North Carolina passes same sex marriage ban

[TRIFORCE89]

So, I heard that the North Carolinians, in all their rush and outrage, not only banned gay civil unions but also civil unions for straight people too.

Well, at least they're consistent I guess.

 

[Ray Maverick]

After alot of speculation on the subject, I've come to support gay marriage. Here's a quite sarcastic why:

Spoiler:

So I don't think NC did alright.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

If it's not something like statistical coincidence I think we really need to educate people on LGBT stuff.

And I wonder why do church and religion not separate like they're supposed to.

What do you mean by "educate people"?

 

[-ty-]

We have an indirect democracy for a reason. Citizens should not be able to vote on any type of personal liberties of individuals, otherwise known as civil rights.

Like anti-miscegenation laws, the anti-gay marriage statutes should be handled by the, for the most part, objectively motivated judicial system to discern whether a statute is violating or limiting an individual's rights.

The US Supreme Court has a MUCH MUCH MUCH better understanding of Constitutional law than does the general population and lawmakers. I think if and when this issue hits the US Supreme Court, it will be an open-shut case since the arguments presented by opponents of gay marriage rely upon religious belief, irreverent analogies (now you can marry your sister, your daughter, or your dog), and outdated or invalid data (as determined by the vast majority of the medical community including the APA) that is produced by groups like the Family Research Council. This so-called "evidence" is not pertinent to the law, and you don't have to be a federal judge to figure that out.

All in all, these referendums and propositions could be useful for a limited amount of issue, civil rights is definitely not one of them!

 

[Blue Nocturne]

Law is in place to secure peoples rights, protect them from harm and exploitation. While there are some issues such as what constitutes harm, I'm struggling to see any good reason why a ban on same-sex marriage is in issue here. As far as I can see, there is only one consequence of allowing same-sex marriages: Same-sex couples will get married.

If I'm honest, I don't think anything as basic as equal civil rights should be put down to a public vote.

 

[Razer302]

This hit me very hard. I moved to North Carolina from England when I got engaged to a girl that lives there. When this was all going on I was completely against it. I think this shouldn't have passed and I got outcast for t. Even by her family and for a while her.

That place is very religious and they take it all very seriously. The same as Barrack obama but I won't go into my debates with them over that.

I can get why this was passed due to the heavy religious back grounds, my girlfriends parents completely hate the idea of gay marriage, well of gays in general. That of course has passed onto the children, such as my fiancée and her friends, and that to me I find wrong. I believe they should make their own decisions on these things but unfortunately they aren't. Most are given the biased religious views on it and stick to that. I was one of the only people out of everyone I know here that was against it.

 

[Oryx]

What do you mean by "educate people"?

He's directly referring to the infographic I posted before:

Here's an infographic that I posted in LGBT club about this but I figured it would fit here too:

In case you were wondering, I did verify those votes and the educational data to make sure that this wasn't just making things up like some infographics do.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Coming from Canada, this is very foreign to me. We elect our with the intention of making these decisions. They have some level of intelligence, education, and success to get to that part (for the most part. There are exceptions, of course) and we generally trust them to make the right decisions on behalf of their constituents.

Why do the general public vote for so much in the States? Should such decisions be made by informed individuals (regardless of the outcome) rather than a gut instinct? You're dealing with rights here, not if you want to open a minimall.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Coming from Canada, this is very foreign to me. We elect our with the intention of making these decisions. They have some level of intelligence, education, and success to get to that part (for the most part. There are exceptions, of course) and we generally trust them to make the right decisions on behalf of their constituents.

Why do the general public vote for so much in the States? Should such decisions be made by informed individuals (regardless of the outcome) rather than a gut instinct? You're dealing with rights here, not if you want to open a minimall.

There is no federal direct legislating, but in most states, everyday people can vote on laws to some degree. This mechanism is meant to be a way for the people to keep the politicians in check, but like any branch of government, it can be abused. California has one of the most direct democracies in the nation. Ballot measures are a regular thing here, and constitutional amendments only need a to pass a simple majority vote (though there are higher signature requirements for constitutional amendments to make the ballot). Despite California being a blue state, its people are not as liberal as one would think, seeing that far-left bills from the Legislature are often overturned at the ballot box. For example, in 2009, the Republican Governor's tax compromise with the Democrat Legislature was overwhelmingly voted down by the general population.

 

[Mr. X]

Yet another state has taken away the rights of its citizens.

How long before other states join in? And how long before we decide to start taking away their other rights?

Thats the reason this shouldn't be accepted as a good move, by anyone. Yet another right taken away from them... How long before states decide to strip them of even more rights?

I can't see how anyone can support taking away the rights of a individual, even if its done democtatically.

Then again, this country was founded on a double standard, so I've come to expect this from the groups who seek to preserve, no, uplift the old traditions.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yet another state has taken away the rights of its citizens.

