View Full Version : Gay marriage ban passes in NC
steve_the_slim
05-08-12, 10:16 PM
[REDACTED] you [REDACTED] stupid bigoted [DATA EXPUNGED]
NC approves amendment on gay marriage
By MARTHA WAGGONER, Associated Press – 34 minutes ago
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.
With most of the precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 61 percent of the vote to 39 percent against. North Carolina is the 30th state to adopt such a ban on gay marriage.
Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said she believes the initiative awoke a silent majority of more active voters in the future.
"I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."
In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment.
Supporters of the amendment responded with marches, television ads and speeches. The Rev. Billy Graham was featured in full-page newspaper ads backing the amendment.
North Carolina law already bans gay marriage, but an amendment effectively seals the door on same-sex marriages.
The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.
The campaign manager for the group that opposed the amendment said the nation watched North Carolina on Tuesday night, wondering how the anti-forces came through.
"I am happy to say that we are stronger for it; we are better for it; our voices are louder now," said Jeremy Kennedy of Protect All NC Families. "We have courage like we never had before, and we have strength to continue on."
Supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.
Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.
Six states — all in the Northeast except Iowa — and the District of Columbia allow same sex marriages. In addition, two other states have laws that are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums
The North Carolina amendment was placed on the ballot after Republicans took over control of the state Legislature after the 2010 elections, a role the GOP hadn't enjoyed for 140 years.
Joe Easterling, who described himself as a devout Christian, voted for the amendment at a polling place in Wake Forest.
"I know that some people may argue that the Bible may not necessarily be applicable, or it should not be applicable, on such policy matters. But even looking at nature itself, procreation is impossible without a man and a woman. And because of those things, I think it is important that the state of North Carolina's laws are compatible with the laws of nature but, more importantly, with the laws of God."
Linda Toanone, who voted against the amendment, said people are born gay and it is not their choice.
"We think everybody should have the same rights as everyone else. If you're gay, lesbian, straight — whatever," she said.
North Carolina is the latest presidential swing state to weigh in on gay marriage. Florida, Virginia and Ohio all have constitutional amendments against gay marriage, and Obama's election-year vagueness on gay marriage has come under fresh scrutiny.
Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he's said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are "evolving."
Education Secretary Arne Duncan broke ranks with the White House on Monday, stating his unequivocal support for same-sex marriage one day after Vice President Joe Biden said he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples getting the same rights at heterosexual married couples.
One fault line that could determine the result is generational. Older voters, who tend to be more reliable voters, were expected to back the amendment.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican from a Charlotte suburb, said earlier in the day that even if the amendment passed, it would be reversed as today's young adults age — within 20 years. "It's a generational issue," Tillis told a student group at North Carolina State University in March about the amendment he supports.
"Also, that amendment is against women, I believe, because also underneath the amendment, other laws are saying that people who aren't married at all, they can't file for domestic abuse cases, if they're living with their significant other. Which is wrong," Toanone said.
In North Carolina, more than 500,000 voters had cast their ballot before Tuesday, which was more than the 2008 primary when Obama and Hillary Clinton were fighting for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both sides said that bodes well for them.
___
Associated Press writers Allen Reed, Allen G. Breed, Emery P. Dalesio and Gary D. Robertson contributed to this report.
Martha Waggoner can be reached at http://twitter.com/mjwaggonernc
Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Source:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMc52sVsFTFWWyrhx6CZZlko3Omg?docId=3e14159cd 8044b958b3d26ef8e32c0d4
North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, becoming the latest state to effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages.Excellent!:up:
gimpy117
05-09-12, 12:38 AM
hooray for unconstitutional constitutional amendments based solely on religious or personal moral beliefs, rather than objectivity and understanding
Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.
Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.
Betonov
05-09-12, 01:06 AM
Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.
Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.
I say ban all marriage, If I had to sit down on an another lecture of how fun the wedding and honeymoon was, there will soon be an increase in widows :yawn:
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 01:13 AM
Gimpy - nothing unconstitutional about it. Each State has the right to define what meets the definition. 28 states before NC had a similiar statement in their constitutions. If it was unconstitutional, you can be assured that the LGBT folks would have had every one of those states before the Supreme Court trying to force a change.
The reality is that, while you and steve_the_slim may not like it, the majority of the country is against redefining marriage. I personally don't care for the amendment - I feel it had some flaws. Still, it passed and did so by a rather large margin.
Whine and complain - it doesn't change the fact that most people were more than informed on this issue. Some supporters chose this simply out of morals, yes. But others did so out of a fiscal sense - Asheville for example decided to provide same sex benefits to its employees - at a LARGE extra cost to the taxpayers. Some don't want to have to fight the battle of "Well if its just about people who love each other - how is it FAIR to say only 2 people can be in love? Why can't polygamy be allowed then?"
There are all kinds of reasons why this was passed. Making generalizations and insulting folks as you and steve_the_slim have done (respectively - you made no insults) - does nothing to further a discussion on the topic. It sounds more like someone who didn't get their way crying over it. I'd like to think that isn't accurate.
@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.
soopaman2
05-09-12, 01:13 AM
As the joke says.
Why can't they be as miserable as us?
Oh I know, bible beaters wish to push all their fables on everyone else.
Aesop wrote a cool book about animals, doing wacky things. Silly fairy tales, are only fables.
I believe in the flying spaghetti monster myself. And he don't care if you marry a rock.
http://www.venganza.org/
We don't crusade, nor do we persecute people for thier beliefs. Unless your a scientologist, then your not only silly, but full of crap.
(jk)
Aliens, really? Lulz.
(even then we only laugh, not hate)
Skybird
05-09-12, 05:06 AM
The decision is fine, the religious argument in motivation is not. "God's own law" - just three words and I already felt sick again.
The net effect still is positive, and that is what counts.
No need to discriminate anyone over homosexuality. But also no need to redefine the traditional meaning of words, terms and labels, and to deny differences. Marriage takes 1 man + 1 woman. Simple.
A bigger appreciation and a restoration of the high value and vital importance of intact families and couples raising children of their own is in order.
Betonov
05-09-12, 07:57 AM
Why don't we just let gays (and non-religius copules) marry in front of a magistrate or judge and call it a civil marriage and let the church conduct a traditional marriage and having the same rights and privilges. Gays will finally have their own personal unions and the church won't loose their tradition.
Of course, if gays want a traditional marriage, they should just bribe a priest. Catholic priests are exeptionaly cheap.
Penguin
05-09-12, 08:03 AM
My proposition: ban divorce!
This way people could dream on their 1950s pipe dream about intact families, happy children and traditional family values. Let's see how good for the kids that is! :yep:
Nostalgia for an age that never existed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kODOHodMqck)
Tribesman
05-09-12, 08:32 AM
My proposition: ban divorce!
Hey we only just unbanned it.
But also no need to redefine the traditional meaning of words, terms and labels, and to deny differences. Marriage takes 1 man + 1 woman.
