North Carolina Voting to Ban Gay Relationships
American☆Atheist
2012/05/01 17:43:16
|
|
|||||
|
30 votes
|
|
24% | ||
|
96 votes
|
|
76% | ||
Top Opinion
-
Mopeder 2012/05/01 18:27:58
He says it better than I ever could.
?
Obama's decision on gay marriage comes to naught. If one listened to him carefully, one would hear him say that he supports equal rights but it's a states rights issue. Well, were on our way with 32 states lined up and forbidding it. His statement makes it all the more difficult for him to come out with a "signing statement" (Executive Order banning marriage discrimination) because he has already ceded the argument. If there are no "enumerated rights" in the Constitution by which federal law can be imposed on the states, it then falls to the states to make their own laws. So far, Holder hasn't gone after any of those 32 states. Argument lost.
doesn't really become you It's a typical leftist tactic that goes nowhere.
How so? Where did I say that? Can you show me?
All I said, in brief, was...
1) I was not responsible for slavery and therefore don't carry any guilt concerning it
2) Obama is only giving lip service to gays. He won't implement anything.
All Quiet on the Western Front concerning Holder and DOMA;
All Quiet on the Western Front concerning Holder and the 32 states which have banned gay marriage/civil unions;
No signing statement since Obama said it was a "states rights" issue; Since gay rights are not "enumerated right" in the Constitution, the rights empowerment falls to the states, if they desire
Hmmm. Do you think you could reply to those points or need I elaborate more. Rather than your name calling, state something. Argue your points. I assume you don't have any since you argued so inelegantly.
2. He said he was against it before to satisfy you crazies
WTF? Which conservatives? Reagan? Gingrich? Santorum? William F. Buckley?
If you're talking about "conservatives" prior to the Civil War, what do they have to do with conservatives today? Please cite which contemporary conservative wants a resurgence of slavery. The slave owners were Democrats, back in the day. Lincoln was a Republican. Therefore, you should vote Republican.
{2. He said he was against it before to satisfy you crazies}
WTF? I think you are talking about Obama and his repudiation of gay marriage when he was running for the presidency. Right?
Obama was FOR gay marriage when he was running for the IL state senate. Then he was against it when he was running for the presidency. Now, conveniently, he is for it again. It's election/donation time. Even thought he will, ultimately, do NOTHING about it, Hollywood (the 1%ers) donated $40,000 per person to see him at George Clooney's place. He said the right words with no policy behind it. What a waste of time.
If he would say he is AGAINST something that he actually was FOR, how principled a man is he? He just let gays hang out there with no moral support so he could get in office? Is that it? It may have satisfied the "crazies" but only to expose a flaw in his character.
...
WTF? Which conservatives? Reagan? Gingrich? Santorum? William F. Buckley?
If you're talking about "conservatives" prior to the Civil War, what do they have to do with conservatives today? Please cite which contemporary conservative wants a resurgence of slavery. The slave owners were Democrats, back in the day. Lincoln was a Republican. Therefore, you should vote Republican.
{2. He said he was against it before to satisfy you crazies}
WTF? I think you are talking about Obama and his repudiation of gay marriage when he was running for the presidency. Right?
Obama was FOR gay marriage when he was running for the IL state senate. Then he was against it when he was running for the presidency. Now, conveniently, he is for it again. It's election/donation time. Even thought he will, ultimately, do NOTHING about it, Hollywood (the 1%ers) donated $40,000 per person to see him at George Clooney's place. He said the right words with no policy behind it. What a waste of time.
If he would say he is AGAINST something that he actually was FOR, how principled a man is he? He just let gays hang out there with no moral support so he could get in office? Is that it? It may have satisfied the "crazies" but only to expose a flaw in his character.
I wish you would respond a little more thoroughly. If not for my sake, then for yours. Other people read these writings and I would feel personally humiliated if one read one of my replies and said, "Geez, what the hell was he saying? It made no sense."
You did not reply to me point by point. You were quite vague. What about DOMA? What about the 32 states? What about no signing statement? What about "enumerated rights? What about my not feeling guilty about slavery in which I did not participate as a slave owner? I am sorry it happened but why should I feel guilty? These are very simple questions with very simple answers.
{They are the same type of people.}
Brilliant!!! That says so much and is thoroughly understandable at a grade school level. Even 6th graders would wounder what you were talking about.
Your arguments are not only without merit, they are just silly. I think that you have, at least, proved that.
You're right...not who you can love but whom you can marry. That domain should be left to heterosexuals only. You are making far to much of what the actual argument is.
Not relationships, marriage. There is a difference.
{And on what do they base this bill, if not religion,,,,}
Perhaps religion but mostly social norms. Remember Folkways, Mores and Taboos from your social science classes? That;s what is at play here.
{ in direct violation of the First Amendment?}
Would you point that out to me? Where is gay marriage specifically or even indirectly protected by the First Amendment? Must have missed class that day.
yes i do remember Folkways, Mores and Taboos; and when they are based on religion, and on nothing else; they CANNOT be the basis of any law; according to Amendment I of the US Constitution which reads "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It isn't that Gay marriage is mentioned in the Constitution, positively or negatively. it is that laws against ANYTHING cannot be based on religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bigamy is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person and it is illegal in the United States. The crime is punishable either by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[4]
There should be a U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and ALSO allowing marriage only between "natural" born males and females. i.e. No Chaz "My Chastity Is A Joke" Bono marrying a woman. That's out. It can live with a woman, but no marriage.