two people in a lifelong commitment. If you want to make it about how they have sex, I would say that is none of your business. If you want to make it about whether they'll have kids, then there are many heterosexual couples you would have to deny to be consistent. If you want to make it about if the sex would only be for procreation, then you'll have to deny 99.9 % of the current marriages.

    As I said, to be consistent the only argument against gays marrying is one using scripture and therefor since it is s religiously based argument it can only deny marriage to gays within the religion but not be used as a base o deny it in the government.
  • Doc EdWhite... 2012/05/31 22:34:48
    Doc
    It's funny how you wish to use science to back up your point when the scientific fact is that if you are gay, then evolution has chosen you not to procreate.

    Also, the idea that animals are gay is false. The only reason some animals act "gay" is because they don't have a member of the opposite sex to mate with. Given a choice, there is no animal that would mate with the same sex critter.
  • EdWhite... Doc 2012/06/01 18:43:47
    EdWhiteSpace
    +2
    a) I'm not gay. b) I don't really care if they are born that way or become that way. In the end, they are who they are and I don't think they should be discriminated against because of it as it hurts no one. c) It isn't a choice, and isn't about sex. We aren't talking about guys choosing to have sex with other guys, or women with women. They fall in love and / or are attracted. No one could make me gay, and I couldn't choose to be. I am attracted to women because I am. I imagine they feel the same. And who they love or sleep with is none of my business just as who I love and sleep with is no one else's. Marriage is not only about procreation. If it is, then we should not let the elderly marry, or the disabled that cannot have kids, or the sterile. Marriage is not about sex, but about a commitment to stay together. While churches can decide what they wish to accept and who they will marry, the gov. cannot use a religious belief to determine law and must treat everyone the same and give all the same rights. I believe that includes the right to marry the consenting adult they wish to, and not have to forgo that because some religions don't agree with it. The 'its against God' excuse cannot be used.

    While you may feel equipped to speak for all animals and their sexu...

    a) I'm not gay. b) I don't really care if they are born that way or become that way. In the end, they are who they are and I don't think they should be discriminated against because of it as it hurts no one. c) It isn't a choice, and isn't about sex. We aren't talking about guys choosing to have sex with other guys, or women with women. They fall in love and / or are attracted. No one could make me gay, and I couldn't choose to be. I am attracted to women because I am. I imagine they feel the same. And who they love or sleep with is none of my business just as who I love and sleep with is no one else's. Marriage is not only about procreation. If it is, then we should not let the elderly marry, or the disabled that cannot have kids, or the sterile. Marriage is not about sex, but about a commitment to stay together. While churches can decide what they wish to accept and who they will marry, the gov. cannot use a religious belief to determine law and must treat everyone the same and give all the same rights. I believe that includes the right to marry the consenting adult they wish to, and not have to forgo that because some religions don't agree with it. The 'its against God' excuse cannot be used.

    While you may feel equipped to speak for all animals and their sexual desires, I'll simply go by what has been shown to be true: all animal species have been shown to have sex with the same genders on occasion. Chimps, dolphins, etc. It is not rare in nature, but relatively common. So the 'Its against nature' is BS.

    I'm far more concerned with people publicly using religion to feel superior or rationalize prejudice than what a neighbor may or not be doing with another consenting adult in their own bedroom.
    (more)
  • Doc EdWhite... 2012/06/04 16:51:11
    Doc
    I speak about animals from the same studies that you do.

    This is not about the rights, it's about the word and forcing people to change the definition of a word.

    When black folks wanted equal rights, they didn't want to be called white, they wanted equal rights.
    Equal rights is not about a word, it's about rights.

    Gays want to have a legal right to be together, sure. I don't have an issue with that.

    Calling it marraige?
    that has nothing to do with the rights, does it?
  • EdWhite... Doc 2012/06/04 23:12:34
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    The definition you go by. Others do not and should not have to go by another;s definition when it affects them, not the person who holds that marrow definition. Heck, the definition of a citizen has been changed, as well as the definition who was eligible to vote. We change definitions a lot, especially when that definition is too narrow and helps rationalize prejudice. In my opinion, the definition should be: "Marriage - The legal union between two consenting adults. Easy and simple". It has everything to do with rights. Many rights are dependent on marriage (property, insurance, family rights / children, trusts, etc.). If society's goal is to to treat all people equally then it cannot segment a section of the populace and hold them to different standards and offer different benefits and tell them they cannot do what others can do because of who they are, when who they are is not a decision they make nor is it hurting anyone. The majority does not want to allow the minority to be able to do what that majority takes for granted. That is elitism and prejudice and should be stopped, no different than when law were on the books to prevent whites from marrying blacks.
  • Doc EdWhite... 2012/06/05 20:21:11
    Doc
    Like I said,
    it's about the word and changing how people feel about it, not the rights.

    Just like Blacks people didn't want to be called white. They just wanted the rights.

    You have proved my point.

    It's more important to you that we use the word marraige then it is for non-hetero couples to have the same rights.
  • EdWhite... Doc 2012/06/09 20:03:45
    EdWhiteSpace
    +2
    Its more important to me that we treat everyone the same and don't segregate and isolate by using different terms and hiding behind terms we reserve for those who are deemed 'different' while we keep certain words and / or rights for the majority.

    We aren't doing anyone a favor by treating them the same. It is their right to have what we already enjoy and have kept from them.
  • Doc EdWhite... 2012/06/10 16:56:10
    Doc
    " segregate and isolate by using different terms and hiding behind terms we reserve for those who are deemed 'different' while we keep certain words and / or rights for the majority. "


    You just said right there that it is about the word, as well as the rights.

    Let me ask you this, if I may.

    IF gay couples could get the exact same rights as hetero couples, but had to use a different word bessides marraige, would you accept those rights?
  • EdWhite... Doc 2012/06/12 15:15:34
    EdWhiteSpace
    +1
    You misunderstand. I may have said words were used, but that does not mean it is about the word. Using different words to give different rights to different groups is not about words. Its about maintaining status quo and isolating a group. If they had the same rights but had to use a different word, they would still be isolated and treated differently. You can say they get 'the same', but one cannot isolate and use different terms and then say its all the same. The goal is to not treat people differently based on who they love. You aren't doing them, or the country, a favor by throwing them a bone and letting them have equal rights. They deserve to be treated the same as others. If blacks were allowed to vote but not called citizens, would that have been acceptable? No. Same thing here. They are correct, I feel, to not be fighting for equal but separate. They want to be treated the same. It may seem like a fine line, but it is anything but.
  • Doc EdWhite... 2012/06/13 18:49:19
    Doc
    +1
    I appreciate your decorum, especially since we are on different sides of this issue.

    But would you mind explaining to me how a gay relationship is exactly the same as a straight relationship?

    And how does calling black people black and white people white isolating a group?

    Shoud we call gay people straight?


    But ultimately, if we got the government out of the personal relationship business all together, my, and your, opinion wouldn't not matter, as those who are directly affected by this would get to do what they desire.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 23:33:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals