North Carolina voters reject same-sex marriage.

[asjssl]

People aren't born gay it is something they choose. I hear of guys with wive saying they want to try being with a guy. That is a decision they make. It's NOT how our creator designed us. Not to mention the diseases transferred from homosexuals to one another.

You never answered my question earlier.

Would you be this defensive if it wasn't your nephew?

I think your sickened by it but feel you have to support it and make it not look so bad because of it being family.


Mayfield Express

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

people choose to be gay are you for real ..

are you gay how in the hell would you know ??

why would someone choose to be treated like you treat a gay

Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

 

[BigCat]

Cheri you are picking words out of my post and totally turning them around.

As for being with or against them, I said that because someone mentioned beating and killing of gays. I stated I'm not going to march their rallies but I'm not going to hurt them either.

As for you saying I'm name calling? I'm not sure where I name called anyone? Because look on popular websites of social groups they actually have "gay and lesbian" sections created by gays for gays.

Gays would rather be called gay than homo as many people use or even queer.

Fwiw this whole thread is worthless




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asjssl]

People aren't born gay it is something they choose. I hear of guys with wive saying they want to try being with a guy. That is a decision they make. It's NOT how our creator designed us. Not to mention the diseases transferred from homosexuals to one another.

You never answered my question earlier.

Would you be this defensive if it wasn't your nephew?

I think your sickened by it but feel you have to support it and make it not look so bad because of it being family

Mayfield Express


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

great advertisement for mayfield express show how you're against gays..



Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

 

[Tennesseahawk]

people choose to be gay are you for real ..

are you gay how in the hell would you know ??

why would someone choose to be treated like you treat a gay

Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

I dunno... why would anyone want to be treated like they're black? Yet our esteemed president forgets there's vanilla swirled in with his chocolate.

Call it liberal vogue.

 

[BigCat]

I'm far from gay. Got a great wife and kid and prefer to be intimate the way we were designed to be.

For another thing I didn't attack you nor your nephew so I'd appreciate if you didn't imply I'm gay!

Infact the way you are acting towards amonger,Mxzane and my self you are the one in question.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cheri1122]

Umm... YOUR party screwed those up!

My party? Which party would that be, Hawk? Because to the best of my knowledge, I never declared myself a member of any party....

 

[cheri1122]

great advertisement for mayfield express show how you're against gays..



Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

I understand the emotion, but that is just out of bounds - none of us 'represent' anyone other than ourselves in our social/political opinions.

 

[BigCat]

I never said I'm against them. I simply said I don't agree with and it is not a genetic disorder.

You on the other hand get so worked up for no reason because in the end we don't decide if same sex marriage is accepted or not.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asjssl]

Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums[/QUOTE]



Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

 

[mxzane933]

great advertisement for mayfield express show how you're against gays..



Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

Just sayin that in this industry if one is straight up thinking out loud about.how they dislike gays its not.going to effect.the.company. this is trucking. Not project runway

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using EO Forums

 

[AMonger]

There you go ...they were BORN black....people are BORN gay...can't change being black ...can't change being gay ...ok smart *** ...YOU change and go gay....its what your asking of a gay person to just go straight....as vile as you think man on man is that's what they think of man on woman....

And that twisted belief is why they're perverts.

If people are born with homosexual urges, that's more like being born a psychopath. Both are horrid deviant conditions that cause urges to do bad things. But both have a choice in whether or not they actually commit those offenses.

And I could change and go gay if I wanted to. If I decided to have gay sex, then I'd be gay, regardless of how I felt about it. The sex act is the determiner in whether one is gay. Being black isn't wrong. Being a sodomite--someone who engages in sex with someone of their own sex--is wrong. So like anyone else who is faced with sinful temptations, the choice is their's whether or not they actually do it.

HELLO!! SO NARROW MINDED!!!!!!!!!

You know, the opposite of being closed or narrow minded is being so open-minded that one's brains fall out.

come on go gay ...get a penis and YOU keep yapping about...ohh can't do it... Well niether can they change....are you getting it yet???

They can change. Here's an absolutely 100% effective method of not being gay: renounce sex with others of your own sex. Either have sex only with someone of the opposite sex or remain celibate, regardless of your urges. Now, as long as you don't go back to your old ways, you're no longer gay.

