Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant the Telegraph when I referred to attacking the source. I understand your point about the Telegraph - however I argue that you will not find many news sources that are neccesarily "regarded" so as to be more trustworthy then any other - also this event did occur - the fact that you find the newspaper suspect for some reason does not change that.
As for this occurring in another country - that is entirely irrelevant. The homosexual agenda is not somehow different because there are imaginary lines dividing two land areas or a body of water between them. The "gay rights" people want forced acceptance of their lifestyle - and that story illustrates this motive perfectly.
Maybe there aren't that many news stories about straight parents, or people in general, objecting to gays adopting children . Want to try to find another one, preferably from this country? It's not really pertinent to your point if someone in the UK, Australia, or Russia oppose to gays adopting children as their views don't always align with the cultural views here in the USA. If you want, I in turn can find a news story about a successful gay adoption.
Then why do you support the North Carolina amendment? It bans civil unions.
If a challenge is raised based on the fact that civil unions are not allowed by the law - then I will certainly support that case. The amendment does go to far and if it is unconstitutional at all it is because it does not allow for civil unions to be formed. The amendment is correct in legislating the definition of marriage.
What is really odd is that people thnk that this amendment changes something - it doesn't - it only clarifies what has always been so - that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Such an amendment would not be neccesary if the homosexual agenda wasn't insistant that they have some contrived "right" to be included under the canopy of marriage. Marriage is not a right - it is a privelege that government sanctions for the purposes of protecting the family institution. If you argue that government should not sanction marriage then you might have a good point - then marriage could be defined as anyone chose and the contract would be enforceable. But isn't that what a civil union is? Gays can already form civil unons. But they want more. Why? Because marriage is special - it is sacred - and being acknowledged as married would provide legitamacy to their relationships.
This isn't about "equAlity" - it is about forced acceptance. That is why legalizing gay marriage is wrong. No one should be forced to accept something that they find immoral.
The entire argument that people are "naturally" attracted to one gender or another is just a smokescreen used in an attempt to provide normality and legitamacy to an unnatural lifestyle that every human civilization agrees is immoral.
Homosexuality is abberant and is a choice. If one chooses to be gay - that is fine with me - I am generally libertarian in my positions concerning laws - and while I find homosexuality to be morally wrong - I am not willing to regulate by law what two consenting individuals can do in private. I do draw the line at the legal sanction of marriage.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman - period. Homosexual relationships consist of two members of the same gender - they cannot be married. They can get a civil union - and I will shed blood to defend the ability for that contract to be enforced. I will not condone the term marriage being applied to such a relationship.
I can just as well say that the idea that people "choose" who they're attracted to is a smokescreen. As I stated, I have never come across any straight person who says they chose to be straight other than people who are trying to repress their attraction to the same gender. Otherwise, people simply say their orientation it based on what feels natural to them, be is same gender, different gender, or both (in the case of bisexuals). If the attraction isn't inherently there on some level, then it cannot be forced. If you can honestly say that you can "choose" to be gay, then that attraction is already within you and you are simply choosing not to act on it for your own personal reasons. But I guess it's easier to convince yourself that being gay is a choice because it goes against your personal beliefs. I don't know too many people who willingly choose to be targets for ignorance, bigotry, and just plain hatred from others.
You will shed blood to defend civil unions for gay couples? Then why in the world do you support Amendment 1? This is exactly what I meant when I said people supported this amendment without even educating themselves about what was in it. It specifically makes civil unions illegal, not only for gay couples but for non-married straight couples who want a legal domestic partnership instead of traditional marriage. This amendment was not really about gay marriage as it was already outlawed in NC long ago. How can you tout your support for an amendment that expressly states civil unions will not be recognized by the state, while claiming you defend the rights of gays to have civil unions? That makes no sense.
Hardly surprised by this... it's stupid, but most southern states have pro-bigotry laws like this.
These laws are not limited to certain regions of the country. You do realize that northern, western, and "midwestern" states also have laws that define marriage by gender, don't you?
These laws are not limited to certain regions of the country. You do realize that northern, western, and "midwestern" states also have laws that define marriage by gender, don't you?
I can just as well say that the idea that people "choose" who they're attracted to is a smokescreen. As I stated, I have never come across any straight person who says they chose to be straight other than people who are trying to repress their attraction to the same gender. Otherwise, people simply say their orientation it based on what feels natural to them, be is same gender, different gender, or both (in the case of bisexuals). If the attraction isn't inherently there on some level, then it cannot be forced. If you can honestly say that you can "choose" to be gay, then that attraction is already within you and you are simply choosing not to act on it for your own personal reasons. But I guess it's easier to convince yourself that being gay is a choice because it goes against your personal beliefs. I don't know too many people who willingly choose to be targets for ignorance, bigotry, and just plain hatred from others.
You will shed blood to defend civil unions for gay couples? Then why in the world do you support Amendment 1? This is exactly what I meant when I said people supported this amendment without even educating themselves about what was in it. It specifically makes civil unions illegal, not only for gay couples but for non-married straight couples who want a legal domestic partnership instead of traditional marriage. This amendment was not really about gay marriage as it was already outlawed in NC long ago. How can you tout your support for an amendment that expressly states civil unions will not be recognized by the state, while claiming you defend the rights of gays to have civil unions? That makes no sense.
I do not have "repressed" attraction to individuals of the same gender - I could choose to do so if I wished - but I don't. Sorry that you disagree - but who one is attracted to is a choice. You can ask the many people who used to be homosexuals and are no longer - they had a choice just like everyone does.
I would shed blood to defend enforcement of civil unions because the operation of our courts is sanctioned by our Constitution - which I will defend as a citizen - and the enforcement of contracts is one of the things that our courts are responsible for. I have stated that I disagree with the N.C. amendment disallowing civil unions - that is a mistake and likely will be found unconstitutional. What do you not understand about that?
Hardly surprised by this... it's stupid, but most southern states have pro-bigotry laws like this.
I wouldn't limit it to southern states. 30 states have laws like this currently on the books. Take some measure of solace from the results. The margin of victory for this amendment was 20 points less than it was just six years ago for similar same sex marriage bans in Tennessee and South Carolina, which, despite the "just trust me" from Aero, are similar states. Eight years ago, Missouri also passed a same sex marriage ban with about 70% support. Things are moving in the direction of marriage equality. Slowly, too slowly, but they are. Don't let this one result tonight get you down or make you thumb your nose at one particular part of the country.
There are also some fantastic parts of NC too that I love visiting.
Point taken, I realize that is your opinion - but why did you single out southern states and not mention that states in other regions have similar laws that you consider to be wrong? I don't live in the south - but I do not see why it should be bashed or considered unique.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Want to try to find another one, preferably from this country? It's not really pertinent to your point if someone in the UK, Australia, or Russia oppose to gays adopting children as their views don't always align with the cultural views here in the USA. If you want, I in turn can find a news story about a successful gay adoption.