I will vote for this amendment for sure! “Marriage” has been trashed by the liberals and the diversity police.

Unfortunately, it has come to this: Radical change – An amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. I am fed up of “gay pride” rallies; why no heterosexual pride rallies?

Read more …

It seems you are confused regarding the country you reside in and the values upon which it is based. Per your opinions, I suggest moving to a country which enforces Sharia or other religious law.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We are simply saying, gays – hands off marriage – it’s between a man and a woman, and has been for over 200 years.
I’m all for gays in the military, and such, but marriage – no way. There is a simple natural order towards evolution of family, and that evolution only involves a man and a woman in a union of matrimony. The issue has nothing to do with gays. And no, I am not at all religious. Some worldwide traditions, should not be tampered with ie. Marriage.

We’re talking about basic rights for entire classes of citizens. Following your logic, would you say the following? “Black people – hands off. White people are free, y’all are slaves, and have been for over 200 years. There is a simple natural order, etc. The issue has nothing to do with race.” (And to preempt a tired argument, human sexuality is not a choice.) Alternately, do you feel that if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, that your own marriage will be threatened? How?

How can anyone be simultaneously non-religious and yet speak about the sanctity of marriage? In terms of the law, the government doesn’t confer some kind of sentimental value to people who get married. Marriage in view of the law is just a legally binding contract between two people that bestows upon them certain legal authorities and immunities with regard to one another and the state (tax exemptions, hospital rights, etc.) with certain penalties coming should the terms of that contract be breached. Forming a marriage is no different than forming a corporation with two people as both actions under the law create a new legal entity from other legal entities. Nothing beautiful or sanctimonious about that.

First off, marriage is not covered in the Constitution; second, males can’t get pregnant, third- this is not about race, its about sex and the ability to create, preseve, and expand an ancient tradition – marriage between man and woman. Marriage does not discriminate – Males cant marry males; Females cant marry females – plain and simple. Yes, marriage will be threated, in fact, the whole concept of family will be. A father and mother are needed to balance the child, not a female father, and a male mother, sorry, it doesn’ twork that way.

In

But, america1, what do any of those things have to do with the actual legal rights that one receives by virtue of a legal union? While marriage may not be in the Constitution, we do have plenty of laws defining everything about marriage in a legal framework, and we are discussing a law right now, so I’m not sure why you mention that detail. What’s more, what about a civil union can even be considered sacred in a modern legal context since you seem so scared of an “ancient tradition” (a seemingly non-religious one) being threatened? Were the Romans worried about tax benefits? Were the Saxons concerned with familial rights over comatose patients? Did the Brits think about how to do pre-nuptial agreements? Come on, there is clearly a line between the sentimental notion of marriage that you wish to defend and the set of legal terms in the legal notion of a civil union, and, believe it or not, we can live in a world where both coexist.

You might be interested in the following article from the Carolina Review, UNC’s conservative journal: http://carolinareview.org/2012/01/conservatives-vote-against-the-nc-marriage-amendment/

“ A father and mother are needed to balance the child, not a female father, and a male mother, sorry, it doesn’ twork that way.”

You say this without any evidence. This article shows some evidence to the contrary. Simply because that’s how it has worked for the last 200 years does not mean that’s how it should work.

Read more …

You won’t convince me of this alternative lifestyle. This is a tradition I dont believe we should tamper with. I am whole 100% sure of voting for this amendment. And the damned Supreme Court shall not interfere, where they don’t belong.

Next up: Marriage between humans and animals??

Just answer the question: How does granting the legal rights associated with a civil union to a gay couple damage the tradition of marriage? How does the ability for gay people to be on each other’s health insurance or see each other in the hospital affect your tradition? I’m fine with you representing your point of view on here, but at least justify it with more than your gut feeling about homosexuality. You really are going to vote to limit the rights of others in a way that could be utterly devastating to their lives because you’re offended by some perceived sense of harm to tradition?

Hate to break it to you American1, they aren’t going anywhere. This is one issue that is very generational. Young people overwhelmingly support marriage for everyone and though they might not be voting too much now, it is only a matter of time. Public opinion on gay marriage is climbing, doubling in the last 15 years. You are in the minority now.

ah ha, america1 is either a very successful troll or a very stupid bigot. i love the internet!

Also my “CAPTCHA” for this comment is “owned clownera.” That’s what America1 does! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes, i smell a troll here

@America1, you may have those views on marriage, but this Amendment is not about same-sex marriage. It’s about eliminating civil unions and domestic partnerships – which will affect young heterosexual couples, families, and children. Even if this Amendment does not pass, same-sex marriage is still outlawed in our state. By allowing it to pass, we are discriminating against an entire group of people. We will take away their legal rights associated with legally recognized relationships (i.e. health benefits, inheritance, kinship, adoption, domestic violence protection). We will treat the LGBTIQ community as second class citizens – that because they are a part of that community, they are not allowed the same rights that we get to enjoy. You need not worry about marriage – for it will still be “sacred” – this Amendment does nothing to allow same-sex marriage in NC.

I knew someone would call me a bigot. I am not, but I am against gay marriage, and I dont give a crap about being in a so called minority. IN America, we are all mere mortals. No one is a minority, except gays who attempt wedlock.

If what you say is true about Amendment 1, then I stand corrected, admit my daftness, and would not vote for it. Mind you, I am and always will be against marriage between two sexes; it’s as bad as incest.

Read more …

@america1: I LOVE slippery slope arguments! Let’s play:

Just like you, it’s clear that things like this will open the door to depraved homosexuals everywhere wanting to marry their goldfish or their televisions. Because, you know, just like an adult human being, my puppy is an adult capable of making his own decisions and able to give verbal or written consent to marry someone. My dog isn’t capable of making decisions. He cannot consent to anything. I nor anyone else, therefore, can give consent on his behalf, and thus we cannot get married. This is also true for my television, a child who cannot comprehend life-altering decisions, or a corpse which is also inanimate and incapable of making decisions.

Read more …

My television lets me know it consents by looking so sexy all the time.