 

[RLENT]

Be careful what ye wish for, lest ye actually get it (or: "How Social Conservative Statists have sowed the seeds for the destruction of marriage themselves ...."):

Privatize Marriage Now

Ann Coulter, that warmongering demagogue of Conservatism, has declared war on Ron Paul.

Naturally, she hates Paul because he stands for peace, free markets and the rule of law. Coulter hates of all of these things since she loves war, the police state, and the destruction of the constitution in pursuit of untrammeled political power for Conservative nationalists. In other words, like most Conservatives, she loves socialism, although she prefers to cloak her socialism in words like "national greatness," "secure borders" and "family values."

In a recent column, Coulter attacks Paul for a variety of his pro-freedom positions. In this column, however, I’ll focus only on her wildly inaccurate claims about how marriage is a "legal construct" and how every good American should insist that government maintain its death grip on the institution. She denounces Ron Paul for his insistence that marriage should not be controlled by government and that people should be free to contract with whomever they choose. Coulter of course insists that marriage should be socialized, regulated and controlled by government.

Coulter counters Paul with a claim that "there are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage." Well she’s right there. There is a reason that governments regulate marriage: Governments couldn’t resist the urge to seize control of marriage which was a traditionally religious and non-governmental institution.

Let’s briefly examine the history and nature of marriage in the West and see just why we have laws. By "laws" of course, Coulter means secular civil laws. She’s not talking about Canon Law or Church Law, which is what governed marriage throughout most of the history of Christendom.

Being a sacrament, marriage was traditionally governed by religious law and was a religious matter.

The Church recognized that with marriage being a sacrament, the state had no more right to regulate marriage than it had the right to regulate who could be baptized or who could be ordained a priest.

Indeed, in the Catholic Church to this day, a couple may become sacramentally married without even the presence of any clergy, let alone a government agent. If no clergy is available, couples may simply make vows in the presence of lay witnesses. The marriage is then perfectly valid according to the Church’s own law. This further illustrates the traditional, religious status in the West of marriage as a private bond between two persons. There’s certainly no state-sponsored marriage certificate required.

Naturally, marriage, being what it is, did nevertheless impact the distribution and ownership of property. Who were the legitimate heirs of a married couple, for example? Could ******* Jimmy inherit the property of his father instead of First Born Tom who was the child of both dad and his wife? These considerations attracted the state’s attention.

The state hates it when property changes hands without being taxed and regulated, so the state set its sights on marriage centuries ago. Over time civil governments inserted themselves more and more into the religious institutions of marriage. This was helped along by the Reformation and by defenders of government-controlled marriage like King Henry VIII of England. As nation-states consolidated their monopolies on all law and over all institutions in society, the state finally displaced religious institutions as the final arbiter on marriage.

So yes, Ann, there is a reason that governments control marriage:

They couldn’t keep their mitts off it.

The natural outcome of widespread approval of this state of affairs is that governments are now seen as the institution that can legitimately define marriage itself. We now have civil laws deciding what marriage is and what it is not and who can be married and who can not.

For anyone who has an interest in actually defending the historically traditional status of marriage, this power should be viewed as both dangerous and illegitimate. Thanks to the secularizing efforts of Christian reformers and anti-Christian types throughout history, marriage gradually became for many a civil matter only. Many people get "married" in courthouses in totally non-religious ceremonies. Such marriage contracts are in essence no different from run-of-the-mill legal contracts. The fact that we call such unions "marriage" doesn’t make them so. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is a religious matter. Some government judge can’t make you "married" any more than can your hair dresser. Here, we see that the so-called "traditional" marriage types who nevertheless defend government civil "marriage" (as defined by them) have already sown the seeds of their own defeat. They’ve already removed the institution of marriage from its traditional role and status.

What they should be arguing for is the removal of civil governments from the marriage bond altogether. Couples who wish to marry should approach their religious authorities about it. Then, if they wish they can join into some kind of civil union, which is just a contract. People who wish to have a civil union but no marriage may enter into that arrangement, and those who wish for a marriage with no civil union should be able to do that as well. Marriage, properly understood, should be considered off limits from government meddling. People are welcome to contract, but if the "defenders" of marriage had done their jobs right, there would be no confusion today about what is marriage and what is a government-approved contractual union.

