North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[thegreekdog]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

[comic boy]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

[Night Strike]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

[Neoteny]

Words fail me.

[AndyDufresne]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

The LGBTQIA Movement just wants Equal Rights, not 'Gay Rights'.


--Andy

[comic boy]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

Now you are just being absurd , how on earth can you deny that the bill in question is discriminating against gay people , stop being dishonest. So much for defending the constitution , only when it suits you eh , what a vile display of hypocrisy, shame on you !

[GreecePwns]

Defending gawd (my gawd not your gawd) > defending the constitution > defending common sense

[rdsrds2120]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

The LGBTQIA Movement just wants Equal Rights, not 'Gay Rights'.


--Andy

Fun fact: With the introduction of U for Unisex, we can now boggle it around and have the fun acronym: QUILTBAG



-rd

[patrickaa317]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

The LGBTQIA Movement just wants Equal Rights, not 'Gay Rights'.


--Andy

The have equal rights. Marriage/Civil Unions/etc are not constitutional rights.

[comic boy]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

[patrickaa317]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

A gay man has the same ability to marry as a straight man. A straight man can also not marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. The law is applied equally to all people regardless of sexual orientation. No discrimination is taking place.

[Neoteny]

The most absurd argument ever raises its ugly head!

[GreecePwns]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

A gay man has the same ability to marry as a straight man. A straight man can also not marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. The law is applied equally to all people regardless of sexual orientation. No discrimination is taking place.

If you ever thought we were in agreement on anything, you're wrong.

[comic boy]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

A gay man has the same ability to marry as a straight man. A straight man can also not marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. The law is applied equally to all people regardless of sexual orientation. No discrimination is taking place.

That may be your view but it is incorrect .
Firstly your assertion that marriage is not a constitutional right ; Loving v Virginia US supreme court 1967: '' Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights' of man ''
Now lets deal with your above point , it was dealt with in Brown v Board of control , the ruling was based on interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. In short no state shall deny equal protection under the law and ANY person is entitled to enter into a civil union.
Now I will concede that there is some contention in regard to this ruling applying to same sex 'marriage' but on the question of civil unions it is straight forward , denying civil union is unconstitutional.
These rulings underlined basic civil rights , the subject then was race and it is sexuality now , the results will be the same .Future generations will look upon those who oppose equal rights for gay people in the same light as those who defended slavery and race laws , good luck if you want to be in that company.

[patrickaa317]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

A gay man has the same ability to marry as a straight man. A straight man can also not marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. The law is applied equally to all people regardless of sexual orientation. No discrimination is taking place.

If you ever thought we were in agreement on anything, you're wrong.

That's ok, I don't mind. Honestly.

[AAFitz]

It seems to me that it is time for a constitutional ammendment in order to safeguard equality for all regardless of their sexuality.

Such an amendment already exists.

To be honest I thought it probably did.
Surely then all this talk of states rights is utterly moot in this instance , why is Night Strike not defending gay equality on constitutional grounds

Because gay people have the exact same rights as every other person. We don't need a new classification of "gay rights". In fact, "gay rights" actually means that group has different rights than any other citizen and are therefore unequal (presumably they're greater than the rest since they have their own classification of rights).

The LGBTQIA Movement just wants Equal Rights, not 'Gay Rights'.


--Andy

If only logic and reason actually mattered.

[patrickaa317]

It is unconstitutional to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality , framing a law that discriminates against a certain section of the population is unconstitutional , are you another one who only supports the constitution when it suits you ?

A gay man has the same ability to marry as a straight man. A straight man can also not marry another man just like a gay man cannot marry another man. The law is applied equally to all people regardless of sexual orientation. No discrimination is taking place.

That may be your view but it is incorrect .
Firstly your assertion that marriage is not a constitutional right ; Loving v Virginia US supreme court 1967: '' Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights' of man ''
Now lets deal with your above point , it was dealt with in Brown v Board of control , the ruling was based on interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. In short no state shall deny equal protection under the law and ANY person is entitled to enter into a civil union.
Now I will concede that there is some contention in regard to this ruling applying to same sex 'marriage' but on the question of civil unions it is straight forward , denying civil union is unconstitutional.
These rulings underlined basic civil rights , the subject then was race and it is sexuality now , the results will be the same .Future generations will look upon those who oppose equal rights for gay people in the same light as those who defended slavery and race laws , good luck if you want to be in that company.

Firstly, the Supreme Court cannot create constitutional rights, it can declare fundamental rights through writ of certiorari.

And what is it with everyone over the last month comparing not allowing gays to marry to slavery. Whoever sent out the talking memo on that did a fantastic job because everyone now uses that as an argument. I'd really like someone to go back in time and tell all the slaves that Adam & Steve are going through the same thing the slaves went through back on the plantations where they were physically abused and treated like animals. No comparison in my book.

And while I don't necessarily think all gay people choose to be gay, I do think that there are a lot that do choose to be gay. Race and gender are never things that are chosen. Well at least race, nowdays gender can be chosen.