How long before other states join in? And how long before we decide to start taking away their other rights?

Thats the reason this shouldn't be accepted as a good move, by anyone. Yet another right taken away from them... How long before states decide to strip them of even more rights?

I can't see how anyone can support taking away the rights of a individual, even if its done democtatically.

Then again, this country was founded on a double standard, so I've come to expect this from the groups who seek to preserve, no, uplift the old traditions.

Well, they never had that right to begin with. California's Prop 8 was unique in the fact that it banned same-sex marriage after it had already become legal.

 

[Sakura Rain]

Why was/is this even an issue? I think that love is love, you should be allowed to marry whoever you want. My best friend irl is gay and two of my dearest friends on PC are pansexual, and they are absolutely the most lovely and charming people I have ever met. But they all must marry someone of the opposite gender, for if they don't, they are all ~unchristian omg~ and thus, have no rights. Isn't that the general mindset of these people? I mean, I was raised a christian and I find this whole "well gay/bi/trans people aren't really real we're not hurting anyone's feelings" bit absolutely ridiculous and I always have. It's really nobody's business who you marry. It. is. no one's. business. It is equal rights, people. They are human beings just like the rest of us. Damn.

So, I heard that the North Carolinians, in all their rush and outrage, not only banned gay civil unions but also civil unions for straight people too.

Well, at least they're consistent I guess.

Brilliant. Excellent job, North Carolinians! I bet you all feel big and tough now! Idiots. You are narrow-minded and bigoted and quite unpleasant. Meaning no disrespect for the North Carolinians who actually, you know, have some sense and can see outside of their fellow Carolinians' narrow world view.

 

[Mr. X]

Well, they never had that right to begin with.

Sounds just like the flimsy justification that was used to defend slavery, back in the day.

The whole hatred against gay marriage is from Religion, well, at least the vast majority. It's sad, but a message that is supposed to promote peace and equality is instead being used to promote hatred and inequality.

This law is formed with only religious ideals. It's never good to base anything on only religion, which has always been open to modern interpretation. For all we know, God really could have made Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve. (A detail which would have easily been lost among the two thousand years worth of translations, usage of most likely damaged original texts as the base, and the fact that the original languages that it was written are dead languages.)

 

[TRIFORCE89]

This law is formed with only religious ideals. It's never good to base anything on only religion, which has always been open to modern interpretation. For all we know, God really could have made Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve. (A detail which would have easily been lost among the two thousand years worth of translations, usage of most likely damaged original texts as the base, and the fact that the original languages that it was written are dead languages.)

I don't subscribe to Genesis at all, but that's a goofy argument. How would Adam and Steve have had offspring?

 

[-Grayscale-]

I don't really support gays or lesbians, but heck, I respect them. I don't see why you'd ban such a thing. It's their decision, and if two people of the same gender love each other I don't see the harm in letting those two get married. Honestly, who cares? The state shouldn't imo.

I think people make too much of a deal about gay marriage- it really shouldn't be such a problem that you have to ban it. Its called people's rights.

This law is formed with only religious ideals. It's never good to base anything on only religion, which has always been open to modern interpretation. For all we know, God really could have made Adam and Steve, instead of Adam and Eve. (A detail which would have easily been lost among the two thousand years worth of translations, usage of most likely damaged original texts as the base, and the fact that the original languages that it was written are dead languages.)

I'm not religious or anything, but where did that come from? I'm pretty sure all of us can be traced back to two main ancestors(excuse me for getting out of subject here), and if I'm correct, I don't believe two males or females can reproduce. That doesn't seem like a very solid argument.

 

[Mr. X]

I don't subscribe to Genesis at all, but that's a goofy argument. How would Adam and Steve have had offspring?

How did the virgin Mary get pregnant?

Anyway, the part about Adam and Steve was a joke (Which you all should have easily been able to tell.), but the rest was serious. With 2k years worth of translations, possiable use of damaged texts as bases for translations, and the original languages it being written in being dead, its very possible that the original message has changed. A lot.

You can see just how much the bible can change between editions with the KJV, and a modernized translation, the NIV.

 

[Yoshikko]

How did the virgin Mary get pregnant?

Anyway, the part about Adam and Steve was a joke (Which you all should have easily been able to tell.), but the rest was serious. With 2k years worth of translations, possiable use of damaged texts as bases for translations, and the original languages it being written in being dead, its very possible that the original message has changed. A lot.

You can see just how much the bible can change between editions with the KJV, and a modernized translation, the NIV.

Well it's just a matter of believing whether the virgin Mary got pregnant or not for you see she was claimed a virgin and that's scientifically impossibleee.

And I don't think the original message has changed, I think the way it is brought has changed a lot and that people have started to misinterpret it with actually missing what the original message was.