Unfortunately, though, when Conservatives and Christian Right types bemoan the loss of so-called "traditional" marriage yet agitate for more government control of the institution, they really have only themselves to blame since they’re therefore accepting the proposition that government has the legitimate authority to regulate and control marriage. The power to regulate marriage is the power to destroy it.

This fact certainly doesn’t stop Coulter. Coulter is such an authoritarian on marriage, in fact, that she even apparently supports government-mandated blood tests as a means of enhancing government control of the institution:

Under [Ron] Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth – as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.


​

Here she is apparently using a one-in-a-billion event to justify the forced government drawing and analysis of blood and, by extension, government regulation of who may or may not marry. I know that many Americans probably consider mandatory medical procedures to be no big deal, but all that tells us is how willingly Americans will approve of even the most invasive government regulations.

Nevertheless, some states in the United States, such as Colorado, do not mandate such things. In Colorado’s case, we have a few vestiges of frontier traditions of freedom left, and we have yet to totally succumb to a traditions of Coulter-esque police-statism.

No blood tests are required, and indeed a couple can become common-law spouses with not much more than a public declaration that the marriage exists. In Coulter’s view, this is pure chaos. How Colorado society manages to function without governments checking up on the health and genetics of our betrothed remains an inscrutable mystery.

And Coulter doesn’t stop there. While a true defense of marriage would consist of putting it back in the hands of private institutions, that certainly doesn’t fly for Coulter who says that "nder Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest – or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)"

She seems to think that there are no disagreements about the terms and validity of marriage contracts under the present regime. Well, such disagreements do exist and disagreements over legal contracts are decided on a case-by-case basis right now. So Coulter isn’t doing anything here other than simply exhibiting her ignorance about the status quo. One could also point out that, while Coulter presents this point as some kind of big deal, all she’s really saying is that a more complex and decentralized system would be an inconvenience to some people, and that this therefore justifies more government regulation of our lives. .

Meanwhile, some societies do in fact base marriage decisions on the judgments of religious organizations. Marriage in Israel, for example, is founded on a system in which the validity of marriage is based on whether or not one’s marriage is approved by a religious institution. In other words, this is essentially the system that Coulter says only crazy people would support.

Israel’s system is far from perfect – there’s far too much government involvement – but it is nevertheless a functional and decentralized system.

Why not let your Wiccan "priest" also be considered a legitimate authority for approving marriage? So what? Why is this the state’s business? It certainly has no effect on my views about the validity and -dare I say it? – superiority of my own Roman Catholic marriage. Wiccans will disagree with me, but that’s their business.

Of course, when you’re a Conservative, everything is the state’s business from whom you hire (no foreigners!) to what you smoke in your living room, to what your genitals feel like at the airport.

Coulter grudgingly is forced to admit that "eventually – theoretically – there could be private institutions to handle many of these matters" so we’re forced to assume that she’s unaware that private institutions handled marriage in Western Europe for at least 1,500 years. But this admission also shows that her insistence on government control of marriage isn’t actually necessary. It’s just her personal preference.

As with most Conservatives, Coulter can’t imagine a world in which government isn’t a massive overweening institution that regulates the personal decisions of millions of people every minute of every day. Only crazy people want freedom in her mind, and Coulter will be happy to condemn anyone like Ron Paul who dares challenge the status quo.

June 17, 2011​

Ryan McMaken [send him mail] teaches political science in Colorado.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.​

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Umm... YOUR party screwed those up!

My party? Which party would that be, Hawk? Because to the best of my knowledge, I never declared myself a member of any party....

My bad. The party which holds most of your liberal views... the one with the a$$ as the mascot.

 

[aristotle]

In about 30 days, the US Supreme Court will likely hand Barack Obama a crushing personal defeat by ruling Obamacare, in part or whole, as unconstitutional. Combine that with backlash for his support of homosexual marriage and his single-handed repeal of DADT which forced open homosexuality onto the US military and Obama is facing an awful summer and autumn. We will never see his academic records, but the American people get to grade Obama's performance in office very soon. How much further harm can Obama do between now and November? How much harm can Obama do as a lame duck president between November and inauguration day in January?

 

[RLENT]

In about 30 days, the US Supreme Court will likely hand Barack Obama a crushing personal defeat by ruling Obamacare, in part or whole, as unconstitutional.

Hallelujah !

Combine that with backlash for his support of homosexual marriage and his single-handed repeal of DADT which forced open homosexuality onto the US military and Obama is facing an awful summer and autumn.