Better tell the traditionalist mormons you are redifining what you say doesn't need redefining.
Herr-Berbunch
05-09-12, 08:41 AM
Seems like a good place to slip this in, I know it's old, but it's good -
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3959/facebook324332881.jpg
mookiemookie
05-09-12, 08:54 AM
http://i.imgur.com/XGJff.gif
Penguin
05-09-12, 09:04 AM
Hey we only just unbanned it.
Yeah, I remember, wasn't it about the same time as condoms got legalized in Ireland? I bet everything went down the drain by then, eh? Promiscuity, sex without the intent to reproduce, gays roaming through the streets, watery Guinness.
And who thinks of the kids? :wah: those poor kids! :wah: all the beautiful family traditions were destroyed! :wah: We all know that you can only love your children when the parents are tied together through a marriage! How can they become valuable members of society if mom and dad can just...divorce! :o
TLAM Strike
05-09-12, 09:04 AM
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3759/60311446b.jpg
Sailor Steve
05-09-12, 09:05 AM
[REDACTED] you [REDACTED] stupid bigoted [DATA EXPUNGED]
We would prefer that you only post the first paragraph of an article along with a link. Not too long ago we had the author of an article join Subsim to ask that an article be edited or removed or else to expect legal action. Neal stepped in and defused the situation, but it seemed iffy for a bit.
Gimpy - nothing unconstitutional about it. Each State has the right to define what meets the definition. 28 states before NC had a similiar statement in their constitutions. If it was unconstitutional, you can be assured that the LGBT folks would have had every one of those states before the Supreme Court trying to force a change.
While I am know for having a different opinion, I have to agree here. The law was passed and that is that, at least until it is opposed in court or overturned by a future law.
I'm not so agreeable on the "whine and complain" comment. The thread was created just so someone could make their objections. They excersised that right and so did you, and now so am I. None of us has to respond, or even read it.
@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.
Again I agree in part. Or rather I waffle back and forth. Sometimes I'd like to see the church out of marriage altogether. It's my understanding that they only got involved when they saw the money they could make out of it. Then again from what I've read it mostly seems to have been the priests of whatever stripe who actually performed the ceremonies, so I could be wrong. As I said, I waffle.
The decision is fine, the religious argument in motivation is not. "God's own law" - just three words and I already felt sick again.
I feel the same way. Laws should never be passed on religious grounds.
I'm a believer in God but I am not a religious person. I haven't been inside a church, except for obligatory appearances at various weddings and funerals, in almost 40 years and I see this push for same sex marriages as nothing more than yet another attempt to stick it to religion.
After all if this were really about obtaining spousal benefits then the gay side would be happy with Civil Unions but they are not.
Tribesman
05-09-12, 09:25 AM
I like it when these "religious" people speak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv99MYDk&feature=player_embedded
AVGWarhawk
05-09-12, 09:28 AM
I believe civil unions should be instituted. There is much more involved than the moral issue that seems to be the focal point. Specifically legalities later in life such a living Wills for example. A "life partner" has not much say in matters later in life.
mookiemookie
05-09-12, 09:32 AM
We would prefer that you only post the first paragraph of an article along with a link. Not too long ago we had the author of an article join Subsim to ask that an article be edited or removed or else to expect legal action. Neal stepped in and defused the situation, but it seemed iffy for a bit.
Really? Where was that?
Sailor Steve
05-09-12, 09:41 AM
Really? Where was that?
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=186749&highlight=article+quote
I'll admit I misremembered some of the events. It didn't get as far as I thought I remembered, but the point is still the same.
Bilge_Rat
05-09-12, 10:30 AM
you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.
The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.
you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. :o
you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees. :o
yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married. :doh:
grow up.
The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.
Funny I don't remember reading that in my copy of the US Constitution nor do I see anything in there about staying in sync with some imaginary group that you call the "Western World".
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 11:10 AM
you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.
The "rest" of the western world?
What part of the world is that? Europe, where the goal is to see who can reach utter poverty first? Yep, that place has the moral high ground let me tell ya!
Or perhaps you meant Mexico - where the entire country except for Mexico City is against same sex unions....
Maybe you meant Eastern world.....
Japan, S. Korea, Tiawan - all say no to homosexual unions... Well - guess you didn't mean the far east after all.
About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!) and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.
The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.
Yet isn't that the whole complaint of your earlier referenced "western world" - that we are too involved in everyones business? So we do something at home you don't like and you complain about that too!
you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. :o
No - you had ONE person vote in a poll that way.... and no one HERE argued FOR that right.....
you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees. :o
It has nothing to do with "the freedom to go bankrupt" and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously, making up extravagent lies won't help your cause.....
yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married. :doh:
What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.
grow up.
Come with facts to a debate, or don't come at all.... The tiny little tantrum at the end just doesn't seem to make your argument any more "adult" since it lacks facts and plays on emotionalism and strawmen.
gimpy117
05-09-12, 12:27 PM
@Rilder - personally I would like to see government out of marriage altogether. Allow civil contracts between whomever and howmanyever - but let marriage stay a religious institution with no state or federal concern. Unfortunately - both the state and federal gov't have a monetary interest in marriage - so that won't happen.
see, personally this is why I think it's AT LEAST immoral got the government to do this, If not unconstitutional. It's IMO a HUGE overstepping of the Governments grounds. And to deny people civil unions solely based on their sexual orientation? In all other terms this is discrimination. Personally There needs to be a total de-Institutionalization of the secular thing called "marriage", because it's a religious thing. That way, when church groups deny gays and people they don't like marriage the government isn't part of it...and allow civil unions or whatever you like for all people. Essentially, make it where when ANYBODY signs the papers they are "in a union" to the eyes of the government...and then you can do whatever you like with any church or Spaghetti monster after.
Bilge_Rat
05-09-12, 12:42 PM
What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.
so...if the good voters of NC had decided that the only valid union is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, you would have no problem with that?
There are certain issues of basic human liberty which citizens have to stand up for if we are to evolve as a society.
In the 50s a majority of voters in NC supported strict racial segregation laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as unjustifiable now as discrimination based on race was back then. Opponents of Gay marriage are the racists of the 21st century.
Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...
mookiemookie
05-09-12, 01:56 PM
and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea. No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.
AVGWarhawk
05-09-12, 03:52 PM
No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.
Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?
mookiemookie
05-09-12, 04:03 PM
Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?
I'm saying that Haplo is attributing the higher incidence of STDs to the social acceptance of gay marriage in South American countries. I'm also saying that monogamous relationships would necessarily reduce the rate of STDs. He's arguing out of both sides of his mouth - saying on one hand that gay people have a higher rate of STDs since they're promiscuous sexual deviants, but then also using it as an argument against them when they want to show how they're not promiscuous sexual deviants.
Besides, he also engages in the classical "correlation = causation" fallacy.
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 04:16 PM
Mookie....
