Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Soo America hates North Carolina?

profile picture
penguiin
Posts: 1444 - Karma: 561
I live in NC and we just passed an amendment that doesn't allow gay marriage. now "dear north carolina" is trending on twitter and most tweets say we are the most hated state in America now. thoughts?
May 8 2012 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
penguiin
Posts: 1444 - Karma: 561
no problem with the bold, much easier to read.

1) you named four people who were deist, and 56 people signed the declaration of Independence, just wanted to point that out, here is a list of there religions http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html most of them christians

2) we can argue the old testament thing all day and sorry I don't feel like arguing that right now

but anyways, I see where you are coming from and I know what you are saying it "violates the first amendment" but how do you go about a democracy when people vote based on there opinions and what they believe, it's impossible not to, it's inevitable.
May 9 2012 7:33PM
0 0
profile picture
.ZT.
Posts: 5679 - Karma: 2,792
GOP is a bunch of dumbfucks that's why.
May 9 2012 7:35PM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
lets be clear, american doesnt really like anyone but itself.
May 9 2012 7:35PM
0 0
profile picture
84891jnf92048
Posts: 11552 - Karma: 2,550
aren't you going off what you think it says? because nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about what "the creator" believing or not believing in gay marriage.
May 9 2012 7:36PM
0 0
profile picture
84891jnf92048
Posts: 11552 - Karma: 2,550
Fuck, I think we should burn the constitution all the way down and start over again. That shit's 200 years old; it's outdated.
May 9 2012 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Stickity
Posts: 7750 - Karma: 769
creator = the creator they believe in
that's why it says THEIR creator not THE creator

fuck you all
in a gay way
May 9 2012 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
selkirks
Posts: 1978 - Karma: 59
Reply to @penguiin: So it's wrong, but who cares, because it's inevitable? No. It doesn't work like that. And we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
May 9 2012 7:39PM
0 0
profile picture
selkirks
Posts: 1978 - Karma: 59
Also, re: the four people I named. Of course many people signed the Constitution/Declaration of Independence. But I picked a representative group of four people most commonly falsely cited by right-wing Christian extremists. There's nothing stopping me from going through that list and finding thirty or forty more Deists. Because they were mostly Deists.
May 9 2012 7:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Stickity
Posts: 7750 - Karma: 769
for emphasis
May 9 2012 7:44PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Oh give me a fucking break. Crawl back into your hole
May 9 2012 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
whaaaat. Asheville is one of the coolest cities I've ever been in!!!!!!
May 9 2012 8:59PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10622 - Karma: 7,397
lol
May 9 2012 9:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
Most of the geniuses that founded the United States were terrified of a legitimate democracy. Having the unwashed masses rule the country? That was a nightmare to them.
May 9 2012 9:11PM
0 0
profile picture
.sage.
Posts: 195 - Karma: 10
Thank you sir.
May 9 2012 9:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Edew19
Posts: 365 - Karma: 13
Are you using this to argue against gay marriage?  Fail.

On a semi-related note: I find it disturbing that we are allowing the rights of minorities to be decided by the majority.  What kind of precedent does that set?
May 9 2012 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Edew19
Posts: 365 - Karma: 13
So if 51% of the population decided that eating meat was immoral that's it? no more meat? eating veggies for the rest of your life?

FUCK THAT.  The majority doesn't get to decide what I do.  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
May 9 2012 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
B-runge
Posts: 16558 - Karma: 360
Click for larger image
This popped up in my news feed and thought this thread would enjoy it.

To all the people arguing about what defines a marriage and what a marriage should entail why does it even matter. A gay or lesbian couple getting married literally affects you in no way at all, not one. People growing up in America are taught that marriage is the thing that sets your love for another in stone (its way less of this nowadays with divorces being so common)so its very understandable that people want same sex marriages, along with all the legal shit that comes with getting married.
May 9 2012 9:55PM
0 0
profile picture
SirCharles
Posts: 129 - Karma: 31
fuck it. you guys don't live in NC, so why are you worried about it anyways?

