newsobserver.com projects - HB361-09 - Comments

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

AdamFranklin — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:11:49 -0400

crosby, are you really that stupid? Can't be, but it is true. Your so called 'normal people' can get married if they want. The institution of marriage is created by law. People are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Therefore, homosexuals are not being allowed the equal protection of the laws. Simple logical chain. It is too much to expect that you could follow it though.

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

fredharvey — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:40:17 -0400

Umbro, it is a favorite device of the fundamentalist/religionist, whether s/he be Christian, Muslim, or of any other "faith," to impute his own values to God. The terrorists do it to justify their murderous rampages. By imputing his or her own beliefs to God, s/he magically creates a higher "authority" that in turn imparts credibility to the person citing the beliefs of said deity. It's a circle from which no unthinking person ever escapes. In other words, Umbro, man creates God in his own image, just as you have. The god of the fundamentalist invariably reflects the bigotries and hatreds and all his or her other sacrosanct values as well, and of course that can even lead to murder in the name of God, just as it has for radical Muslim fundamentalists.

"Marriage" in the days of the Bible was very different than the marriage of today. In those days, the man owned his wife. Lot offered his own daughters up for rape. And if a "husband" wanted to offer his wife to a man who was a guest in his home, he could do that. Do you really find morality in any of those treasured Biblical traditions? The "marriage" of which you speak is a relatively recent invention and bears little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible that you value so highly.

To the extent that heterosexuals are made by God, gays are made by God. They have existed in every culture, from the most primitive to the most advanced, since the dawn of the human being. God made them. Just as he made you, if he did. And yet here you are publicly declaring a creation of God to be repugnant. Shame on you.

Ban Marriage Between Repugnant-CANTs, stop persecuting gays

Real_Americans_Think — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:01:55 -0400

I'd like to see a constitutional ban on Repugnant-CANTs getting married. Allowing Repugnant-CANTs to marry defiles the institution of marriage and is a threat to society, especially if they reproduce and create more deviant nay-sayer one-size-fits-all ("tax cuts") mindless blathering for yet another generation. Being a Repugnant-CANT is a lifestyle choice. We can love the sinner but hate the sin - which for Repugnant-CANTS is being selfish mean-spirited vindictive brainless wonders. Repugnant-CANTs can probably be reformed if they just repent from their stupidity and open their minds to reason. Let's "Pray Away the Repugnant-CANT." I would support any amendment that says that marriage between two Repugnant-CANTs is immoral and that their deviant lifestyle choice should not be allowed to destroy the institution of marriage. In the meantime, stop picking on gay people - it is not "special rights" that they should be allowed to marry, you pinheaded morons from the stone ages. They don't need your sanctimony, you mindless religious rightwing Repugs.

Re: Thank you

tangoz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:25:34 -0400

Why do liberals think they are part of the pro liberty crowd? Why do they call Republicans lunatics for disagreeing with them on certain policies. And why do they allow people to call others morons for believeing in the core values of marriage, gun ownership, and small government. All you have to do is log onto BlueNC and read the hate and smear campaign that the far left espouses. Juan Williams of NPR (not called conservative talk radio by any stretch) and I have something in common. When we try to put out our issues and debate them are we are atacked personally and smeared. And let's not mention that hate spewed at W's mother by the Democratic Underground and the Huffington Post when she had heart valve replacement surgery. That was just downright mean and childish. Please let me know if you EVER find that kind of hate in the conservative worlld so I can attack it.

James attacked Rush Limbaugh and myself with the same breathe in a previous posting. Thanks for the compliment. Both of us are out front with our views and we will not compromise our core values. People like George Soros however hides in the shadows throwing out millions for attack ads against Limbaugh, W. and many others. I do remember seeing BlueNC covered with ads paid for by MoveOn.org. during the previous election Come on James be upfront with who pays for your site before you start smearing upfront organizations like Civitas. The Civitas is afterall financed by people who support conservatism and all you have to do is look up who gives them donations. BlueNC is a limited liability corporation (for profit). Your a business who profits off of your opposition to groups like Civitas, they are again non-profit. Now who has no leg to stand on?