You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/112/6/836.abstract
How about the 2007 one that states heterosexuals would need to have 3x as many partners to create the same epidemic that currently is rampant in the homosexual community?
http://www.science20.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterose xuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data
Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...
At the National STD Prevention Conference on Wednesday, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) released some astonishing data regarding rates of infection among MSM (Men who have Sex with Men).
The data indicate that rates of HIV infection (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/default.htm) among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis (http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/default.htm), an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html
The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.
Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.
The argument that this is about "love" is disproved right here. I have a capacity for love that isn't limited to one person. Ask a parent. I love my son with all that I am - but when his sister was born, I didn't love him less because of it - nor do I love her any less than him. Why is it somehow perfectly reasonable for me to love both my kids - but its "beyond the pale" for me to love more than one adult? My daughter's mother and I are good friends - I love her deeply and always will. That doesn't stop me from building other relationships. So who is to say I can't be polyamorous? Who can FAIRLY define marriage as limited to only 2 people? See - the LGBT crowd doesn't want to ever go there - because it doesn't fit their agenda. Not every relationship or marriage is monogamous. So trying to make that claim also fails.
Bilge_Rat
05-09-12, 04:29 PM
I previously stated my personal opinion, but let's now look at the legality.
It is true that a state may amend its own consitution, based on its rules and procedures. However, it is also true that the constitution of individual states is subject to the federal constitution and the Bill of rights. The Bill of rights exists specifically to protect minority rights.
In California, Proposition 8 was adopted a few years back which has basically the same wording as the NC amendment. Since then a court case has been winding its way up the federal courts (Perry v Brown) on the legality of Prop 8.
In the last ruling in feb. 2012, the U.S. court of appeals held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, in part, because it violated the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, the Court ruled that there was no justifiable interest for the State of California to remove rights from a class as a whole. I am summarizing since the decision itself is 120 pages long.
When it gets to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult for justices to come to a different conclusion so it is only a matter of 5-10 years before gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right.
u crank
05-09-12, 06:06 PM
About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!)
Here in Canada we are quite proud of our hip and consenting moose population.:03:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080724122357/uncyclopedia/images/8/83/Funny_moose_face_001.jpg
Of course, if gays want a traditional marriage, they should just bribe a priest. Catholic priests are exceptionaly cheap.
:har::har::har:
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 06:14 PM
For the record, U-Crank - I think Canada isn't all bad. After all, you gave us celine dion - and she is still hot!
AngusJS
05-09-12, 06:14 PM
The decision is fine, the religious argument in motivation is not. "God's own law" - just three words and I already felt sick again.
The net effect still is positive, and that is what counts. :rotfl2:
From Popehat (http://www.popehat.com/2012/04/19/against-north-carolina-amendment-one-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/):
...Self-declared and contractual domestic partnerships would become unlawful.
Despite the existing statutory definition of marriage as between a "male and female person", a number of same sex (and opposite sex) couples have done everything they can to create a relationship which gives them, to the extent possible, the benefits of marriage. I will interview such a couple later in this series of posts.
This is done through wills, grants of power of attorney for health care and financial decisionmaking, and, where employers offer it, declarations of domestic partner status granting access to employer-provided health and insurance. A number of local governments in this State offer such benefits to declared domestic partners of their employees, including the County in which I reside. If the Amendment passes, these benefits will become unlawful immediately.
This is because the Amendment goes much further than existing law. It states that the only "domestic legal union" that shall be "valid or recognized" in North Carolina is an opposite sex marriage. The term, "domestic legal union" is not defined, but it surely includes within its sweep the arrangement discussed above. Such unions will not be "recognized" (meaning to have their existence acknowledged) by any court.
This means that, for domestic partners of employees of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham County, the city of Durham, Greensboro, Mecklenburg County, and Orange County, a list that includes two of the State's five largest counties, and two of its five largest cities, all such benefits will end immediately. They may also end, or become much more difficult to enforce, for domestic partners of private employers, many of which offer such benefits as an employee recruitment tool.
I'll discuss this further below.
I thought the Amendment doesn't prohibit private contracts?
What's a contract?
At its simplest, a contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to exchange goods or a service for money or other goods or service ("valuable consideration"). If Wimpy promises to Bluto that he will gladly pay five dollars on Tuesday for a hamburger today, that's a contract, which the law will enforce regardless of the fact Wimpy and Bluto are enjoying a romantic relationship, whether or not this Amendment becomes law.
However, a court will not enforce a contract in which what's promised is found to be against the public policy of the State of North Carolina. Such a contract is void. The classic example of a contract void as against public policy is a contract to commit murder for hire, but there are many other such exceptions in North Carolina, such as a contract to repair a home entered by an unlicensed general contractor, or an agreement to waive liability for negligence against a builder.
If this amendment passes, expect lawyers to argue that all sorts of contracts which now pass without objection are void as against public policy, because they're founded on an unlawful domestic union. I'll expand on this below.
Now, what isn't a contract?
A last will and testament is not a contract. A will can be revoked at any time, regardless of promises made. If this Amendment passes, any will in which one member of a same sex couple devises his or her property to the other will be open to challenge by spurned relatives, who can claim that the will was procured through "undue influence," in other words the love and affection between a couple engaged in a domestic relationship which is constitutionally enshrined as unlawful in North Carolina.
A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy's niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto's decision on the grounds that the law does not "recognize" a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.
Of course, even facially valid contracts, as discussed above, will be subject to challenge as against public policy, or procured through undue influence, if this Amendment passes.
Okay. The Amendment jeopardizes estate planning and health care decisionmaking for unmarried couples. Does it have any other effects?
Oh yes it does.
Any adoption, or custody arrangement, where the child enters a same sex household is automatically suspect.
North Carolina, like every other State, gives social workers and courts the power to remove a child from a household when it is deemed to be "in the best interests of the child". While it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to produce children, such couples adopt children frequently, particularly in States where they can marry.
If Amendment One is ratified, it will become much easier for police or social workers to justify seizing such children, in the "best interests" of the child, even if the child was adopted in another State by a same sex couple lawfully married in that State, because such relationships are against the public policy of North Carolina. Likewise, it will be easier for District Court Judges to justify such seizures. An appellate court may reverse such a decision, but when was the last time you paid for an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina? It isn't cheap.
If Amendment One passes, my advice to same sex couples married in other states, particularly where children are involved, would be never to bring those children to North Carolina. North Carolina has lovely mountains and beaches, but so does Maryland and so do many others states which don't enshrine discrimination in their Constitutions.
These considerations also apply to custody and visitation for biological parents of children who later enter same sex relationships (it happens). It will be much more difficult for those parents to establish custody or gain visitation rights in North Carolina, no matter how good they are as parents.
You're in good hands. But maybe you shouldn't drive a car in North Carolina.
Want to know how Amendment One will affect automobile insurance in North Carolina? Vote for it and see.