We will never see his academic records, but the American people get to grade Obama's performance in office very soon. How much further harm can Obama do between now and November? How much harm can Obama do as a lame duck president between November and inauguration day in January?

Plenty I'm sure ....

Not to fear though .... Captain America will grab the Rudder of State in the month of my birth after his inauguration .... and steer a course straight and true ....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Traditional family values?....Not so long ago...Traditional family values a black could not marry a white....the black would be taken out and hung and the white tar and feather and disgraced and the off spring....well.....spit upon and shunned from society, regularly beaten and murdered...How some things change and some stay the same....

I seriously suggest some of you educate yourselves about the gay community and dispel the garbage some are spouting off....ignorance is bliss....a sickness? really? and the mentally challenged were the work of the devil too at one time...
61% is not a landslide by any measure....next time it will be closer...
North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Nationally the tide is turning...
Gay marriage: How Americans, like Obama, are

as the old guard dies off and the more educated on the issue...it will some day be as normal as inter-racial marriages...

 

[LisaLouHoo]

In early 19th century NC, my great great great great great grandpa fell in love with one of his father's slaves. Obviously, they could not marry. He gave up his medical practice to become a farmer in order to live his life with her. Talk about ostracization...even the family cut him loose. Seeing this thread makes me wonder what they went through. They lived together until death they did part, having 9 children along the way. I wonder if they deeply wanted to marry, but resigned themselves to the fact they couldn't and just exiled themselves to the countryside.

It's sad they had to hide out during their lives just to be together.

It shouldn't be that way. For anyone.

Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

 

[chefdennis]

That is absolutely right, but at this time there is no Federal Law Marriage Law to override the State Law...Bush tried to pass a Fed Marriage defing marriage between a man an woman, but it never made it...and we wont see one at least in my life time...

Unfortunately, that may not be true. Article 6, section 2 of the US Constitution says of the federal constitution says, "This constitution, and the treaties and laws which are past hereunder, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

So if marriage between sodomites is manufactured into a constitutional right the way prenatal infantacide was, it would automatically override all state constitutions.

 

[witness23]

I dunno... why would anyone want to be treated like they're black? Yet our esteemed president forgets there's vanilla swirled in with his chocolate.

Call it liberal vogue.

Huh? Dude, there are so many racist/biggoted connotations to your statement above its beyond reproach.

 

[AMonger]

OVM, Lisa, and several others make the mistake of equating homosexuality with race and civil rights. This is absolutely incorrect. Race or color is a mere benign variation with which you are born; homosexuality is what one does. Whether or not one acquires the urge to commit those offenses or through a birth defect is born with them doesn't change the fact that one doesn't have to do them.

Psychopaths are mis-wired somehow to have murderous urges, and psychiatrists agree they have no idea how to fix them. But we still hold them responsible for their atrocities when they act on their impulses. Same with pedophiles; they're miswired somehow. But like psychopaths and homosexuals, we expect them to not act on their urges. In the last 40 years or so, society has evolved to the point that most people will at least let sodomites commit their offenses against each other as long as they do so in private. Do we really need to take it farther?

OVM has a point when he says it looks like those of us with a couple of morals laying around will die off and things will change. Barring a spiritual revival, it certainly looks that way. But is that merely a symptom of societal decay or more actual decay? Are things better now that we have such a gay society? If it weren't for sodomites and their promiscuous, unnatural, and unsanitary sex practices, AIDS would be very, very rare. It may well have died out completely, at least in the West. If it existed at all, it would likely be confined to Africa, where it's spread more by heterosexual sex than in the West.

So if OVM is correct, what's next? This song comes true:

I heard the reverend say
Gay is probably normal in the good Lord's sight
Whats to be debated?
Jesus never stated what's right

I'm no theology nut
But the reverend may be a little confused
If the Lord don't care who He chooses to ignore-a
Tell it to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah

What ever happened to sin?

When the closets are empty and the clinics are full
And your eyes have been blinded by society's wool
When the streets erupt in your own backyard
You'll be on your knees praying for the National Guard

If you don't care now how the problems get solved
You can shake your head later that you never got involved
Cuz the call came ringing from the throne of gold
But you never got the message cuz your mind's on hold


And we'll all, as the Chinese proverb says, live in interesting times.