North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Night Strike]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

Actually, Christianity specifically speaks against homosexual activities and actions. However, that still doesn't indicate how rights are being violated by barring same-sex marriage.

Night Strike...I don't know if you just missed this twice or are straight up ignoring it, but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that marriage is a right. I'm going to post it one more time.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Whether or not you are in favor of gay marriage, banning it is just flat out putting restrictions on a, and I quote, "basic civil right of man".

Then that statement by the Supreme Court was wrong (wouldn't be the first time - see Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London for other examples). Marriage cannot be a right because you are forcing someone to give up their rights to honor yours. There is only one Constitutional right that allows you to take away the freedoms of someone else: the right to a trial by jury.

[rdsrds2120]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

If bans on refusing to marry gay couples become illegal all over, would you then say the same about the time period when gays didn't have the right to marry?

-rd

[army of nobunaga]

Ill repeat.. gays were fucking moronic to take this approach.


The constitution is more open legally to ALL people having similar rights.

Idiotic fucking gays decided to go the hard route... religion? lol that is so 20th century.

[Maugena]

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

Denying rights to people based on their sexual preference is no less of one, you, just dont happen to have understood Christianity very well.

Actually, Christianity specifically speaks against homosexual activities and actions. However, that still doesn't indicate how rights are being violated by barring same-sex marriage.

Night Strike...I don't know if you just missed this twice or are straight up ignoring it, but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that marriage is a right. I'm going to post it one more time.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Whether or not you are in favor of gay marriage, banning it is just flat out putting restrictions on a, and I quote, "basic civil right of man".

Then that statement by the Supreme Court was wrong (wouldn't be the first time - see Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London for other examples). Marriage cannot be a right because you are forcing someone to give up their rights to honor yours. There is only one Constitutional right that allows you to take away the freedoms of someone else: the right to a trial by jury.

Stop the presses: Nightstrike, by extension of being against interracial marriage is, in fact, a racist!

[Night Strike]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

If bans on refusing to marry gay couples become illegal all over, would you then say the same about the time period when gays didn't have the right to marry?

-rd

Marriage itself isn't a right, and even if it were, it's not being denied because a male can still marry a female.

Stop the presses: Nightstrike, by extension of being against interracial marriage is, in fact, a racist!

Umm....no. I'm not against interracial marriage because the conventions of race do not exist in reality. We are ALL humans, no matter what our skin looks like. We need to stop looking at the skin color of ANY person and instead make decisions on actual actions and the content of one's character.

[rdsrds2120]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

If bans on refusing to marry gay couples become illegal all over, would you then say the same about the time period when gays didn't have the right to marry?

-rd

Marriage itself isn't a right, and even if it were, it's not being denied because a male can still marry a female.

So, if something is only denied from some people, then we don't consider it being denied from everyone?

Also, with the Supreme Court as the interpreters of the constitution, I trust their word more than yours (they're a bit more credible).

-rd

[Night Strike]

People used to use the Bible to justify human slavery. HUMAN FUCKING SLAVERY.

That action was as much of an abomination to Christianity as it was to the people who were enslaved.

If bans on refusing to marry gay couples become illegal all over, would you then say the same about the time period when gays didn't have the right to marry?

-rd

Marriage itself isn't a right, and even if it were, it's not being denied because a male can still marry a female.

So, if something is only denied from some people, then we don't consider it being denied from everyone?

Also, with the Supreme Court as the interpreters of the constitution, I trust their word more than yours (they're a bit more credible).

-rd

There are a lot of "marriages" that people want that are denied by society. Why is homosexuality different?

[Maugena]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Then that statement by the Supreme Court was wrong (wouldn't be the first time - see Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London for other examples). Marriage cannot be a right because you are forcing someone to give up their rights to honor yours. There is only one Constitutional right that allows you to take away the freedoms of someone else: the right to a trial by jury.

Stop the presses: Nightstrike, by extension of being against interracial marriage is, in fact, a racist!

