a sad day in NC

[waitasec]

No, just the idea of politically forcing one's will on others over a matter that is beyond their control. People are born gay just as they are born with specific racial and gender characteristics. It'd be like passing a law that autistic people can't have children or that someone who isn't genetically "pure" wouldn't be allowed to live in the womb.

that is a theocracy...
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
ecclesiastical:
of or relating to a church especially as an established institution
Ecclesiastical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

there was a time when being left handed was considered to be evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, just the idea of politically forcing one's will on others over a matter that is beyond their control. People are born gay just as they are born with specific racial and gender characteristics. It'd be like passing a law that autistic people can't have children or that someone who isn't genetically "pure" wouldn't be allowed to live in the womb.

This is why those one the extreme Christian right are so fervent in their belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", not a matter of genetics.

Hence the saying "Republicans believe everything is genetic except homosexuality, while Democrats believe nothing is purely genetic except homosexuality".

Personally, I don't see what the nature/nuture argument has to do with LGBT rights. Even if a person could choose and change their sexual orientation as easily as they could their political affiliation, well, we protect against discrimination based on how a person votes, too.

 

[Road Warrior]

that is a theocracy...
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

In this particular case it is certainly religious based and I wouldn't doubt some would want a theocracy, but banning gay marriage =/= a theocracy. It is, however, dictatorial and a violation of this principle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[waitasec]

This is why those one the extreme Christian right are so fervent in their belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice", not a matter of genetics.

i still don't see what the big deal is even if it were a choice...
don't forget bisexuality.

 

[waitasec]

In this particular case it is certainly religious based and I wouldn't doubt some would want a theocracy, but banning gay marriage =/= a theocracy. It is, however, dictatorial and a violation of this principle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

i know were you are coming from but interpretations of the bible trumps
this in the voting booth...

 

[Meow Mix]

In this particular case it is certainly religious based and I wouldn't doubt some would want a theocracy, but banning gay marriage =/= a theocracy. It is, however, dictatorial and a violation of this principle:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What if religious nutjobs consider preventing them from oppressing everyone else to be itself a form of "oppression"

(Mostly kidding, but it appears that some people really do make the equivalent of this complaint)

 

[Road Warrior]

i know were you are coming from but interpretations of the bible trumps
this in the voting booth...

Only for people who put the Bible before the Constitution. This is fine if they want to declare that they are Christians first and Americans second. Of course, in that case, they might want to practice turning the other cheek a little more.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I don't see what the nature/nuture argument has to do with LGBT rights. Even if a person could choose and change their sexual orientation as easily as they could their political affiliation, well, we protect against discrimination based on how a person votes, too.

I agree. Interesting....I've found that this line of reasoning meets some surprisingly strong resistance from those
who believe that a genetic condition deserves greater protection than a chosen affiliation. I've never bought that.
it seems useful to afford the same tolerance & protection towards genetic & less-than-genetic traits we have.

 

[waitasec]

Only for people who put the Bible before the Constitution. This is fine if they want to declare that they are Christians first and Americans second. Of course, in that case, they might want to practice turning the other cheek a little more.

apparently it's about 1/2 of the population....
but half is better than a majority....baby steps...maybe mocking does help

just kidding.

 

[Road Warrior]

apparently it's about 1/2 of the population....
but half is better than a majority....baby steps...maybe mocking does help

just kidding.

Mocking slows down the progress, but I do believe that most people can figure out right from wrong on their own. It may take time and maturity, but they seem to be doing it.

OTOH, not sure what you mean by "1/2 the population". Polls are great sources of information, but it is very important to know exactly what is being measured in the poll.

For example, in a survey by a Christian research group on the question "Is homosexuality a sin?", 44% says yes, 43 % say no and 13% are unsure. However, as the linked article goes on to state, "Of course, sin means "different things to different people," "

Most people would probably think adultery is a sin, but many of those same people still voted for Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan and a lot of other Republicans. Republican Marriage History

It's wrong to force people to think one way or another. If they want to believe homosexuality, adultery or swearing are sins, that's their right. All we really care about is that they don't force their opinions on the rest of us. That concept works both ways; don't force your opinions on them.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's wrong to force people to think one way or another. If they want to believe homosexuality, adultery or swearing are sins, that's their right. All we really care about is that they don't force their opinions on the rest of us. That concept works both ways; don't force your opinions on them.