i like it here, and hope the gays stay out of our state.
May 9 2012 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
B-runge
Posts: 16558 - Karma: 360
I hope so too so they dont have to deal with your biggoted ass
but if I was gay I would choose, age/economic status permitting, a gay friendly place to live, not somewhere in the bible belt that just banned gay marriage
May 9 2012 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
bobs
Posts: 4801 - Karma: 869
Click for larger image
May 9 2012 10:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
no matter how incessantly you bitch, it won't change a damn thing. I agree that it's bullshit to legislate morality, but seriously, it doesn't accomplish anything to whine and dote. Marriage shouldn't be a government matter...gay or otherwise.
May 9 2012 10:33PM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
When I think of human rights my mind pictures muslim women being tortured by the taliban or sex slaves in Thailand. NOT gay and lesbians in America. If your movement wants cred don't embellish. We (most americans) aren't simps. It's illegal to discriminate against gays in the USA for all the reasons that the Bill of Rights recognizes. I agree with that. I am not for gays being recognized as married partners because it is a moral issue to me. And, I am not being discriminatory. If you have been beaten, suppressed or denied your civil liberties then you should sue the bastards. Welcome to the USA, everybody here has an axe to grind. We all have rights but none of us should have special rights.
May 9 2012 10:35PM
0 0
profile picture
dhess
Posts: 223 - Karma: 58
Exactly. I moved from upstate new York to Tennessee this year and hate it. Everyone here says "I have nothing wrong with gays". If you have nothing wrong with them then why are you preventing them from getting married? One of my best friends has lesbian parents and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Also to you sayig that their genes are not being past down they can be. My friend with the lesbian parents got a guy to donate sperm for them so technically their genes were past down. Fuck the south.
May 9 2012 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
selkirks
Posts: 1978 - Karma: 59
It's not "special rights." It's affording the same rights and benefits to the minority as to the majority.

Look, I'm not gay. But I am anti-discrimination and pro-civil rights for all. I am pro-Constitution. If we determine that certain groups shouldn't be allowed to have the same benefits as others, then we are at an impasse as a nation. Because those are exactly the tactics that perpetuated slavery in the South. That created the Jim Crow laws. That were utilized by Hitler and the Nazis in order to kill millions of Jews. That are being used to suppress dissidents in China. I could go on. But the moment that we allow the suppression of minority rights, we stoop to that level.

It's not a moral issue for me. It's a legal issue and a legal issue alone.
May 9 2012 10:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Bakeshow
Posts: 585 - Karma: 197
I love North Carolina. Got some bomb ass dank ass colleges.
May 9 2012 10:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
hahahaha brilliant.
May 9 2012 10:55PM
0 0
profile picture
dhess
Posts: 223 - Karma: 58
Same sex marriage is legal in New York now
May 9 2012 11:04PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
+k for a good perspective
May 9 2012 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
The_Economist
Posts: 37 - Karma: 49
I'm just gonna say Maurice Sendak, author of Where the Wild Things Are was gay.
May 9 2012 11:11PM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
Click for larger image
May 9 2012 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,548
moral of the story. if you are different in any way (this includes anything from skin color, to sexual orientation, to degree of acne on your face) from a white male. GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE SOUTH. for your own safety.
May 9 2012 11:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
seriously. I wish there wasn't a civil war and the south could of just become this piece of shit banana republic that would of eventually imploded on itself after they ran out of cotton
May 9 2012 11:32PM
0 0
profile picture
penguiin
Posts: 1444 - Karma: 561
teh major loss of karmas was had today. but anyways, I have my views, you guys have yours, end of discussion for me, continue on bored people of summer NSG
May 9 2012 11:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.LemonPie
Posts: 4100 - Karma: 1,625
Give me one moral argument against gay marriage not backed by religion...

No one responded to my post on the first page, so I will try again, can someone give me one legal reason why gays should not be allowed to marry?
May 9 2012 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyasPie
Posts: 1160 - Karma: 15
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

the simplest definition: "an intimate or close union"

How is this changing the definition of things again?

May 9 2012 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
TooTanked
Posts: 171 - Karma: 9
I think it is really wrong that they can do this but if a couple is adamant on getting married they could move.
May 10 2012 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
I just simply believe that marriage is suppose to be between a man and a women and that gay marriage cannot technically be a "real marriage." If same-sex couples want to unionize themselves than they should do so underneath a different term because as I previously stated, marriage in my eyes can only physically be possible between a man and a women. I am by no means trying to discriminate on same sex couples, I just see same sex marriage as something that is physically impossible. You'd have to change the definition of marriage and that is something that I believe our culture/society does not have the right to do so. I am all for same sex couples to become legally unionized and I would have no problem with them receiving the same legal benefits that regular married couples are permitted, it would just have to be under a different title. Once again, I just dont think that our generation has the right to change the definition of marriage.
May 10 2012 12:14AM
0 0
profile picture
michelle
Posts: 6290 - Karma: 428
lol wut
May 10 2012 12:21AM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
I dunno about the guy that you are quoting, but I dont believe that webster's dictionary defines marriage in an appropriate way. It should be defined in a way that reflects how our ancestors, and there ancestors, and so on culturally defined marriage, which IMO is throw wedlock of a man and a woman. To my knowledge, the human race has culturally defined marriage like previously stated since the beginning of humanity. It has been like that for thousands of years and then some of us suddenly think that our culture has the right to change it?
May 10 2012 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
I dunno about the guy that you are quoting, but I dont believe that webster's dictionary defines marriage in an appropriate way. It should be defined in a way that reflects how our ancestors, and there ancestors, and so on culturally defined marriage, which IMO is throw wedlock of a man and a woman. To my knowledge, the human race has culturally defined marriage like previously stated since the beginning of humanity. It has been like that for thousands of years and then some of us suddenly think that our culture has the right to change it?
May 10 2012 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
Think of it like this. You simply just cannot change the definition of a word that has had the same definition since the beginning of humanity. It'd be like snowboarders wanting to legally be recognized as skiers even though they are not skiing, they are snowboarding. It is something similar, but it is just not the same. Hopefully that clears things up.
May 10 2012 12:29AM
0 0
profile picture
pbandj
Posts: 5610 - Karma: 28
/Face palm.

