North Carolina Bans Gay Marriage

[Beorn]

Reading this thread and seeing the various responses from libertarians, who are typically far more logical than the average joe, leads me to believe that people's opinions on gay marriage more than any other issue are largely emotionally based and rarely thought out. Maybe that's because gay marriage was never really about rights, but more about acceptance.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

What about individual rights?

 

[JK/SEA]

In other news....20,000 homes have been put up for sale this week in North Carolina.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral. But, unless they infringe on me, it's none of my business how someone else chooses to live their life.

Right now, I am quite busy trying to take the plank out of my own eye...

 

[Kelly.]

in north carolina, marriage is now between 2 people in love, their god and their government.

equal rights for most!

 

[Brent H]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

 

[Ranger29860]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

I don't know if your actually serious? I really don't think "marriage" is been about any sexual act.

*edit*
Either way, in CA I could maybe understand your argument since there would be a civil union equivlent legally. But in NC they banned even that by the looks of it.

I have always wondered why we have this tendancy in this country to think seperate but equal is ok when it comes to state or federal law. I could definitly see the private property right as a basis to discriminate how you want in your own buisness or house. But why is this ok at a state or federal level?

 

[Kelly.]

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

why should govt have to OK any marriage??

it was my understanding that marriage was between to loving adults and their god. as soon as you are forced to get the govt to OK (marriage license), you are now married to your spouse AND the govt.

what this boils down to it equal rights, as it relates to taxes, end of life decisions, etc.
so strange that so called libertarians here are all for denying rights to certain groups.

 

[JK/SEA]

Just because NC may have banned gay marriage, doesn't mean that NC has prohibited men from sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums.

Why should the act of men sticking their sex organs up other men's rectums be called "marriage"?

you must be a latent homosexual, and have a fear you might love just men. why else do people like you fear what others do in private?... Men engage in anal sex with women.

No..i'm not gay. Been married to my female wife for over 30 years.

Maybe its time to start legislating laws against what you do.

 

[Ranger29860]

you must be a latent homosexual, and have a fear you might love just men. why else do people like you fear what others do in private?... Men engage in anal sex with women.

No..i'm not gay. Been married to my female wife for over 30 years.

Maybe its time to start legislating laws against what you do.

The problem is for many I have seen is the idea that sex is the only reason gays want to get married. Since people view it as a deviant lifestyle they demand the focus of argument to be on the most "odd" part of the situation for them refusing to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

[matt0611]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a power to regulate and define such things.

The people of NC have spoken. They changed their Constitution to reflect their will. Perfectly legitimate and I don't see how this affects anyone's "rights".

 

[Ranger29860]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a right to regulate and define such things.

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

 

[tod evans]

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

"Equality" is a very subjective thing...

 

[matt0611]

But if the government is going to get involved at any level (which it shouldnt for marriage) would this be something that should be covered under the equal protection of the law?

No, not in my opinion. Its not something that's covered under that.

 

[Ranger29860]

"Equality" is a very subjective thing...

I agree hence why I don't want them in marriage to begin with. We should be moving to ban state involvment in marriage to begin with. That being said all this "fight" is doing is solidifying governments role in marriage. Now because we have the "sanctity of marriage" we must protect it, and of course the way the majority does this is to use the government to get there way. This is why I do not understand some peoples views that claim to be libertarian but then turn around and say we must protect marriage. It defeats the entire purpose. If anything people should be clamoring for same sex marriage so that people relize how stupid it is to have government involved to begin with.

 

[Dianne]

Although I believe it's a state's right to do this, I find it rather amusing.

It seems that there is big support from the evangelical-Christian community to ban gay-marriage wherever they can. But, what if we told them that the state could vote on whether to allow them to practice their religion (Christianity) legally. No praying. No churches. Nothing.

Shit would hit the fan.

That was my first thought when I heard about this amendment. It sets the precedent for the government to control every aspect of your personal life, if they wish. And at some point, we will have a dictator (perhaps the one we have now), who will mandate wealth, religion, education, slavery; and these dolts who can't keep their noses out of other people's private business, have themselves to thank when we all lose our freedom of choice.

 

[Kelly.]

I don't have any problem with this under our Constitutional / Federal system. A state has a power to regulate and define such things.

The people of NC have spoken. They changed their Constitution to reflect their will. Perfectly legitimate and I don't see how this affects anyone's "rights".

would be OK to amend the state constitution to ban only a certain race from getting married?

if not, who is that different?
if yes, we understand liberty different.

 

[Ranger29860]

would be OK to amend the state constitution to ban only a certain race from getting married?

if not, who is that different?
if yes, we understand liberty different.

O Gawd get your firesuit ready!

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Matthew 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

Obviously if marriage is a thing of God as written in Matthew, why is it being rendered unto the state against Jesus' teaching in Mark?

 

[Dianne]

In other news....20,000 homes have been put up for sale this week in North Carolina.

Obama, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Wells Fargo; just to name a few are co conspirators in the largest land grab in this country's history with the extorted money going directly to foreign entities. Even the corrupt U.S. Attorney General says the Banks are corrupt; yet they haven't stopped them from their illegal fraudclosures and they continue to look the other way as homes are stolen.

Where is the outrage from these "busy bodies", on that issue?