Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 352

Thread: Shame on you, North Carolina

  1. #1

    Shame on you, North Carolina

    The state that "banned forever" the marriage between mixed race couples in 1875. What they did today, in the words of Andrew Sullivan -

    "What North Carolina Reveals

    It reveals that the anti-marriage equality peeps are not simply anti-marriage. They are against any civil recognition of gay couples' commitment, responsibility and equality. The Amendment today would ban any relationship rights whatever to gay couples in the state. No domestic partnerships, no civil unions - nada. It renders spouses strangers at hospitals, it ensures no legal stability for shared homes or shared children. It is in many ways a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life."

    Shame, shame on you. Gay people have always been around. They're just out now, and they want what we all want. Love, respect, dignity. Family. Get used to it.

    And die, bigots, die already.

    DC

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,064
    [IMG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/7160748774_b44013e894.jpg[/IMG]

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=dcronin;4463549] [B]That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life."[/B]
    Shame, shame on you. Gay people have always been around. They're just out now, and they want what we all want. Love, respect, dignity. Family. Get used to it.

    And die, bigots, die already.
    [/QUOTE]
    They removed themselves.
    I am for civil unions but not the right to adopt children.So your right
    Whether you chose to be gay or under the illusion that you had no choice biologically, you cannot make a family.
    Your decision live with it.

  4. #4
    [url]http://twitchy.com/2012/05/08/north-carolina-bans-gay-marriage-liberals-freak-out/[/url]

    Maybe the left can teach these North Carolinians tolerance... :rolleyes:

  5. #5
    Tough crap! Don't live in North Carolina. California is a great place. Civil Unions Yes, Gay Marriage NO!

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,252
    [QUOTE=dcronin;4463549]The state that "banned forever" the marriage between mixed race couples in 1875. What they did today, in the words of Andrew Sullivan -

    "What North Carolina Reveals

    It reveals that the anti-marriage equality peeps are not simply anti-marriage. They are against any civil recognition of gay couples' commitment, responsibility and equality. The Amendment today would ban any relationship rights whatever to gay couples in the state. No domestic partnerships, no civil unions - nada. It renders spouses strangers at hospitals, it ensures no legal stability for shared homes or shared children. It is in many ways a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life."

    Shame, shame on you. Gay people have always been around. They're just out now, and they want what we all want. Love, respect, dignity. Family. Get used to it.

    And die, bigots, die already.

    DC[/QUOTE]


    +1

  7. #7
    I disagree with the decision of the people on North Carolina.

    But I support their rights, as a State, to choose to make this decision.

    Each of us can choose how important this is to us, and either choose to live in NC, or not, if this means alot to us. 30 states now have this or something similar, but a number of States have embraced Homosexual Unions in one form or another.

    Personally, I support Unions (legal) under the State for all, and "Marriage" being the Religious ceremony performed by the couples faith of choice. All Unions would be equal under teh law (as it's effectively a civil legal partnership when you get down to it), and I'm happy to let each faith decide what it wants to call marriage, and if it wishes to perform them for gays or not, as their faith provides.

    The State should have no faith on the issue, only manage and maintain legal equallity.

  8. #8
    If someone wants to be gay, they can be gay. No law against that.
    If you want someone to be able to visit you in a hospital or be your health care proxy, no problem. Just put it in a document. Available at any hospital or primary care physician's office - free.
    If you want to leave money to a gay friend on your death - do it.
    Lack of marriage just means no shared benefits from an employer. Why is that a problem? Let both get a job.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463669]If someone wants to be gay, they can be gay. No law against that.
    If you want someone to be able to visit you in a hospital or be your health care proxy, no problem. Just put it in a document. Available at any hospital or primary care physician's office - free.
    If you want to leave money to a gay friend on your death - do it.
    [B]Lack of marriage just means no shared benefits from an employer. Why is that a problem? [/B] Let both get a job.[/QUOTE]

    Because that's not how we do it for everyone.

    If that's really all it means (thus having absolutely no impact on you), then why is it a problem for it to be legal?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4463672]Because that's not how we do it for everyone.

    If that's really all it means (thus having absolutely no impact on you), then why is it a problem for it to be legal?[/QUOTE]



    Because it costs money. Another added expense. All added expense has impact.
    It's no difference than a heterosexual unmarried union. Why should the partner be covered with benefits?
    BTW, many organizations, allow an employee to obtain medical coverage for an unmarried partner. You just have to pay for it. Imagine - having to actually pay for something.