The typical automobile liability, or uninsured / underinsured motorist, insurance policy, provides coverage to "You", the policyholder, or "any family member", meaning your child or spouse. Under North Carolina law "foreign" insurance policies (meaning those written in other states) are construed under the law of the State where the policy was written. So if one spouse (in a same sex marriage) is driving from Massachusetts to Florida and has an accident in North Carolina on Interstate 95, he or she will be covered under his or her spouse's Massachusetts auto insurance policy, written in a State where same sex marriage is the law of the land.
But will North Carolina courts enforce an out-of-state contract which violates North Carolina's Constitution and public policy? Can they "recognize" a contract founded on a marriage which the State Constitution says is unlawful? Partners in same sex marriages are not "family members" in North Carolina.
Again, if Amendment One passes, I wouldn't advise anyone married lawfully in a same sex marriage from another state to test that question. Don't drive a car in North Carolina...It's a needless law that does no good, only harm. But (most) of the people being harmed are gay, so it's completely acceptable.
I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.
Halgarre
05-09-12, 07:06 PM
From Popehat (http://www.popehat.com/2012/04/19/against-north-carolina-amendment-one-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/):
I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.
I've tried really hard not to say anything in this thread because I'm "new" to posting here. I've been following this topic on a number of forums and the one thing they all have in common is bashing. How is it that people who say they just want people to be open minded are the first to begin slinging insults? inbred, marrying your cousin, redneck, saying hetro's are worried that they might be repressing they are gay so they attack gays, bestiality, bigots. I can name more but you get the idea.
I find it ironic that gays hide behind laws for "hate crimes" but they are the first to call people out with insults and hate, why is that?
To use one example: Gays say that the reason people are homophobic is because they are deep down gays themselves. So using that same analogy does that mean Gays are worried deep down inside they may be inbreeding rednecks who secretly have subscriptions to Guns and Ammo? and Offroad 4x4 ?
I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded and stop forcing your values and preferences onto me.
Get's off soapbox and ties a 88mm shell to it tossing it over the side.
I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.
I got news for ya Dude. In 100 years you won't be looking and shaking any more than today's bigots. :yep:
I've tried really hard not to say anything in this thread because I'm "new" to posting here.
Welcome to Mos Eisley Cantina...aka GT. :salute:
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 08:36 PM
Welcome Halgarre!
mookiemookie
05-09-12, 09:02 PM
Mookie....
You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/112/6/836.abstract 1980 studies are 32 years old, and pretty irrelevant. All due respect, and whatnot.
Your second link is worthless as evidence to your position, as it's stated in the study that "This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors". I.e. it has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with biology. The fatal flaw for you is when the study says "Gay men are therefore far more susceptible to the spread of the virus through the population, even with the same numbers of unprotected sexual partners." So why exactly are you quoting that study again?
Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_gay_mens_astonishing_hivstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html
Same as above.
The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts. At the risk of sounding like a playground, no, YOU are. You're ignoring the effect that MONOGAMOUS, SINGLE PARTNER relationships have on the spread of STDs. You're quoting studies that have nothing to do with the number of partners and everything to do with the biological differences between anal and vaginal sex. If that's your area of interest, I can provide plenty of links to heterosexual anal sex studies. Primarily from redtube.com :rotfl2:
Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR. because:
http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1224996790 467
Bilge_Rat
05-09-12, 09:10 PM
I find it ironic that gays hide behind laws for "hate crimes" but they are the first to call people out with insults and hate, why is that?
Do you really think that everyone who speaks out in favour of same- sex marriage is gay? Do you think President Obama is gay?
To use one example: Gays say that the reason people are homophobic is because they are deep down gays themselves.
Where exactly in this thread has anyone said this? Do you have anything you want to say about yourself?
I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded and stop forcing your values and
preferences onto me.
What does that mean? Are you worried that if consenting adults are allowed to marry who they wish, that it will contaminate the rest of the population? Do you think homosexuality is a disease?
welcome to the GT by the way.:arrgh!:
CaptainHaplo
05-09-12, 09:25 PM
AngusJS...
First off - just because its on the internet doesn't make it true.....
The blog you quoted (and yes - the whole site is a blog - ideas and not necessarily facts) - is full of inaccuracies. I will point a couple of them out....
Insurance - NC requires minimum coverage - liability, personal injury and property damage minimums. Nothing in that stipulates it only includes "family members" only are covered. In fact, that would defeat the purpose. You reposted a complete fabrication and totally fell for it simply because it fit your agenda....
Civil Contracts - there is a HUGE difference between a civil contract between two parties for estate and wills, etc and one in which a murder is contracted. If you can't see that - as mookie says - thats just pants on head crazy! There is no reason a judge would overturn that IF the proper procedure has been followed. Wills and estate probates are regularly contested - regardless of whether people are married or not. The family doesn't approve of the spouse/bf/gf so they try to cut her/him out. So somehow because this is going to occur without "marriage" being part of it for a same sex couple is irrelevant. Your "source" has no knowledge of probate court in the state he is pontificating about - and is flat wrong. Its nothing but fearmongering.
Power of attorney - Again pure poppycock. As long as its registered and validly executed, a judge has to have a serious justification to overturn it. As for blood relatives having a "valid" complaint to overturn it - they have a right to try either way - regardless of if its a same sex couple, an unmarried couple, or even a married couple. Terry Shiavo is a perfect example - relatives have a right to input - regardless - and they were married! To claim this somehow weakens the right of anyone to get a power of attorney is simply untrue. Just like the earlier claims.
Seriously - its ok to not like the outcome - but posting lies about it won't do your cause any good.
Halgarre
05-09-12, 10:36 PM
Do you really think that everyone who speaks out in favour of same- sex marriage is gay? Do you think President Obama is gay?
I don't know, I can't and won't speak for everyone else. I, myself don't care what people do or don't do. It's not my place to judge. I was stating that if I was to say a gay slur then I would be condemned for hating gays and a gay-basher. The same people who would have me arrested for hate crimes have zero qualms for bashing people of different opinions example redneck, bigot.etc.
Where exactly in this thread has anyone said this? Do you have anything you want to say about yourself?
No one had said it. To me it's a really lame analogy but it seems to be popular in the pro gay community. I think that if both sides weren't so defensive and just talked they may be surprised to find out they have more in common then not.
As for if I want to say anything about myself? I'll show you my 4x4 if you show me yours.;)
What does that mean? Are you worried that if consenting adults are allowed to marry who they wish, that it will contaminate the rest of the population? Do you think homosexuality is a disease?
No, I think I explained myself pretty clearly. My biggest pet peeve in the world is a hypocrite. I live by a rule of Do what you say, Say what you do. If gays want me to respect them and their lifestyle and keep telling me to be open minded then they need to stop with the bashing themselves, it's counterproductive.
