Gay marriage ban passes in NC

CaptainHaplo · 05-09-12, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.

The "rest" of the western world?

What part of the world is that? Europe, where the goal is to see who can reach utter poverty first? Yep, that place has the moral high ground let me tell ya!

Or perhaps you meant Mexico - where the entire country except for Mexico City is against same sex unions....

Maybe you meant Eastern world.....

Japan, S. Korea, Tiawan - all say no to homosexual unions... Well - guess you didn't mean the far east after all.

About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!) and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.

Quote:

The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.

Yet isn't that the whole complaint of your earlier referenced "western world" - that we are too involved in everyones business? So we do something at home you don't like and you complain about that too!

Quote:

you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise.

No - you had ONE person vote in a poll that way.... and no one HERE argued FOR that right.....

Quote:

you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees.

It has nothing to do with "the freedom to go bankrupt" and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously, making up extravagent lies won't help your cause.....

Quote:

yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married.

What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.

Quote:

grow up.

Come with facts to a debate, or don't come at all.... The tiny little tantrum at the end just doesn't seem to make your argument any more "adult" since it lacks facts and plays on emotionalism and strawmen.

Bilge_Rat · 05-09-12, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.

so...if the good voters of NC had decided that the only valid union is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, you would have no problem with that?

There are certain issues of basic human liberty which citizens have to stand up for if we are to evolve as a society.

In the 50s a majority of voters in NC supported strict racial segregation laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as unjustifiable now as discrimination based on race was back then. Opponents of Gay marriage are the racists of the 21st century.

Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...

mookiemookie · 05-09-12, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.

No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.

AVGWarhawk · 05-09-12, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.

Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?

mookiemookie · 05-09-12, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?

I'm saying that Haplo is attributing the higher incidence of STDs to the social acceptance of gay marriage in South American countries. I'm also saying that monogamous relationships would necessarily reduce the rate of STDs. He's arguing out of both sides of his mouth - saying on one hand that gay people have a higher rate of STDs since they're promiscuous sexual deviants, but then also using it as an argument against them when they want to show how they're not promiscuous sexual deviants.

Besides, he also engages in the classical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

CaptainHaplo · 05-09-12, 04:16 PM

Mookie....

You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...6/836.abstract

How about the 2007 one that states heterosexuals would need to have 3x as many partners to create the same epidemic that currently is rampant in the homosexual community?

http://www.science20.com/news_accoun..._behavior_data

Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...

Quote:

At the National STD Prevention Conference on Wednesday, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) released some astonishing data regarding rates of infection among MSM (Men who have Sex with Men).
The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_g...vstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/...ssrelease.html

The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.

Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.

The argument that this is about "love" is disproved right here. I have a capacity for love that isn't limited to one person. Ask a parent. I love my son with all that I am - but when his sister was born, I didn't love him less because of it - nor do I love her any less than him. Why is it somehow perfectly reasonable for me to love both my kids - but its "beyond the pale" for me to love more than one adult? My daughter's mother and I are good friends - I love her deeply and always will. That doesn't stop me from building other relationships. So who is to say I can't be polyamorous? Who can FAIRLY define marriage as limited to only 2 people? See - the LGBT crowd doesn't want to ever go there - because it doesn't fit their agenda. Not every relationship or marriage is monogamous. So trying to make that claim also fails.

mookiemookie · 05-09-12, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Mookie....

You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...6/836.abstract

1980 studies are 32 years old, and pretty irrelevant. All due respect, and whatnot.

Your second link is worthless as evidence to your position, as it's stated in the study that "This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors". I.e. it has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with biology. The fatal flaw for you is when the study says "Gay men are therefore far more susceptible to the spread of the virus through the population, even with the same numbers of unprotected sexual partners." So why exactly are you quoting that study again?

Quote:

Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_g...vstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/...ssrelease.html

Same as above.

Quote:

The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.

At the risk of sounding like a playground, no, YOU are. You're ignoring the effect that MONOGAMOUS, SINGLE PARTNER relationships have on the spread of STDs. You're quoting studies that have nothing to do with the number of partners and everything to do with the biological differences between anal and vaginal sex. If that's your area of interest, I can provide plenty of links to heterosexual anal sex studies. Primarily from redtube.com

Quote:

Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.

because:

Agiel7 · 05-10-12, 06:52 PM

Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.

mookiemookie · 05-10-12, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agiel7

Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.

Very good point.

Platapus · 05-10-12, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agiel7

Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.

Why limit it only to gay people? I think this is good advice (at least the first part) for everyone.

Bilge_Rat · 05-09-12, 04:29 PM

I previously stated my personal opinion, but let's now look at the legality.

It is true that a state may amend its own consitution, based on its rules and procedures. However, it is also true that the constitution of individual states is subject to the federal constitution and the Bill of rights. The Bill of rights exists specifically to protect minority rights.

In California, Proposition 8 was adopted a few years back which has basically the same wording as the NC amendment. Since then a court case has been winding its way up the federal courts (Perry v Brown) on the legality of Prop 8.

In the last ruling in feb. 2012, the U.S. court of appeals held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, in part, because it violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, the Court ruled that there was no justifiable interest for the State of California to remove rights from a class as a whole. I am summarizing since the decision itself is 120 pages long.

When it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult for justices to come to a different conclusion so it is only a matter of 5-10 years before gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right.

05-09-12, 04:29 PM	#11
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,856 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	I previously stated my personal opinion, but let's now look at the legality. It is true that a state may amend its own consitution, based on its rules and procedures. However, it is also true that the constitution of individual states is subject to the federal constitution and the Bill of rights. The Bill of rights exists specifically to protect minority rights. In California, Proposition 8 was adopted a few years back which has basically the same wording as the NC amendment. Since then a court case has been winding its way up the federal courts (Perry v Brown) on the legality of Prop 8. In the last ruling in feb. 2012, the U.S. court of appeals held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, in part, because it violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, the Court ruled that there was no justifiable interest for the State of California to remove rights from a class as a whole. I am summarizing since the decision itself is 120 pages long. When it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult for justices to come to a different conclusion so it is only a matter of 5-10 years before gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right. __________________

05-10-12, 06:52 PM	#8
Agiel7 Gunner Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 97 Downloads: 16 Uploads: 0	Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.