Umm....no. I'm not against interracial marriage because the conventions of race do not exist in reality. We are ALL humans, no matter what our skin looks like. We need to stop looking at the skin color of ANY person and instead make decisions on actual actions and the content of one's character.

Okay.

[Maugena]

There are a lot of "marriages" that people want that are denied by society. Why is homosexuality different?

Please explicitly name these other "marriages" and how they are on the same page as same gender marriages.

[Night Strike]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Then that statement by the Supreme Court was wrong (wouldn't be the first time - see Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London for other examples). Marriage cannot be a right because you are forcing someone to give up their rights to honor yours. There is only one Constitutional right that allows you to take away the freedoms of someone else: the right to a trial by jury.

Stop the presses: Nightstrike, by extension of being against interracial marriage is, in fact, a racist!

Umm....no. I'm not against interracial marriage because the conventions of race do not exist in reality. We are ALL humans, no matter what our skin looks like. We need to stop looking at the skin color of ANY person and instead make decisions on actual actions and the content of one's character.

Okay.

I was specifically speaking about the originally bolded portion of "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"". Okay.

[patrickaa317]

Whoa, your'e right. But wait...but if the Constitution can be changed...then doesn't saying that the Constitution doesn't currently consider something to be a right be irrelevant to an argument over whether or not something should be a right?

Whether something "is" or "should be" is where you are getting stuck. The "is" is a factual statement and can be proven. The "should be" is an opinion that the holder has derived.

I can say that my wife IS sleeping and be able to prove it. If I say my wife SHOULD BE sleeping, that is my opinion and I have no way to stand behind it.

Sure. My point is that whenever people say that banning gay marriage is denying a right to gays, Night Strike mentions that marriage isn't a right (he's wrong when he says that, but whatever). My point is that you can't say that something isn't (currently) a right and just end the conversation there. It doesn't get into the more important "why" of the matter. That's where the meat of the argument is, not in what the current status quo might be.

Wouldn't it be your responsibility to prove how it is a right; or if you agree that it is not a right, why it should be one? I'm pretty sure the onus is on the person trying to prove why a change should be implemented. I will show you where rights such as free speech or freedom of religion are outlined. Can you show me where the right to marriage is outlined? That will be a good place to start.

Outlined? In what, the Constitution? Who cares what the Constitution says, I'm not arguing the current legality of gay marriage in the particular part of the world I live in, I'm arguing whether it is morally acceptable to outlaw it.

But, you know what, fine. We'll talk about the Constitution. Now, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, so I apologize that I'm just going to cite (again) what the Supreme Court has said on marriage in the past:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was in regards to banning interracial marriage, but it still recognizes marriage as a right.

So you are talking legalities but don't care what the constitution says. Do you not realize the constitution is what defines how laws are written? If you are talking about whether it's morally acceptable or not, why do you call it a right? Who cares what rights are if you are looking at morals are. It is constitutionally ok to call someone a fucking idiot but it is not morally acceptable.

Good quote by the Supreme Court but unfortunately as you pointed out that was related to interracial marriage and the 14th amendment protects people from being discriminated against based on their race. Your quote is thus irrelevant when speaking of gay marriage being a right.

[Frigidus]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Then that statement by the Supreme Court was wrong (wouldn't be the first time - see Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London for other examples). Marriage cannot be a right because you are forcing someone to give up their rights to honor yours. There is only one Constitutional right that allows you to take away the freedoms of someone else: the right to a trial by jury.

Stop the presses: Nightstrike, by extension of being against interracial marriage is, in fact, a racist!

Umm....no. I'm not against interracial marriage because the conventions of race do not exist in reality. We are ALL humans, no matter what our skin looks like. We need to stop looking at the skin color of ANY person and instead make decisions on actual actions and the content of one's character.

Okay.

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

[Night Strike]

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

No, because the color of your skin is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of skin color, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of the color of their skin.

[army of nobunaga]

lol.