Do you think I'm going to sympathize with someone who just called me a inbred redneck? As I said before "I think both sides need to stop with the insults, mudslinging and pointing fingers saying the other is closed minded"
As one person said somewhere: Gays should be allowed to marry too, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.:har:
welcome to the GT by the way.:arrgh!:
What is GT? I googled it and I'm assuming your not saying welcome to Goodyear Tires or Guatemala.
Takeda Shingen
05-09-12, 10:39 PM
GT = General Topics. That would be this sub-forum.
Halgarre
05-09-12, 11:05 PM
Ahh ok, thanks.
Tribesman
05-10-12, 02:30 AM
I was stating that if I was to say a gay slur then I would be condemned for hating gays and a gay-basher. The same people who would have me arrested for hate crimes have zero qualms for bashing people of different opinions example redneck, bigot.etc.
Would you? It would all depend on the context it was used in and the intent.
I call people poofs, has anyone condemned me as as hating gays, has anyone suggested I get arrested for calling someone a screaming queen?
No one had said it. To me it's a really lame analogy but it seems to be popular in the pro gay community
I will say it, doesn't that ranting pastor from NC talking about the amendment I linked to remind you of Ted Haggard? do you think he is really just another brownhatter with issues?
And that is not "pro gay" its simply "not anti gay".
As one person said somewhere: Gays should be allowed to marry too, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.:har:
Well put:up:
Bilge_Rat
05-10-12, 07:53 AM
Interesting poll on support for same-sex unions here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/do-you-think-it-should-be-legal-or-illegal-for-gay-and-lesbian-couples-to-get-married/2012/05/08/gIQAE7CBjT_page.html#
you can break down the results and it shows the opposition to same-sex unions is greater among individuals who fit the following criterias:
-Republicans
-conservatives
-older
-less educated
-lower income
-white evangelical protestants
-support Tea Party
was'nt that the typical profile for members of the KKK? :hmmm:
Interesting poll on support for same-sex unions here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polling/do-you-think-it-should-be-legal-or-illegal-for-gay-and-lesbian-couples-to-get-married/2012/05/08/gIQAE7CBjT_page.html#
you can break down the results and it shows the opposition to same-sex unions is greater among individuals who fit the following criterias:
-Republicans
-conservatives
-older
-less educated
-lower income
-white evangelical protestants
-support Tea Party
was'nt that the typical profile for members of the KKK? :hmmm:
I dunno does the other profile fit for members of the Black Panthers? :hmmm:
And what does this partisan run poll say about those who don't care if gays can form same sex unions but feel it should be called something besides marriage?
Bilge_Rat
05-10-12, 09:48 AM
And what does this partisan run poll say about those who don't care if gays can form same sex unions but feel it should be called something besides marriage?
Do you have your own partisan poll that shows substantially different results?
The big takeaway for me was the correlation between support and age, young people 18-39 show very strong support for same-sex unions, so it is only a matter of time before this issue is resolved once and for all.
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 09:52 AM
Do you have your own partisan poll that shows substantially different results?
The big takeaway for me was the correlation between support and age, young people 18-39 show very strong support for same-sex unions, so it is only a matter of time before this issue is resolved once and for all.
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.
Blood_splat
05-10-12, 09:54 AM
http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef013489a92ab5970c-450wi
Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.
Tribesman
05-10-12, 10:33 AM
Marriage is between man and dog.
So when he said his wife is a bitch......
Betonov
05-10-12, 10:56 AM
Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.
Considering the women I know, this man is a genius :dead:
Do you have your own partisan poll that shows substantially different results?
The polls that I look at are the only ones that count. Election results. Nearly every time the question has been put to the voters in an election referendum it's been defeated. I'd say that's pretty substantial, wouldn't you?
And you ignored my question. What about people (like me) who don't care if gays form a permanent union but just feel it should be called something other than "marriage"? That seems to be the major objection here yet it seems not to have been addressed in your poll.
The big takeaway for me was the correlation between support and age, young people 18-39 show very strong support for same-sex unions, so it is only a matter of time before this issue is resolved once and for all.Well that's assuming that the poll is accurate. Given that it was run by the Washington Post and ABC it's a pretty safe bet that they had a preferred result already in mind when they conducted it. If a Fox news poll comes up with different results are you going to take it as gospel as well?
You are also assuming that these young peoples opinions will not "evolve" as our Presidents opinion recently did.
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.
What happens after our generation dies off is not our concern. The way it's going I don't see this country lasting much longer anyways. In any case why not stop with the personal insults? Are they really that necessary to make your point?
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 11:12 AM
In any case why not stop with the personal insults? Are they really that necessary to make your point?
If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.
If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.
Then maybe we should start calling you a bigot for your intolerance toward religion, conservatives, Republicans and several other groups that you have taken pains to insult here over the years.
That's the problem with name calling. It eliminates any chance of a peaceful discourse. It certainly does not make your arguments any more valid.
CaptainHaplo
05-10-12, 11:24 AM
Do you have your own partisan poll that shows substantially different results?
So you admit your poll was partisan - thus negating any claim to its validity. At least your honest....
The big takeaway for me was the correlation between support and age, young people 18-39 show very strong support for same-sex unions, so it is only a matter of time before this issue is resolved once and for all.
Again - your showing your total ignorance of fact. College kids - even in the WNC liberal area of Asheville - UNCA students - broke even on this. Same goes for other areas of the state. Every breakdown politically showed that this was NOT "very strongly" supported by college kids. Keep repeating your mantra if it helps you believe it - but the facts don't bear it out. Do some research before you start making claims - and then back them up with the research from something other than a "partisan poll".
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.
Thanks mookie - you just called me (and many others) a bigot. And whats worse - your doing it on merely the basis of your own viewpoint. This is why there can't be a decent discussion - when the left doesn't get its way, when it can't win a factual arguement - it resorts to namecalling. Thats sad - on so many levels.
You might also want to tone it done since personal insults are against the rules here as well...
If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.
Then again - what do rules matter if they don't go along with what you lefties want?
Ducimus
05-10-12, 11:28 AM
My 2 cents worth on the subject of gay marriage in general:
- The argument of violating the sanctity of marriage is a bunch of crap. Straight people have been violating the sanctity of marriage for hundreds of years and continue to do so this day.
- I really don't care what Gay people want to do with their lives. It's their business, not mine. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend to tell them what they can or can't do in their pursuit of happiness, all i ask is they leave me out of their business.
- I'm not sure if its possible to separate marriage from religion. Religion tends to frown on homosexuality, and a marriage ceremony is typically conducted by a priest, pastor, bishop, etc etc. So gays may have to settle for a civil union of some sort by a judge or some legal official to gain the benefits of marriage, without the religious mumbo jumbo.
AVGWarhawk
05-10-12, 11:54 AM
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.
Sometimes Mookie I think you will accept anything.:hmmm: Bigotry will forever be a part of society.
If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.
Do your accept all comers and situations such as the gay marriage question? Do you unequivocal accept everything?