I agree. That's why theocracy is so terrible; and why it's so tragic that my nation (I'd say "our" but not everyone here is American) -- a de jure secular nation -- isn't always de facto secular. It's tragic because it's the first and, as far as I know, the only de jure secular nation; and that's been stolen from everyone by selfish and whiny cowards that want to force their silly taboos on everyone else.

Everyone wins in a secular nation, but it seems those selfish people are only satisfied if and only if they win and everyone else loses. (If by "winning" we mean to have civil equality)

-------------

Seems like there are quite a lot of de facto secular nations that work out great. Just wish my de jure secular nation would be a little consistent and also be de facto secular.

(Also, I might point out to those unfamiliar -- "de jure" means by law, "de facto" means in practice essentially)

 

[Road Warrior]

I agree. That's why theocracy is so terrible; and why it's so tragic that my nation (I'd say "our" but not everyone here is American) -- a de jure secular nation -- isn't always de facto secular. It's tragic because it's the first and, as far as I know, the only de jure secular nation; and that's been stolen from everyone by selfish and whiny cowards that want to force their silly taboos on everyone else.

Everyone wins in a secular nation, but it seems those selfish people are only satisfied if and only if they win and everyone else loses. (If by "winning" we mean to have civil equality)

Agreed everyone wins in a secular nation since it is religiously neutral. Given that there are some many differing beliefs, even atheism, it is best that government have no comment on it except to protect the rights of citizens to believe as they choose.

A slight disagreement as to why religion has so much influence on our government; it was stolen, it was simply an active minority doing as they want over an apathetic public. Like marriage, a government needs constant maintenance, supervision and participation by its members/citizens. If the only thing a citizen does is vote once every 2-6 years, then they aren't being very good citizens.

Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties

Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:

(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.

(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.

I do not believe the NC law, and those like them, are Constitutional since they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ergo, under #2 it is my duty as a citizen to resist it and encourage others to do likewise.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I do not believe the NC law, and those like them, are Constitutional since they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ergo, under #2 it is my duty as a citizen to resist it and encourage others to do likewise.

So we can throw due process out the window because of your interpretation of constitutional law?

Many people feel that Obamacares mandatory health care requirement is unconstitutional as well.

We have to wait on the supreme court ruling, not just start some unproductive resistance.

 

[FearGod]

i cant understand,why they need a law for marriage.

can't they live in one apartment as friends and no one will ask them
what they're doing inside the apartment.

Can anyone explain it to me pls?

 

[Road Warrior]

So we can throw due process out the window because of your interpretation of constitutional law?

Why would you jump to that conclusion?

 

[Father Heathen]

i cant understand,why they need a law for marriage.

can't they live in one apartment as friends and no one will ask them
what they're doing inside the apartment.

Can anyone explain it to me pls?

Then why can't heterosexual couples do the same, then?

 

[Road Warrior]

i cant understand,why they need a law for marriage.

can't they live in one apartment as friends and no one will ask them
what they're doing inside the apartment.

Can anyone explain it to me pls?

The legal rights aren't the same which creates a huge inequity in the law.

 

[FearGod]

Then why can't heterosexual couples do the same, then?

Because heterosexual may got children and should be named according to their
parents,but for same sex,there is no problem about children and what join them
together is only love and nothing else to worry about.

 

[FearGod]

The legal rights aren't the same which creates a huge inequity in the law.

i don't know what is their marriage contract,is't similar to the heterosexual couples
and have some conditions in divorce,Alimony,inheritance..etc

 

[Road Warrior]

i don't know what is their marriage contract,is't similar to the heterosexual couples
and have some conditions in divorce,Alimony,inheritance..etc

When you can confirm that it is legally exactly the same, then that would be something to discuss. As it is, there are now definitely two classes of citizens in North Carolina; those with full rights and those with partial rights.