[comic boy]

Your arguments are exactly the same as those used in the past by those who opposed civil rights reform , you are not arguing against me or anybody else on this forum , you are arguing against history. You know and I know that your objections have nothing to do fairness , equal rights , or the Constitution , its all down to dogmatic biblical interpretation.
Do yourself a favour and research apartheid in South Africa and the part played by the Dutch reform church , they shared the same dogma as you and your ilk , you will learn how society ended up judging them and in turn will judge you.

[patrickaa317]

Your arguments are exactly the same as those used in the past by those who opposed civil rights reform , you are not arguing against me or anybody else on this forum , you are arguing against history. You know and I know that your objections have nothing to do fairness , equal rights , or the Constitution , its all down to dogmatic biblical interpretation.
Do yourself a favour and research apartheid in South Africa and the part played by the Dutch reform church , they shared the same dogma as you and your ilk , you will learn how society ended up judging them and in turn will judge you.

Sounds like you think you know me better than I do. Perhaps that is just your general nature to think you know a lot about things, if I knew you as well as you think you know me, I'd tell you if that was actually true or not.

Can you explain why in 2010 20%16% of those who practiced atheism were against gay marriage? Is that also due to dogmatic biblical interpretation? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=90#p3729284


EDIT: 80% of atheists support it, only 16% oppose it. Corrected above.

[rdsrds2120]

Your arguments are exactly the same as those used in the past by those who opposed civil rights reform , you are not arguing against me or anybody else on this forum , you are arguing against history. You know and I know that your objections have nothing to do fairness , equal rights , or the Constitution , its all down to dogmatic biblical interpretation.
Do yourself a favour and research apartheid in South Africa and the part played by the Dutch reform church , they shared the same dogma as you and your ilk , you will learn how society ended up judging them and in turn will judge you.

Sounds like you think you know me better than I do. Perhaps that is just your general nature to think you know a lot about things, if I knew you as well as you think you know me, I'd tell you if that was actually true or not.

Can you explain why in 2010 20%16% of those who practiced atheism were against gay marriage? Is that also due to dogmatic biblical interpretation? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=90#p3729284


EDIT: 80% of atheists support it, only 16% oppose it. Corrected above.

16% of Atheists? Isn't that like, 200 people?

-rd

[comic boy]

Your arguments are exactly the same as those used in the past by those who opposed civil rights reform , you are not arguing against me or anybody else on this forum , you are arguing against history. You know and I know that your objections have nothing to do fairness , equal rights , or the Constitution , its all down to dogmatic biblical interpretation.
Do yourself a favour and research apartheid in South Africa and the part played by the Dutch reform church , they shared the same dogma as you and your ilk , you will learn how society ended up judging them and in turn will judge you.

Sounds like you think you know me better than I do. Perhaps that is just your general nature to think you know a lot about things, if I knew you as well as you think you know me, I'd tell you if that was actually true or not.

Can you explain why in 2010 20%16% of those who practiced atheism were against gay marriage? Is that also due to dogmatic biblical interpretation? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=90#p3729284


EDIT: 80% of atheists support it, only 16% oppose it. Corrected above.

Being an atheist does not preclude one from social pressure, fear and ignorance, that would explain the 16% I would imagine.

[patrickaa317]

Your arguments are exactly the same as those used in the past by those who opposed civil rights reform , you are not arguing against me or anybody else on this forum , you are arguing against history. You know and I know that your objections have nothing to do fairness , equal rights , or the Constitution , its all down to dogmatic biblical interpretation.
Do yourself a favour and research apartheid in South Africa and the part played by the Dutch reform church , they shared the same dogma as you and your ilk , you will learn how society ended up judging them and in turn will judge you.

Sounds like you think you know me better than I do. Perhaps that is just your general nature to think you know a lot about things, if I knew you as well as you think you know me, I'd tell you if that was actually true or not.

Can you explain why in 2010 20%16% of those who practiced atheism were against gay marriage? Is that also due to dogmatic biblical interpretation? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170605&start=90#p3729284


EDIT: 80% of atheists support it, only 16% oppose it. Corrected above.

Being an atheist does not preclude one from social pressure, fear and ignorance, that would explain the 16% I would imagine.

I would say those that support gay marriage induce a lot more social pressure on someone than someone who opposes it. The other two points could be a debate in themselves but I'm really getting burnt out on the topic as both sides continue to say the same things.

[Woodruff]

On a side note, can you show me where Jesus says that Christians should listen more to his word than the rest of the Bible?

Of course not. It seems to me that would be an egregious thing to expect. I can't even fathom why that would be expected.

[Woodruff]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

Not necessarily. By that standard, outright discrimination against blacks (i.e. whites-only establishments) would be perfectly acceptable. There must be some overarching principles to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay. And those holidng the argument that this issue is not VERY MUCH THE SAME as the civil rights issues of the past are simply being willfully ignorant.

[patrickaa317]

On a side note, can you show me where Jesus says that Christians should listen more to his word than the rest of the Bible?

Of course not. It seems to me that would be an egregious thing to expect. I can't even fathom why that would be expected.

Seemed to be in line with expecting someone to quote Jesus after they talk about what the Bible says.