[Frigidus]

So you are talking legalities but don't care what the constitution says.

I'm not talking about legalities. I'm not arguing that gay marriage is already legal, because it isn't. I'm arguing it should be legal. As for the Constitution, it isn't a sacred document. It can and has been changed to fit the current definition of what is right and wrong. What it currently says is irrelevant because it isn't the source of our rights, our rights are inherent.

Do you not realize the constitution is what defines how laws are written?

In this country. I'm not arguing that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States, that's just an extension of my argument. I feel that it is a violation of human rights to ban gay marriage anywhere.

If you are talking about whether it's morally acceptable or not, why do you call it a right? Who cares what rights are if you are looking at morals are.

I'm saying it is morally unacceptable to outlaw it, not whether being gay is morally acceptable (obviously it is, sex between consenting individuals can't be morally unacceptable)

It is constitutionally ok to call someone a fucking idiot but it is not morally acceptable.

I'd say it's totally acceptable to call someone a fucking idiot.

Good quote by the Supreme Court but unfortunately as you pointed out that was related to interracial marriage and the 14th amendment protects people from being discriminated against based on their race. Your quote is thus irrelevant when speaking of gay marriage being a right.

My point was that the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right, so prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of that right.

[Frigidus]

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

No, because the color of your skin is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of skin color, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of the color of their skin.

Oh my god. My brain is going to explode.

[Bones2484]

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

No, because the color of your skin is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of skin color, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of the color of their skin.

And your sexual preference is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of sexual preference, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of their sexual preference.

[Night Strike]

My point was that the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right, so prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of that right.

They've also said that abortion is a right, even though it isn't.

[Night Strike]

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

No, because the color of your skin is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of skin color, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of the color of their skin.

And your sexual preference is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of sexual preference, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of their sexual preference.

There are a bunch of sexual preferences that society denies on a daily basis, so why is homosexuality different? A preference is an action, not innate.

[Maugena]

No, see, he's not against interracial marriage, he just thinks that the issue should be left up to the states. It was so unfair that the South had to drop their racist-ass laws. That shit should be decided by popular vote.

No, because the color of your skin is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of skin color, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of the color of their skin.

And your sexual preference is not determined by your actions. We are all humans regardless of sexual preference, so you cannot deny someone something simply because of their sexual preference.

There are a bunch of sexual preferences that society denies on a daily basis, so why is homosexuality different? A preference is an action, not innate.

So you liking women is the equivalent of you liking rhinoceroses. Noted.

[patrickaa317]

So you are talking legalities but don't care what the constitution says.

I'm not talking about legalities. I'm not arguing that gay marriage is already legal, because it isn't. I'm arguing it should be legal. As for the Constitution, it isn't a sacred document. It can and has been changed to fit the current definition of what is right and wrong. What it currently says is irrelevant because it isn't the source of our rights, our rights are inherent.

Do you not realize the constitution is what defines how laws are written?

In this country. I'm not arguing that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States, that's just an extension of my argument. I feel that it is a violation of human rights to ban gay marriage anywhere.

If you are talking about whether it's morally acceptable or not, why do you call it a right? Who cares what rights are if you are looking at morals are.

I'm saying it is morally unacceptable to outlaw it, not whether being gay is morally acceptable (obviously it is, sex between consenting individuals can't be morally unacceptable)

It is constitutionally ok to call someone a fucking idiot but it is not morally acceptable.

I'd say it's totally acceptable to call someone a fucking idiot.

Good quote by the Supreme Court but unfortunately as you pointed out that was related to interracial marriage and the 14th amendment protects people from being discriminated against based on their race. Your quote is thus irrelevant when speaking of gay marriage being a right.

My point was that the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a right, so prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of that right.

If you are talking about making laws to allow gay marriage then you are talking about legalities. Laws are legalities. You are correct that the constitution be changed, there is a process for that. Many states are amending their constitution by the appropriate process but I would assume that you disagree with the results that are taking place.

