Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to gays. --- nonsense that you and keith discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry says tons about your belief in liberty and freedom.
only the religious persecute homosexuals. On Jun 18, 8:57 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to > gays. > > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > homosexuals are still guaranteed those same > > identical rights that you and I > > --- > > not true > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters > > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to maintain > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those same > > > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than North > > > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than I > > > have, or that you have, because of their behavior. > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > North Carolina did nothing that was > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > > against a > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. > > > > --- > > > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and > > > > the blacks > > > > > This was a > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > --- > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts > > > > decisions > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well said Mark. > > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers > > > > > such > > > > as > > > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > > > against > > > > a > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define > > > > marriage. > > > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have > > > > > been > > > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" need > > > > > to be > > > > > quashed and shut down on this issue. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > > > > > <[email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment... > > > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass > > > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the > > > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them > > > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well > > > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012 > > > > > > > byChris Bassil > > > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North > > > > > > > Carolina > > > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay > > > > marriage, > > > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by > > > > voters. > > > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the > > > > former > > > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of > > > > this > > > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else. > > > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this > > > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather > > > > that we > > > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of > > > > > > collective decision making in the first place. > > > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of > > > > > > > gay > > > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that > > > > the > > > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of > > > > business, > > > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for > > > > > > collective > > > > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common > > > > denominator > > > > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's > > > > opinions, > > > > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory > > > > though > > > > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 > > > > > > counties > > > > to > > > > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven > > > > > > as > > > > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity > > > > > > to > > > > lead > > > > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit. > > > > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the > > > > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of > > > > freedom > > > > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast > > > > > > has > > > > been > > > > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a > > > > > > heterogeneous > > > > group > > > > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows > > > > this to > > > > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely > > > > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical > > > > beliefs, > > > > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact > > > > > > same > > > > > > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence, > > > > > > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also > > > > implies our > > > > > > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all > > > > > > solutions > > > > to > > > > > > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different > > > > > > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for > > > > the > > > > > > vote.) > > > > > > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however, > > > > > > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them > > > > better > > > > > > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of > > > > > > the > > > > > > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous > > > > > > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the > > > > > > largest > > > > > > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the > > > > smaller, > > > > > > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide. > > > > > > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek > > > > > > > noted > > > > > > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic > > > > process. > > > > > > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the > > > > > > fact > > > > that > > > > > > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in > > > > > > view > > > > and > > > > > > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which > > > > > > the > > > > > > existing states constitute." > > > > > > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision > > > > making > > > > > > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom > > > > > > now > > > > seem > > > > > > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the > > > > > > state > > > > and > > > > > > their fellow citizens. > > > > > > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 > > > > > > > is > > > > > > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties > > > > > > that > > > > voted > > > > > > against the amendment are all home to major universities: > > > > > > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters > > > > > > > have > > > > > > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but > > > > > > at > > > > > > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of > > > > their > > > > > > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by > > > > > > the > > > > > > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist > > > > interpretation > > > > > > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral > > > > > > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the > > > > graphics > > > > > > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns > > > > -- and > > > > > > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, > > > > > > educational, > > > > and > > > > > > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of > > > > > > Hayek, > > > > as > > > > > > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of > > > > > > democracy > > > > as a > > > > > > process of collective decision making. > > > > > > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they > > > > > > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of > > > > > > college-going > > > > > > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual > > > > testament > > > > > > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to > > > > the > > > > > > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and > > > > belief > > > > > > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case, > > > > > > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight > > > > > > of, > > > > it > > > > > > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is > > > > clearly > > > > > > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a > > > > > > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better > > > > > > and > > > > not > > > > > > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than > > > > those who > > > > > > live in more rural areas. > > > > > > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd > > > > > > > different > > > > > > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be > > > > enough to > > > > > > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. > > > > > > Furthermore, > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