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 12:01 PM
Then maybe we should start calling you a bigot for your intolerance toward religion, conservatives, Republicans and several other groups that you have taken pains to insult here over the years. What religion someone subscribes to doesn't bother me in the least, so long as they keep it out of government. Being bigoted against a religion would require me to have an opinion on it, which I don't.
Being opposed to a political ideology makes you a bigot now? I guess you could lump everyone in GT into that one then.
That's the problem with name calling. It eliminates any chance of a peaceful discourse. It certainly does not make your arguments any more valid. I have no respect for anyone who would deny human rights to another and I don't care to hear their justification for it. I don't need to validate my arguments because our innate nature as human beings and our inalienable rights already have done that.
Thanks mookie - you just called me (and many others) a bigot. And whats worse - your doing it on merely the basis of your own viewpoint. This is why there can't be a decent discussion - when the left doesn't get its way, when it can't win a factual arguement - it resorts to namecalling. Thats sad - on so many levels. What's sad on so many levels is that people are still trying to justify denying people equal rights, and then getting offended when someone calls them out on it. Denying someone rights makes you a bigot. Discrimination makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called one, don't discriminate against other people.
You're acting like I'm baselessly namecalling and telling people they're poopyheads or something. A bigot is a specific label for people who engage in specific behavior.
Do your accept all comers and situations such as the gay marriage question? Do you unequivocal accept everything?
I accept that if two consenting adults want to enter into a marriage contract with each other, their genders shouldn't matter. Who am I to tell someone that their love isn't as valid as someone else's?
Being opposed to a political ideology makes you a bigot now? I guess you could lump everyone in GT into that one then.
According to the definition of bigotry that I read it does. That's the problem with personal insults. They usually can be applied in ways you may not personally agree with.
Bilge_Rat
05-10-12, 12:27 PM
So you admit your poll was partisan - thus negating any claim to its validity. At least your honest....
:haha::haha: nice try :haha::haha:
Again - your showing your total ignorance of fact. College kids - even in the WNC liberal area of Asheville - UNCA students - broke even on this. Same goes for other areas of the state. Every breakdown politically showed that this was NOT "very strongly" supported by college kids. Keep repeating your mantra if it helps you believe it - but the facts don't bear it out. Do some research before you start making claims - and then back them up with the research from something other than a "partisan poll".
The poll is solid as is my interpretation. If you have any actual hard data that refutes it, please present it, otherwise your opinion is just that.
and if you do not want to be insulted, do not be insulting yourself. I won't be as nice next time.
Thanks mookie - you just called me (and many others) a bigot. And whats worse - your doing it on merely the basis of your own viewpoint. This is why there can't be a decent discussion - when the left doesn't get its way, when it can't win a factual arguement - it resorts to namecalling. Thats sad - on so many levels.
ok, I'll bite, what possible justification could you have to care if two complete strangers want to get married or not?
Then again - what do rules matter if they don't go along with what you lefties want?
This is not a left-right issue. I am very conservative on many topics. This is an issue of treating other law abiding citizens with the same respect as you or I would wish to be treated.
Ducimus
05-10-12, 12:31 PM
It's my thought that a person who truly possesses zero intolerance to any opinions differing from their own or absolutely not intolerant of anyone with different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender is EXTREMELY RARE.
Hence i'm going to say everyone who has an opinion about something is a bigot to some degree. If you've ever argued about something on a messageboard, its because you possessed some degree of intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot_%28disambiguation%29) to what someone said.
edit
Yeah thats right, im painting all of you arguing pansies with a wide freaking brush, the whole bigoted lot of ya!
Bilge_Rat
05-10-12, 12:37 PM
What's sad on so many levels is that people are still trying to justify denying people equal rights, and then getting offended when someone calls them out on it. Denying someone rights makes you a bigot. Discrimination makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called one, don't discriminate against other people.
Exactly.
What I find interesting is that if the issue was, say, whether marriages between african-americans should be valid or not (something which was actually discussed pre civil war), everyone would be up in arms, but somehow some people still think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.
AVGWarhawk
05-10-12, 01:01 PM
What religion someone subscribes to doesn't bother me in the least, so long as they keep it out of government. Being bigoted against a religion would require me to have an opinion on it, which I don't.
Being opposed to a political ideology makes you a bigot now? I guess you could lump everyone in GT into that one then.
I have no respect for anyone who would deny human rights to another and I don't care to hear their justification for it. I don't need to validate my arguments because our innate nature as human beings and our inalienable rights already have done that.
What's sad on so many levels is that people are still trying to justify denying people equal rights, and then getting offended when someone calls them out on it. Denying someone rights makes you a bigot. Discrimination makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called one, don't discriminate against other people.
You're acting like I'm baselessly namecalling and telling people they're poopyheads or something. A bigot is a specific label for people who engage in specific behavior.
I accept that if two consenting adults want to enter into a marriage contract with each other, their genders shouldn't matter. Who am I to tell someone that their love isn't as valid as someone else's?
You did not answer the question. You answered the gay marriage question. Do you accept everything?
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 01:09 PM
You did not answer the question. You answered the gay marriage question. Do you accept everything?
Ok let's play the game. I say no, I don't accept everything, and then you reply back with "A-HA! Then you're BIGOTED against something, you biggoty biggot!" And then I run away, tail between my legs and cry and say "Curse you AVGWarhawk, and your awesome powers of rhetoric you scurrilous scalawag!"
Yeah thats right, im painting all of you arguing pansies with a wide freaking brush, the whole bigoted lot of ya!
We love you too man. Long time.
AVGWarhawk
05-10-12, 01:42 PM
Ok let's play the game. I say no, I don't accept everything, and then you reply back with "A-HA! Then you're BIGOTED against something, you biggoty biggot!" And then I run away, tail between my legs and cry and say "Curse you AVGWarhawk, and your awesome powers of rhetoric you scurrilous scalawag!"
I'm 46 Mookie. Little time left for games. :O: There will be bigotry long after we are pushing up daisies.
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 02:04 PM
There will be bigotry long after we are pushing up daisies.
This is true, but I think it's worth fighting anyways. :salute:
Ducimus
05-10-12, 02:22 PM
We love you too man. Long time.
Hey I aim to please! :O:
Sailor Steve
05-10-12, 03:37 PM
The polls that I look at are the only ones that count. Election results. Nearly every time the question has been put to the voters in an election referendum it's been defeated. I'd say that's pretty substantial, wouldn't you?
I only have one quarrel with that, and it's embodied by this quote from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:
Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
Bilge_Rat
05-10-12, 04:14 PM
to further Steve's comments, prior to 1967, all the states of the Deep South (including North Carolina) had laws which prohibited inter-racial marriages.
This was the text of the Virginia Act which was still in place at that time:
Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (1924)
5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
All these laws had been democratically adopted by the states individual legislatures, all of which had been democratically elected by eligible voters, again all in accordance with the constitution of the individual states.