Rather than trying to enforce gay marriage everywhere, you should take the first steps of protecting gays everywhere. Do you not realize what happens to gays in many foreign countries? That is much more of a human rights issue then them being able to marry.

Not allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with intercourse between consenting adults.

If you are saying that the protection of interracial marriage is precedence for gay marriage; is it also precedence for incestual marriage? Or polygamist marriage? Or are those just different and not ok?

[Frigidus]

If you are talking about making laws to allow gay marriage then you are talking about legalities. Laws are legalities. You are correct that the constitution be changed, there is a process for that. Many states are amending their constitution by the appropriate process but I would assume that you disagree with the results that are taking place.

I care a lot more about the end result than the process. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Can you name a single reason gay marriage is not OK that does not involve your personal tastes?

Rather than trying to enforce gay marriage everywhere, you should take the first steps of protecting gays everywhere. Do you not realize what happens to gays in many foreign countries? That is much more of a human rights issue then them being able to marry.

Yeah, and those other countries are forsaken shitholes. As a first world country we should hold higher standards.

Not allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with intercourse between consenting adults.

If you are saying that the protection of interracial marriage is precedence for gay marriage; is it also precedence for incestual marriage? Or polygamist marriage? Or are those just different and not ok?

Polygamist marriage is fine, as there is no logical reason to not allow it assuming everyone is fine with the situation. Incestual marriage is not, as that would encourage inbreeding. Inbreeding negatively affects the gene pool as a whole. Pretty much any situation involving two consenting adults that isn't incest isn't a problem to me.

[patrickaa317]

If you are talking about making laws to allow gay marriage then you are talking about legalities. Laws are legalities. You are correct that the constitution be changed, there is a process for that. Many states are amending their constitution by the appropriate process but I would assume that you disagree with the results that are taking place.

I care a lot more about the end result than the process. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Can you name a single reason gay marriage is not OK that does not involve your personal tastes?

Rather than trying to enforce gay marriage everywhere, you should take the first steps of protecting gays everywhere. Do you not realize what happens to gays in many foreign countries? That is much more of a human rights issue then them being able to marry.

Yeah, and those other countries are forsaken shitholes. As a first world country we should hold higher standards.

Not allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with intercourse between consenting adults.

If you are saying that the protection of interracial marriage is precedence for gay marriage; is it also precedence for incestual marriage? Or polygamist marriage? Or are those just different and not ok?

Polygamist marriage is fine, as there is no logical reason to not allow it assuming everyone is fine with the situation. Incestual marriage is not, as that would encourage inbreeding. Inbreeding negatively affects the gene pool as a whole. Pretty much any situation involving two consenting adults that isn't incest isn't a problem to me.

Society’s fundamental interest in marriage is providing the optimal envi­ronment for raising children, which is with a mother and a father—not affirming two people’s commitment to one another. There are a lot of committed, loving relationships other than homosexual unions, e.g., two siblings, parent and children, grandchild and grandparent, longtime friends. These relationships don’t constitute a marriage any more than gay or lesbian unions do. There is a unique benefit provided to society by marriage, which the state has an interest in protecting and promoting.

Also, your comment about incestual marriage encouraging inbreeding is only relevant in heterosexual incestual marriage between two non-sterile individuals. If one of the two individuals is sterilized, or it is a homosexual incestual marriage, or it is agreed to be a non-sexual marriage, I would assume you are then ok with incestual marriage as the gene pool isn't tarnished which is your reason for being against it.

[Swimmerdude99]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

[Bones2484]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman

By YOUR definition. There are plenty of states which include gay marriage in the definition.

it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not..

There are plenty of married couples who have chosen to never have children. Are you saying that these people should not allowed to get married since they are not "moving society forward"?

Marriage was designed for couples to have children.

I hope you realize that having children is not dependent on getting married.



PS: Did you figure out your mistake in the "Most Intelligent Under 30" thread yet?