North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

I think this map makes a even better statement than the other.

http://www.truthwinsout.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nc1.jpg

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/561258_359347917458699_294017040658454_70660883_72 0514307_n.jpg

Remember the majority of people in the south were against interracial marriage all the way through the Civil Rights. Those people who "disagreed" with interracial marriage are now called racist. Just like the people who "disagree" with gay marriage if not now will eventually be referred to as homophobes. Just for reference think back to how people who supported separate but equal have been remembered.



http://media.charlotteobserver.com/smedia/2012/05/07/08/04/1vfBR.HiLa.138.jpg

So people that dont believe in same sex marriage just need to take some classes at ECU and pay attention? Out of curiosity what was your major?

I was being a smart ass when I said that I guessed I just paid better attention than others in class. My degree is a B.S. in industrial tech: (electronics)...with minor in business. My focus was more into networking...aka cisco routers and switches. I have to say, my funnest moment was making a clock out of LEDs, capacitors, and a circuit board.


If you look at the numbers on the education level and look at the way the voting went, it would show you everything you need to know.

I used to be one those people. I believed that being gay was a choice. I believed homosexuality was wrong. I believe it was against nature. Twenty one years ago and I would have voted for this amendment. Life change the moment I started broadening my mind. I attribute a great deal of my growth to a simple philosophy class.

TO show you that a degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant, I present you this following FB exhange from a girl who just finished her bachelors degree in nursing.


Girl's FB status: Its so scarey to think about what will be the social norm and socially accepted in years to come. Start praying for your children now!


My response: Funny, people said the same thing when the topic of women's rights came about. /shrug

Girl's reply: Well to tell you the truth I would rather have my children growing up then...before we had any "rights" than I would now. Its just scarey to me...thats all I was saying.


If that doesn't make you facepalm, I don't know what will. She's rather undo all of women's rights just to see homosexuals denied the right to be married. If that isn't ignorance, then I'm clueless to what it is then.

Live and let live.

It's all horseshit, it shouldn't be an issue in the hands of voters. Just another BS hot button issue to distract voters.

Exactly. If my boss were to say "Hey SmootSmack, so listen I'm gay and I want to marry my boyfriend" I'd say "Congratulations" and get back to work. If he says "I'm gay, and my boyfriend dumped me" I'd say "Sorry to hear that" and get back to work. But if he says "Business isn't going well. We're going to have shut things down and let you go"....then we've got problems

Exactly. If my boss were to say "Hey SmootSmack, so listen I'm gay and I want to marry my boyfriend" I'd say "Congratulations" and get back to work. If he says "I'm gay, and my boyfriend dumped me" I'd say "Sorry to hear that" and get back to work. But if he says "Business isn't going well. We're going to have shut things down and let you go"....then we've got problems

But the way "traditional" marriage and unions are viewed there has to be clear legislation or ammendment (or a mandate) for same sex couples to officially declare their partnership and receive the same benefits hetro couples can.

Those two factors matter quite a bit to heterosexuals county couples so why wouldn't they for homosexuals? The fact that it's gotten politicized is a by product of democracy and a lack of education. If this weren't a political issue, it would have already been legal and we wouldn't be talking about it.

And to be clear, I'm talking about the same sex "debate" at a high level not just North Carolina.

TO show you that a degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant, I present you this following FB exhange from a girl who just finished her bachelors degree in nursing.


Girl's FB status: Its so scarey to think about what will be the social norm and socially accepted in years to come. Start praying for your children now!


My response: Funny, people said the same thing when the topic of women's rights came about. /shrug

Girl's reply: Well to tell you the truth I would rather have my children growing up then...before we had any "rights" than I would now. Its just scarey to me...thats all I was saying.


If that doesn't make you facepalm, I don't know what will. She's rather undo all of women's rights just to see homosexuals denied the right to be married. If that isn't ignorance, then I'm clueless to what it is then.

I'm not going to get into this any more, but I definitely had a few similar Facebook experiences with stuff like that. Love that people act like homosexuality is the ultimate sin. Had to call one of them out on Facebook for the divorce as well... :doh:

Not sure you are referring to me because I've used the term ignorant on a few occasions in here, but it wasn't for their views on homosexuality. It was for their inability to see that all people should have rights as human beings, and that these marriages affect them in absolutely no way whatsoever. So what do you call a guy who's mad at somebody for doing something that doesn't affect him whatsoever?

I could care less if people want to view homosexuality as a sin or what not. That's their choosing just as other religions choose to believe what they want.

However, when your religion interferes with others rights, it then becomes a problem.

The thing is, you're really arguing for the religious to compromise their beliefs by agreeing to vote for something they feel is sin. So then, the shoe is really on the other foot. Their religious beliefs are then interfered with, and I believe that is just as much as problem as you say the opposite way. Either way, someone's beliefs are going to be interfered with. That is why I said before, government should have never got into the "marriage" business to begin with. If those in government truly wanted a separation of church and state, they should have never messed with marriage.

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

Right, but you're missing the point I was making. The point is, unmarried, single people are likely to not have children, which means there is no generation of new tax payers. That is what the government was looking at. Also, less population less expenditure = less population, less taxes, (income, sales, personal property, etc) being paid back into the state. The government wanted to encourage what it felt like were stable unions (married couples who could biological procreate) in order to keep a steady flow of generations of tax payers, and to keep the population up. It's possible that by now, there is not a need to have such a high population, and maybe the government should revisit its tax and benefits breaks for married couples with children, but I believe this is where it all comes from. After all, if it was simply a case of the government wanting to side with one religion or another, then what benefit would it be getting from that? That's what people fail to think about.