(05-08-2012 09:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:02 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The libs think repeating the LGBT talking points will make it more acceptable to the majority. NO, not even the death of older Americans will make it happen for them. The discussions on this board show that conservatives are more capable of guiding this country than the radial elements of social change.

Depends on what your definition of conservative is.

The definition is hypocrite.

I'd like to call them "Conservatives of Convenience". Trademarked don't dare use it.

I hold no Ill will against these folks. They just are part of something that they do not understand in regard to its heritage. The term conservative should be stripped from today's GOP. It is not worthy of the moniker.

I understand that. By the way they behave, conservative should be a dirty word to Republicans.

(05-08-2012 09:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:02 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The libs think repeating the LGBT talking points will make it more acceptable to the majority. NO, not even the death of older Americans will make it happen for them. The discussions on this board show that conservatives are more capable of guiding this country than the radial elements of social change.

Depends on what your definition of conservative is.

The definition is hypocrite.

I'd like to call them "Conservatives of Convenience". Trademarked don't dare use it.

I hold no Ill will against these folks. They just are part of something that they do not understand in regard to its heritage. The term conservative should be stripped from today's GOP. It is not worthy of the moniker.

Here's my question to you: is it not also the conservative principle that the people have a right to choose how they wish to be governed? And is a constitutional amendment that is submitted to the citizens for a vote not the most involving way for citizens to choose how to be governed?

(05-08-2012 09:31 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:11 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Depends on what your definition of conservative is.

The definition is hypocrite.

I'd like to call them "Conservatives of Convenience". Trademarked don't dare use it.

I hold no Ill will against these folks. They just are part of something that they do not understand in regard to its heritage. The term conservative should be stripped from today's GOP. It is not worthy of the moniker.

Here's my question to you: is it not also the conservative principle that the people have a right to choose how they wish to be governed? And is a constitutional amendment that is submitted to the citizens for a vote not the most involving way for citizens to choose how to be governed?

Sure....I have no problem with that. Let them reap what they sow....just don't try and justify this using "conservative" principles.

(05-08-2012 09:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Sure....I have no problem with that. Let them reap what they sow.

I probably should have put it as a response to this statement by you

Quote:No true Conservative would have voted for this nonsense. I of course understand that to live free I must allow those around me to do the same as long as they follow the principle of non aggression. Sadly today's "Conservatives" have no problem using the force of government to intervene in others lives even though they preach that the government should not do so. Hypocrites?

If people choose to establish their government to govern this portion of their lives, is that not consistent with why we have a constitution and amendments outlining the purpose of our government? In this case governing morality (to a certain extent)?

5k! Missed it earlier!

(05-08-2012 09:40 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Sure....I have no problem with that. Let them reap what they sow.

I probably should have put it as a response to this statement by you

Quote:No true Conservative would have voted for this nonsense. I of course understand that to live free I must allow those around me to do the same as long as they follow the principle of non aggression. Sadly today's "Conservatives" have no problem using the force of government to intervene in others lives even though they preach that the government should not do so. Hypocrites?

If people choose to establish their government to govern this portion of their lives, is that not consistent with why we have a constitution and amendments outlining the purpose of our government? In this case governing morality (to a certain extent)?

The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

(05-08-2012 09:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  5k! Missed it earlier!

I'm about to cross that barrier in a week or so. I'm even closer to doing it with this post.

PS. Correct me if I'm wrong but were you like 15 when you joined this forum?

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:40 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Sure....I have no problem with that. Let them reap what they sow.

I probably should have put it as a response to this statement by you

Quote:No true Conservative would have voted for this nonsense. I of course understand that to live free I must allow those around me to do the same as long as they follow the principle of non aggression. Sadly today's "Conservatives" have no problem using the force of government to intervene in others lives even though they preach that the government should not do so. Hypocrites?

If people choose to establish their government to govern this portion of their lives, is that not consistent with why we have a constitution and amendments outlining the purpose of our government? In this case governing morality (to a certain extent)?

The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

It's not a civil right. But I agree I don't like it.

(05-08-2012 09:40 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:35 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Sure....I have no problem with that. Let them reap what they sow.

I probably should have put it as a response to this statement by you

Quote:No true Conservative would have voted for this nonsense. I of course understand that to live free I must allow those around me to do the same as long as they follow the principle of non aggression. Sadly today's "Conservatives" have no problem using the force of government to intervene in others lives even though they preach that the government should not do so. Hypocrites?

If people choose to establish their government to govern this portion of their lives, is that not consistent with why we have a constitution and amendments outlining the purpose of our government? In this case governing morality (to a certain extent)?

Yes. IMO though this is not about governing a portion of their lives...but the lives of others that do not effect them in the slightest or have not caused them any harm(theft,violence,fraud or destruction of property).

I will sleep well tonight knowing I did not participate today in any way controlling the lives of others though the force of government by voting against this. That is really all I can do. The rest is up to those that did. As you implied...that is what is allowed under our current governmental paradigm. I don't have to like it...I just have to live with it. I am not bitter in the least...just sad to see another barrier to personal freedom be blocked using the violence of government. I am well used to it and am sure I will be saddened again.

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

(05-08-2012 09:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:45 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  5k! Missed it earlier!

I'm about to cross that barrier in a week or so. I'm even closer to doing it with this post.

PS. Correct me if I'm wrong but were you like 15 when you joined this forum?

I guess it was 15. The ACCbbs kind of got quiet, so most of my stuff is on the Spin Room (I actually remember when it was first implemented). I've also become much more moderated about what I post on here compared to my earlier stuff (which you can look up, and I'm sure some on here have), so I usually contribute a joke or something thought out.

(05-08-2012 10:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

Honestly...there was a lot of propaganda that led people to think otherwise. I have no idea if that is true or not. I really did not care. It was not important enough to me to make it a amendment to the constitution. Like I said...I think gays should suffer the punishment of marriage like the rest of us!!

I just like that the people who favored the amendment did it because they just loooved traditional marriage. They love it so much that some of them have had 3 or 4 traditional marriages.

(05-08-2012 10:06 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I just like that the people who favored the amendment did it because they just loooved traditional marriage. They love it so much that some of them have had 3 or 4 traditional marriages.

LOL.

(05-08-2012 10:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:06 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I just like that the people who favored the amendment did it because they just loooved traditional marriage. They love it so much that some of them have had 3 or 4 traditional marriages.

LOL.

would you support the idea of withholding legal recognition from someone's 3rd or 4th marriage?

by the way, that's all the amendment does: withhold legal recognition

it does not and does not even try to "control" people's lives

So 21% of those who voted in the Democratic primary picked "No preference" rather than Obama. Can only go so deep with that, but I still think it should be a red flag for them.

(05-08-2012 10:00 PM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:46 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The denial of civil rights through a popular vote is repugnant.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Don't see it prohibiting people from getting married or whatever they want. But it does mean that the state is not required to recognize it. No civil rights violated.

This tyranny of the majority that you are supporting may one day be turned on you.

(05-08-2012 08:30 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Constitutional Ban on GAY marriage passes. It is indeed a proud day for North Carolina.

I was thinking the exact opposite, actually.

Disappointing. Fortunately more and more states are legalizing gay marriage instead of banning it. It's only a matter of time before there's equality everywhere in our nation.

A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.