All these laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Richard Loving, a white man and Mildred Jeter, a black woman were sentenced to 1 year in jail for marrying in contravention of the Racial Integrety Act.
This is what the Supreme Court said, in part:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
I can't believe that less than 50 years later we are still having the same argument. :damn:
I only have one quarrel with that, and it's embodied by this quote from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:
I understand what you're saying Steve but obviously the flip side of that is any government that goes against the wishes of a majority of its own citizens too often is a government that looses it's right to govern. We elect representatives, not rulers.
Besides, my reply was in response to a poster who claimed an unofficial and partisan poll indicates how this issue should be decided. If I have to choose between that and election results, i'll go with the ballot every time.
Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.
I'll dive headfirst down this slippery slope and say that I have no problem with this.
Of course, you do have proof that the dog consented to the marriage, right?
What about people (like me) who don't care if gays form a permanent union but just feel it should be called something other than "marriage"?
"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.
Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 08:09 PM
Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.
:rotfl2: Very good point.
Platapus
05-10-12, 08:25 PM
Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.
Why limit it only to gay people? I think this is good advice (at least the first part) for everyone.
Subnuts
05-10-12, 08:36 PM
Okay, North Carolina, how about some constitutional bans on:
Wearing pants halfway down to the knee.
Smelling like an ashtray.
Taking up two seats on the bus.
Repeatedly slapping the "no touch sensor" when the paper towels don't come out the first time.
Parking in handicapped spaces without a tag.
Advertising items in fair condition as "very good."
Driving through crosswalks while someone is crossing the street and the walk signal is on.
Gangster rap, any song with auto-tuned vocals, and all contemporary country music.
Leaving stereos on after 9:30 PM.
Cell phone domestic disputes in public places.
"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.
Cliche's tend to oversimplify so you really shouldn't rely on them in an argument. Your name is different than mine. Does that make us unequal? No. We name things to categorize and identify them, not to make them unequal.
Why limit it only to gay people? I think this is good advice (at least the first part) for everyone.
Please stay home. It's tough enough getting jobs for our own people without having to share them with a bunch of social refugees.
From what I read I'm assumming it was a public vote, 60% to 40%, and some are forgetting, the people spoke, they did the same in 38 other states, they did in California but a judge turned it, it's We the People, and I don't think we need to subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America, tell me how it would be paid for, the insurance rates would skyrocket things are bad enough as it is, this is a non-issue, how is gay marriage going to make jobs, how is this going to bring down the price of fuel, how is this going to save our country, the issue is that same sex couples want the same benifits afforded to married couples and it can't be paid for.
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 09:30 PM
From what I read I'm assumming it was a public vote, 60% to 40%, and some are forgetting, the people spoke, they did the same in 38 other states, they did in California but a judge turned it, it's We the People, and I don't think we need to subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America, tell me how it would be paid for, the insurance rates would skyrocket things are bad enough as it is, this is a non-issue, how is gay marriage going to make jobs, how is this going to bring down the price of fuel, how is this going to save our country.
The people spoke? The turnout in North Carolina was 34% of registered voters. And you can bet that every baptist church was pushing for their members to get out and vote and bussing them to the polls. That means that 66% of the population didn't really care one way or another if gays are allowed to marry. So if 61% of that 34% of registered voters voted "yes" that means that only 21% of registered voters in the state cared enough to go vote against gay marriage. That's far from an overwhelming mandate.
And insurance rates? Please. What about the economic benefit to the tourism, hospitality, floral, photography, and event planning industries? It's convenient to ignore those numbers, isn't it?
gimpy117
05-10-12, 09:31 PM
oh great...the people spoke....well honestly I think it's more a matter of the wording of the bill.
you can put it 2 ways:
-"marriage between a man and a woman"
or:
-"lets deny gay people their rights based on religious beliefs and bigotry"
which wording was used? :hmmm:
lets face it, If it was called what it really is, rather than some sugar coated idea, I would bet the numbers would be closer. What a travesty. I guess the Law is blind like on the statue...UNLESS you are gay. Maybe we should add a plaque below every statue of blind justice that has a disclaimer that says:
"this statue is representative of the legal system in the united states, unless you are gay. otherwise ignore the symbolism of the aforementioned item".
It's been man and women for thousands of years and all of a sudden it's got to be afforded to everybody right now, gee what would the muslim brotherhood think, Iran not to long ago just hanged 2 gays. Like I said why should we subsidize what goes on in every bedroom in America. That's right the people spoke, get use to it. Denied what rights ????? to work, drive a car, vote, speech, religion, own property, what are they entitled to, that's what it is, entitlements, that's what this is all about. If you are, that upset, then you should have gotten out and voted.
So if 61% of that 34% of registered voters voted "yes" that means that only 21% of registered voters in the state cared enough to go vote against gay marriage. That's far from an overwhelming mandate.
79% of the voters didn't care enough to go vote for gay marriage either, and you can bet that every pro-gay organization in the state was pushing just as hard as the Baptists. I guess maybe their cause is not as popular as some would try to make us believe.
CaptainHaplo
05-10-12, 10:20 PM
you can bet that every pro-gay organization in the state was pushing just as hard as the Baptists. I guess maybe their cause is not as popular as some would try to make us believe.
Bingo! :yeah:
They only had Bill Clinton making robo calls (and lying his arse off about what the amendment was). And Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the anti-amendment coalition admitted that: Amendment One opponents were better funded than (their) Amendment One rivals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/north-carolina-passes-gay-marriage-ban-amendment-one/2012/05/08/gIQAHYpfBU_blog.html
The anti-amendment camp had a nearly $1 Million funding advantage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/amendment-one-polls-give-edge-to-north-carolina-gay-marriage-ban/2012/05/08/gIQAyga5AU_blog.html
A lot of the money came from outside the state - but 70% of the FOR money came from INSIDE the state in amounts UNDER $100 - showing a real grass roots pro-amendment push.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-mct-big-money-fuels-north-carolina-amendment-campaigns-20120503,0,2168119.story
Its funny, if your not calling the voters bigotted hayseed hicks, your trying to excuse the loss. Get a clue - the PEOPLE don't want gay marriage - from coast to coast (Cali to NC) its proven. Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.
mookiemookie
05-10-12, 10:33 PM
Get a clue - the PEOPLE don't want gay marriage - from coast to coast (Cali to NC) its proven. Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.
If the PEOPLE (meaning everyone) didn't want gay marriage then more than 21% of them would have gotten off their duffs to express that view. I'm sorry, but I can't see how the takeaway is that THE PEOPLE everywhere overwhelmingly don't want gay marriage. The takeaway is that most people don't give a happy monkey screw who's marrying who. You're going to seriously just wave off the fact that the turnout was that low? Just completely ignore the significance of that? I think the apathetic non-voters probably count more towards the "I don't care, go ahead and let them" camp instead of the "let's get our hate on against the gays" group.
