I agree that government has no business in marriage.
As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can marry anyone that he so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so chooses. Nothing has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of North Carolinians, like Floridians and something like 36 other states' citizenry, have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage will not be changed based upon one's sexual behavior.
Plain Ol', you can try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by the militant Gay Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement to revise American history, is not about discrimination. It's not about equal rights. This movement/agenda is about secularists such as yourself attempting to change the very morality of, and the fabric of our Nation. To change the definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian moral tenets that our Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an attempt to redefine the term marriage.
Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal rights or discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State acknowledges homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving them the same status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a class of people, (which it doesn't; again we have established that there is no class of people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and only can be distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) then this has been accomplished in a number of States, to include California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil Unions have been allowed in these States for a number of years. The militant Gay Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not been satisfied with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No, there was no happy medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was acceptable; the only purpose of which was to shove what many Americans believe to be an immoral lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial throats.
It's not going to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections. Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of marriage will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see the military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and women in the service.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to
gays.
On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
> identical rights that you and I
> ---
> not true
> they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters
>
> On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to maintain
> > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those same
> > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than North
> > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than I
> > have, or that you have, because of their behavior.
>
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > North Carolina did nothing that was
> > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
> > > against a
> > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
> > > ---
> > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
> > > the blacks
>
> > > This was a
> > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
> > > ---
> > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
> > > decisions
>
> > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well said Mark.
>
> > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers such
> > > as
> > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was
> > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action against
> > > a
> > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a
> > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define
> > > marriage.
> > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have been
> > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" need to be
> > > > quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment...
> > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass
> > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > > > > issue.
>
> > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > > > > byChris Bassil
> > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina
> > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay
> > > marriage,
> > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by
> > > voters.
> > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the
> > > former
> > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of
> > > this
> > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.
> > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this
> > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather
> > > that we
> > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of
> > > > > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay
> > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that
> > > the
> > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of
> > > business,
> > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective
> > > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common
> > > denominator
> > > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's
> > > opinions,
> > > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory
> > > though
> > > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties
> > > to
> > > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as
> > > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to
> > > lead
> > > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the
> > > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the
> > > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of
> > > freedom
> > > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has
> > > been
> > > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous
> > > group
> > > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows
> > > this to
> > > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely
> > > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical
> > > beliefs,
> > > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same
> > > > > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence,
> > > > > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also
> > > implies our
> > > > > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions
> > > to
> > > > > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different
> > > > > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for
> > > the
> > > > > vote.)
> > > > > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however,
> > > > > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them
> > > better
> > > > > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the
> > > > > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous
> > > > > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest
> > > > > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the
> > > smaller,
> > > > > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > > > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted
> > > > > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic
> > > process.
> > > > > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact
> > > that
> > > > > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view
> > > and
> > > > > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the
> > > > > existing states constitute."
> > > > > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision
> > > making
> > > > > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now
> > > seem
> > > > > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state
> > > and
> > > > > their fellow citizens.
> > > > > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is
> > > > > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that
> > > voted
> > > > > against the amendment are all home to major universities:
> > > > > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have
> > > > > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at
> > > > > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of
> > > their
> > > > > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the
> > > > > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist
> > > interpretation
> > > > > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral
> > > > > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the
> > > graphics
> > > > > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns
> > > -- and
> > > > > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational,
> > > and
> > > > > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek,
> > > as
> > > > > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy
> > > as a
> > > > > process of collective decision making.
> > > > > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they
> > > > > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going
> > > > > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual
> > > testament
> > > > > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to
> > > the
> > > > > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and
> > > belief
> > > > > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case,
> > > > > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of,
> > > it
> > > > > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is
> > > clearly
> > > > > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a
> > > > > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and
> > > not
> > > > > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than
> > > those who
> > > > > live in more rural areas.
> > > > > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different
> > > > > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be
> > > enough to
> > > > > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore,
> > > > > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward
> > > > > different programs than those who are not, and will often be
> > > incentivized
> > > > > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales
> > > > > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every
> > > > > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a
> > > variable
> > > > > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city
> > > > > voter attempts to
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment