North Carolina voters ban gay marriage/civil unions. Agree or disagree?

by heartsonfire Posted 2012/05/09 03:23:34

Related Topics: Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Unions, Union, Voters, North Carolina, Carolina, Marriage, Gay

Read More

60 votes
Read all 94 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	I agree	19 votes	32%
	I disagree	38 votes	63%
	I don't care	2 votes	3%
	Undecided	1 vote	2%

Add a comment above

melly~thwarting Satan since... 2012/05/09 03:35:49 (edited)

I disagree

+18
This bill also declares women who are not married cannot file for domestic abuse. So now in NC, it's basically legal to beat your girlfriend.

Right wing Christians are such wonderful people.
>> See Replies

More polls by heartsonfire

Psyblade 2012/05/15 21:30:00 (edited)

I disagree

+1
First of all, the civil rights of a minority shouldn't be put up to vote by the majority. EVER.

Second, this amendment doesn't just hurt gay couples, it also makes it almost impossible for women who aren't married to file for domestic abuse/violence. So if a boyfriend beats his girlfriend she won't be able to file for domestic violence.

It disgusts me that people would vote for something like this. This amendment doesn't help anyone.

reply
heartsonfire 2012/05/10 16:39:45

I disagree

I'm glad that this topic is getting so much debate, as I was pretty sure it would. I agree with many of you, others .....not so much.

reply
sjalan 2012/05/10 07:49:51

I disagree

NC is where California was in 1996. Just shows how far behind the times they are.

reply
Hebsi 2012/05/10 02:51:09

I disagree

+1
Even if you have different beliefs on marriage, gay couples should DEFINITELY be able to form as a civil union. Banning civil unions, and therefore banning rights and benefits from gay couples is simply discrimination.

reply
seattleman 2012/05/10 01:02:41

I disagree

+2
I support marriage equality.

reply
CAROLYN NTARWNJBS 2012/05/10 00:11:21

I disagree

+3
Equality.

reply
Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/05/10 00:09:32

I agree

They didn't ban gay marriage they defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

reply
Phyl *In God i Trust* 2012/05/10 00:08:19

I agree

+1
I agree....

reply
ken 2012/05/10 00:04:12

I disagree

+4
Stay out of my personal life and I'll stay out of yours.

reply
melly~t... to ken 2012/05/10 00:15:06

+4
*hugs your personal self*

reply
ken to melly~t... 2012/05/10 00:24:24

+2
In that case, by all means.

reply
antonio.beardall 2012/05/09 16:20:23

I disagree

+4

reply
heartso... to antonio... 2012/05/09 19:23:54

+1
good one!

reply
DM Twin 2012/05/09 14:03:43
antonio... to DM Twin 2012/05/09 19:28:40

+1
so, you are fighting, for a word....ok, let's give it a new word......then have the gays get the exact same treatment, but....a different word...wanna call Webster and ask for a new one?

reply
DM Twin to antonio... 2012/05/09 20:18:58

+1
Pretty sure I was crystal clear.....maybe you should re-read what I wrote if you don't understand.

reply
antonio... to DM Twin 2012/05/09 20:20:30

+1
you said they cannot have the word marriage...so....give us a new word, and we don't need to ceremony, just the same result

reply
DM Twin to antonio... 2012/05/09 20:22:41
antonio... to DM Twin 2012/05/09 20:29:34

+2
well then, how fortunate we all are that you don't get to decide that...

reply
melly~t... to antonio... 2012/05/10 00:07:13

+3
Wow. That BM dude (bowel movement?) has me blocked though I don't recall "meeting" him--but "get over yourselves before we take that away"???

As he is a person of color--Pacific Islander, by his own admission, I guess he's too ignorant to see the slippery slope. 50 years ago, he would have had a really hard time marrying a white person. Thank goodness his people "got over themselves" (with the help of the black community) so that we didn't "take that away".

Please let him know, Antonio. And keep fighting the good fight, cutie.

reply
Gracie ... to melly~t... 2012/05/10 00:10:51

Funny you should use the term "slippery slope".

reply
melly~t... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 00:12:40

+2
I'll bite. Why is that?

reply
Gracie ... to melly~t... 2012/05/10 00:25:31

+2
Because when you change the definition of traditional marriage that's exactly where you're going...down the slippery slope.

reply
melly~t... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 02:40:35

Who defined that? And how does the fact that most marriages end in divorce NOT change the "defi ition of traditional marriage"?

reply
Gracie ... to melly~t... 2012/05/10 03:30:22

Divorce doesn't change the intent of marriage, which is to pro-create in a stable family environment. The main purpose of gay marriage is for the benefits, not so they don't sin before God!

reply
melly~t... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 04:49:29

No--the main purpose of gay marriage is to create a family. Same as straight marriage.

God gives free will.

reply
Gracie ... to melly~t... 2012/05/10 16:53:38

You can't "create" a family with the same sex.

reply
melly~t... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 19:21:06

+1
Neither can infertile couples. They shouldn't be allowed to marry?

And gay people have children all the time.

reply
Gracie ... to melly~t... 2012/05/10 19:53:02

We're talking about the original intention of marriage not the outcome of every marriage. Gay people don't have children without someone else impregnating or carrying one for them. I've had one for a gay man but he forgot to tell me he was gay before he married me and had a child. He was working on getting another when I found out.

reply
antonio... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 15:37:43

+2
the purpose of marriage, i thought....was love...because many people procreate out of marriage, so...there is a flaw in your argument

reply
Gracie ... to antonio... 2012/05/10 16:55:37

The original purpose was to procreate. It wasn't always about love, although it should be. Procreating outside of marriage is less than ideal. There used to be this moral idea that you didn't have sex outside of marriage but we've so "evolved", right?

reply
antonio... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 16:57:14

+2
i would say thank 'god' we have evolved.....

reply
Gracie ... to antonio... 2012/05/10 16:58:27

It's a destructive evolution.

reply
antonio... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 17:07:07

+1
you mean because we don't burn people for heresy anymore? and because we want to add to the 7 billiion people already on the planet and cause more stress on the planet? seems apt to me

reply
Gracie ... to antonio... 2012/05/10 17:18:33

They do burn homosexuals in countries that we're placating right now. I saw a video of them pushing them into a pit and setting them on fire. It was very disturbing but I've yet to see too many homosexuals worried about Sheria Law creeping into America. Weird.

I guess you're talking about how great it is that we murder the unborn instead of letting them live?

reply
antonio... to Gracie ... 2012/05/10 17:36:36

+1
i am not for or against what a woman does with her body...her choice...

reply
heartso... to antonio... 2012/05/10 18:17:07

+2
Cool

reply
Gracie ... to antonio... 2012/05/10 19:53:51

Absolutely, until there is another human being involved, then it's not just her body.

reply
antonio... to Gracie ... 2012/05/11 15:01:55

human being being someone fully formed right? a clump of cells, is just that, a clump of cells...the same way and egg is simply an egg until it hatches

reply
Gracie ... to antonio... 2012/05/12 02:50:00

No, it's life when it grows. You wouldn't consider a child a clump of cells until it's full grown would you? Is a chick only life when it's a rooster?

reply