When will you realize that this is 2012, that we as a species adapt and evolve to our surroundings. Only an idiot let's his past define him, rather than his present or future.

Instead of continuing progress, and allowing people to pursue happiness, you would rather stick by some old definition of marriage that someone in their grave wrote hundreds of years ago?

And people wonder why the U.S. no longer sit atop the list of highest quality of living.

May 10 2012 12:39AM
0 0
profile picture
uosdwiSrjewoH
Posts: 4220 - Karma: 121
it's late, and i'm having trouble gathering my thoughts, so i'm just going to highlight this bit and have someone else explain why this is ridiculous, keeping in mind that the actual definition of marriage says nothing about men and women.


also, a marriage isn't a physical thing, it's a concept. (a sentence which i'm sure someone is going to have a field day on, but whatever) physically impossible makes no sense when you use it for exaggeration here.
May 10 2012 12:40AM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
Marriage origins should be credited as a holy sacrament of religious instituions, of which was never implied to be between the same sex. Pretty sure you would of been killed way back when if you tried to do so. Who can be credited with coming up the webster's dictionary of marriage. Id think that the beliefs of past cultures should offer a more valid definition of the word marriage. We simply cannot change the definition because of its perceived good intentions. Experience has taught me to beware of libs good intentions- Remember this, there are no "new" ideas. Everything the libs introduce as a progressive new idea has been tried before! There cockeyed progressivism is just another name for morally backwards, obtrusive, over-reaching, or just plain stupid, bad ideas. I challenge anybody to present a new liberal idea.
May 10 2012 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
selkirks
Posts: 1978 - Karma: 59
There's a problem here. Because you're failing to recognize that "marriage" is actually one of two mutually-exclusive things.

You're referring to religious marriage, which is Christianity's definition of "marriage." That would be the one that specifies that marriage is to be a loving union between a man and a woman with the sole purpose of procreation. That's it. It is not legally binding, it doesn't

The same-sex marriage issue is a totally different one. It's an issue with legal marriage. That would be a loving union between two individuals with the purpose of procuring certain tax and visitation benefits, privileges, rights, immunities, etc. It has nothing to do with procreation. At all.

Your argument is ridiculous because you're referring to religious marriage--not to legal marriage--which are two totally different and separate things. The issue at hand is not over religious marriage, but legal marriage.

And in the court, by the way, "marriage" is little more than a word used to describe the union between two individuals for the purpose of procuring...you guessed it...certain benefits within the state. Like adoption, taxes, shared bank accounts, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. In Washington State, same-sex marriage was recently legalized, but before that, there was an "everything but marriage" law. Literally it meant that same-sex couples were guaranteed all of the same rights as marriage under legal civil unions. Everything except the word "marriage."

Personally, I see nothing wrong with changing a single word on the books. Because that word does not apply to the religious denotations and connotation of the word "marriage." Only the secular.
May 10 2012 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
pbandj
Posts: 5610 - Karma: 28
interesting... seeing as early "marriage" as we see it today... had nothing to do with religion...
May 10 2012 1:23AM
0 0
profile picture
minihef
Posts: 811 - Karma: 763
I cannot give you enough k for absolutely owning bigoted retards like penguiin and BreadMold without somehow losing your temper.
May 10 2012 1:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Skiingsnow
Posts: 1567 - Karma: 797
and the mentally defective retards of NS are revealed!
i personally believe in equal rights...
May 10 2012 1:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
.....was a property arrangement where a man transferred ownership of his daughter to another man.

/thread
May 10 2012 1:30AM
0 0
profile picture
minihef
Posts: 811 - Karma: 763
BreadMold

You've just come up with one of the most unintelligible, illogical, and factually incorrect series of posts i've ever seen on newschoolers.

If I didn't already support gay marriage reading your posts would've convinced me to change my mind. There's no way i'd want to align myself with someone who has just typed what you have.
May 10 2012 1:34AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)