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,404
    [QUOTE=dcronin;4463549]
    And die, bigots, die already.

    DC[/QUOTE]

    So people who have a different opinion than you should die.

    Because they're not as tolerant as you.

    Got it.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,329
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4463686]So people who have a different opinion than you should die.

    Because they're not as tolerant as you.

    Got it.[/QUOTE]

    lol

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463680]Because it costs money. Another added expense. All added expense has impact.[/QUOTE]

    Not to you. To employers.

    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463680]
    It's no difference than a heterosexual unmarried union. [/QUOTE]

    It's very different. If unmarried heterosexual couples desire to get married and have the added benefit of that union from their employer, they can.

    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463680]
    Why should the partner be covered with benefits?[/QUOTE]

    For homosexuals only? Or for all couples?

    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463680]
    BTW, many organizations, allow an employee to obtain medical coverage for an unmarried partner. You just have to pay for it. Imagine - having to actually pay for something.[/QUOTE]

    Call me crazy, but I didn't marry my wife for the financial benefits (as if the net isn't a loss) :rolleyes:

    Call me even crazier, but maybe, just maybe, gay people want to also get married for reasons other than money.

  14. #14
    How soon before Holders sues? :rotfl:

    Then we can color NC red (again) in November.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    7,240
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4463680]Because it costs money. Another added expense. All added expense has impact.
    It's no difference than a heterosexual unmarried union. Why should the partner be covered with benefits?
    BTW, many organizations, allow an employee to obtain medical coverage for an unmarried partner. You just have to pay for it. Imagine - having to actually pay for something.[/QUOTE]

    Forgot marriage was a business partnership only

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Bay Ridge Jet;4463712]Forgot marriage was a business partnership only[/QUOTE]
    Maybe you forgot that from time immemorial until about 8 years ago, marriage was between a man and a woman.

    What a crock. This country has real issues to worry about.

    Oh and one more thing: [I]DIE BIGOTS... DIE![/I]

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4463736]Maybe you forgot that from time immemorial until about 8 years ago, marriage was between a man and a woman.[/quote]

    Not true at all. Marriage, traditionally, was between one man and many women.

    Look at your own Bible, the instances of your most holy of holy characters is rife with plural marriage, one man, many wives. The tradition of plural marriage far exceeds that of monogamous coupling for tax benefits under a civil system common today. Traditional marriage was also wholely religious in nature. Couples may be together, but the Church determined who wa smarried, a far cry from our current non-relgiious system of marriage in the United States.

    Regardless, the issue of marriage is one of faith, and each faith can determine what it find morally acceptable or not, and should be free to deny marriage cermeonies to any couple it deems inappropriate.

    But the State should be blind to such faith-based beliefs. In the eyes of the State, every marriage is specificly a civil union that provides specific civil and legal rights and responsabillities, no different in many ways from any other legal agreement made bewteen two parties.

    As such, there is no reason to exclude a legal partnership agreement (union) under the State due to the two participants sexuallity. The principle of equallity under the Law should make the State blind to such things as gender when discussing legal contracts such as this.
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-09-2012 at 10:55 AM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4463743]Not true at all. Marriage, traditionally, was between one man and many women.
    [/QUOTE]
    Thanks, I never knew polygamy existed until your windy derail of a lecture.

    (But even still - you cite examples covenants between a man and a woman.)

    There's only one instance in the Bible that cites man on man marriage - it's in the Book of Duderonomy.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4463756]Thanks, I never knew polygamy existed until your lecture.[/quote]

    Give it a rest Mr. "From time immemorial until about 8 years ago, marriage was between a man and a woman". when it comes to lecturing. :rolleyes:

    You were wrong, period. Your own faith proves your wrong. It's not a lecture to point out that you;re not supporting a return to traditional, biblical-era marriage either.

    [quote]Still, there's only one instance in the Bible that cites man on man marriage - it's in the Book of Duderonomy.[/QUOTE]

    It also says many other things completely absent in our civil contracting and judicial system.

    For example, have you stoned to death anyone of late? Your book also says thats ok....are you pushing for legalization of that too?

    We have a civil, not a religious, based system in the United States. No one is barred from forming a Business Partnership because they don't bow to the alter of the Jesus Christ, are they? If you can explain why a Civil Union between two consentign adults should be treated differently under the Law than a Business Partnership under that same civil law, we may have somethign worthwhile to discuss. If not...

  20. #20
    [IMG]http://www.myfacewhen.com/images/286.jpg[/IMG]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us