Added note: I do not deny James' right to make a living or voice his opinion. I just want all of the facts out there.
I work for a living and am involved in Republican politics. i volunteer for a committee created by the Wake County commissioners and hope to volunteer on another. I have not donated to Civitas or BlueNC. I am also a Endowment member of the NRA since I believe in the Constitution.

Re: Gay marriage ban cited poll

scharrison — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:15:44 -0400

"While that may mean the same thing in layman's terms, it is technically and legally two different things."

No, you've got it backwards, Chris.

It technically and legally accomplishes the same thing, but it sounds different to a layman. Ergo, your layman may not be aware of the "conclusions drawn" from his (or her) vote in the poll itself. And now, the General Assembly may be misreading the desires of the public, as it is (mis)represented through your poll.

Look, we both know what's going on here, and so do many of the people reading this. Your polling is just one of the tools in your toolbox to further:

"The mission of the Civitas Institute is to facilitate the implementation of conservative policy solutions to improve the lives of all North Carolinians."

Now, you guys are pretty clever; I'll grant you that much. But you have to ask yourself: are we so clever that we not only know what is best for society, but are also justified in using deception to "improve the lives" of that society? There is very often a fine line between responding to the duty call of civic consciousness and vision-clouding arrogance.

On that note, I'll leave you with V.I. Lenin:

"The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive."

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

mrcrosby — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:10:44 -0400

TooKatz, they have the same rights as normal people. no one has the right to get married, not even normal people. I am so sick of hearing about gay rights. Why would they get special rights. they have all the same rights as everyone else so why do they think they should have additional rights and why is anybody bothering to even talk to them about it?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

omegaman — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:09:58 -0400

Cornbread,

It was nice to read the full poll (again) but I didn't see any demogaphics!

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

cornbread — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:21:01 -0400

Omegaman:

Full poll info is typically just a google search away.

Read and enjoy

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/032309_ElonPollData.pdf

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

TooKatz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:20:59 -0400

peterlyon...nice try plugging your inane conspiracy theories, as usual (so tired), but this is about real people, EQUAL RIGHTS under the constitution and the SEPARATION of church and state. I'm fully confident that marriage equality will happen in my lifetime, as it should—it's only a matter of time. Cheers all...

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

jayhurst — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:47:25 -0400

Suppose I don't believe God (by whatever name) forbids homosexual behavior, and that it is not an inviolate truth that one man-one woman equals marriage. Suppose I'm still a devout believer, that I still have faith, but suppose I believe the Bible is words from men, not from God Herself. Doesn't that negate the morality arguments that "aren't just for Christians," even though those arguments squarely argue fundamentalist Christian tenets (Episcopals and UCC members don't believe that, after all)? Or would that make me an infidel who will be smited?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

omegaman — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:17:41 -0400

Still wondering when the full demographics of an Elon College poll will be published with the results?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

cornbread — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:38 -0400

You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

You may recall that the Pharisees were people of faith.

Theocrats, ho!

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

Umbro89 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:21:39 -0400

Aftercancer, I have heard no one say love should be outlawed. To love another is a wonderful thing. I love my wife, my sons, my mother and others of both genders. However, what is both repugnant and morally wrong is the exercise of sexual behavior between two men or between two women. God means for us to love. But HE clealy prohibits sexual expression except in marriage between a man and woman. This is not a concept that is only for Christians, or only for those of faith. It is a truth that remains regardless of whether one accepts it or not. You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

Re: Gay marriage ban cited poll

lgrafstein — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:19:17 -0400

As noted on another post regarding the case cited for the notion that NC judges might overturn the ban, Doug Clark at the Greensboro N&R did some good analysis undermining (to say the very least) that idea:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2009/03/our_courts_aren.shtml#more

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

t2sister — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:11:16 -0400

I agree with you one hundred percent. Look at the boondoggle in California over the prop 8 vote. I know many people in California who are at least half way intelligent who mis voted thinking to vote for prop 8 meant gay marriage would be legal, when in fact they voted against it. Who cares what your neighbor is doing behind his or her own closed doors?