And when 21% of the registered voters can take away the rights of an entire group of people who live in the state.... If that's government BY THE PEOPLE, then that's a crappy government.
And yes, they're still bigots.
Thankfully - we are still a government BY THE PEOPLE - which the left can't stand.
Actually, we can't stand people imposing their religious based views on everyone else through the lawmaking process. If you want to pray to God, Buddha, Allah, the invisible sky wizard or whatever, go ahead. But keep it to yourself and out of my legal system.
Oh, and if you guys want to keep splitting hairs and arguing over one poll at a certain point in time, you may be interested in seeing a whole lot of polls over a long time (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to.html)....Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, Fox, CNN, ABC, AP, USA Today:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1-blog480.png
Like I said - inexorable march of progress. It's only a matter of time that this debate becomes as antiquated as the one about interracial marriage.
CaptainHaplo
05-10-12, 11:26 PM
If the PEOPLE (meaning everyone) didn't want gay marriage then more than 21% of them would have gotten off their duffs to express that view.
Using that logic, only 13% of the total electorate in NC cared enough to vote "for" gay marriage.
I'm sorry, but I can't see how the takeaway is that THE PEOPLE everywhere overwhelmingly don't want gay marriage.
Really? You call 13% "overwhelming", do ya?
The takeaway is that most people don't give a happy monkey screw who's marrying who. You're going to seriously just wave off the fact that the turnout was that low? Just completely ignore the significance of that?
Low turnout? For a primary that is a very LARGE turnout. Its the second highest in over 25 years. Primaries are always lower in turnout compared to general elections - and it was the Democrats who pushed for the matter to be on the primary ballot instead of the general - because they didn't want it to be a "wedge" issue the right could use against Obama - they knew it was going to pass either way. Boy do they have egg on their face now.
I think the apathetic non-voters probably count more towards the "I don't care, go ahead and let them" camp instead of the "let's get our hate on against the gays" group.
And here we once again have the intentional mischaracterization of anyone opposed to gay marriage. You can't accept that anyone could have a different view without being a hate-filled bigot....
Funny - isn't that refusal the definition of a bigot?
Also, you can "think" all you want - but your thoughts have no force of fact. As has been pointed out - polls can say whatever they want, but when it comes to counting the will of the people - voters consistently refute a redefining of marriage. Polls said Carter would beat Reagan - its time to stop living in lala land and deal with the reality of the wishes of hte people.
And when 21% of the registered voters can take away the rights of an entire group of people who live in the state.
No rights were taken away - there was already a law against same sex marriage on the books. Same sex couples had already tried to get licenses to marry and been turned down. Your again trying to single out those who you differ with and blame them for something you don't like - when this changed nothing legally.
And yes, they're still bigots.
Just can't stop calling people names can you? When you can't win an arguement on facts, insult the people who don't agree. Call them names, villify them. In doing that - you make yourself at least as bigotted as they are..
Oh - and just out of curiosity - the homosexuals who voted for the amendment (and thus against gay marriage) - are they bigots too?
Actually, we can't stand people imposing their religious based views on everyone else through the lawmaking process. If you want to pray to God, Buddha, Allah, the invisible sky wizard or whatever, go ahead. But keep it to yourself and out of my legal system.
Who is this "we" you speak of? If you want all religion out of "your" legal system, you better start building a new legal system entirely - because the existing one is founded on religious ideals.
And you might have a hard time finding or inventing one without some religious foundation. Unless of course your ok with murder and thievery being legal. Because as soon as you say murder and theft are crimes - you just got "religious".
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal.
Good luck with whatever "your" legal system turns out to be in that case. I am sure I will like "ours" better!
Tribesman
05-11-12, 02:09 AM
Because as soon as you say murder and theft are crimes - you just got "religious".
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
As soon as you say slavery is OK you just got religious.
But hey since you make the mistake of trying to tout scripture lets see again how "good" your knowledge scripture is for a laugh.
Some really basic theology.
Did St. Paul say your claim is bollox?
Which book of your bible did he say it in?
What is that concept that he describes called?
What is the other concept called which you think is the only one?
Fow many millenia have religious leaders and scholars tried to get over the inherent problem with the concept you are trying hold as true?
Bilge_Rat
05-11-12, 05:16 AM
And here we once again have the intentional mischaracterization of anyone opposed to gay marriage. You can't accept that anyone could have a different view without being a hate-filled bigot....
There was no rational or moral justification for making inter-racial marriages a crime in the Deep South except being a hate-filled bigot.
Why is this debate any different?
No rights were taken away - there was already a law against same sex marriage on the books. Same sex couples had already tried to get licenses to marry
and been turned down. Your again trying to single out those who you differ with
and blame them for something you don't like - when this changed nothing legally.
well if nothing changed, why was there a need for a constitutional amendment?
well if nothing changed, why was there a need for a constitutional amendment?
Maybe because outside interests like the national democratic party political machine were dumping millions of dollars into an effort to subvert the peoples wishes?
Bilge_Rat
05-11-12, 07:40 AM
Maybe because outside interests like the national democratic party political machine were dumping millions of dollars into an effort to subvert the peoples wishes?
you are funny.
It was organised by local republicans to mobilise "Da Base" to vote for conservative candidates. The GOP used the same trick in 04.
You really should pay more attention to what is going on.
you are funny.
It was organised by local republicans to mobilise "Da Base" to vote for conservative candidates. The GOP used the same trick in 04.
You really should pay more attention to what is going on.
Yeah right.
Democratic mantra number 254, "Cast everything as an evil Republican plot". Have you BB'd (Blamed Bush) lately?
mookiemookie
05-11-12, 08:11 AM
And here we once again have the intentional mischaracterization of anyone opposed to gay marriage. You can't accept that anyone could have a different view without being a hate-filled bigot....
Yeah and these people weren't really bigots, they were just defending religion, fighting communism and protecting the natural order:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg/500px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
If you are for denying equal rights to someone else, then your justification for why you wish to do so is irrelevant as denying equal rights to someone else based upon their race/gender/religion/sexual preference/etc is bigotry.
Your name is different than mine. Does that make us unequal?
Only if you try to deny me rights because my name is different from yours.
Because as soon as you say murder and theft are crimes - you just got "religious".
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal.
Because no society could ever have come up with those laws before the bible.
I mean, its not like its counter productive to the growth and welfare of a society to do those things...oh wait
:damn:
Because no society could ever have come up with those laws before the bible.
I mean, its not like its counter productive to the growth and welfare of a society to do those things...oh wait
:damn:
Didn't you know? Before his particular brand religion appeared the world was chaos! People just ran around killing everyone! I don't even know how Megas Alexandros conquered his empire without his entire army just falling into chaos as his soldiers went around stabbing each other! [/sarcasm] :rotfl2:
Bilge_Rat
05-11-12, 01:54 PM
I wanted to comment on Mookie's post, but I am a little confused by the "Race mixing is communism" slogan. :hmmm:
Only if you try to deny me rights because my name is different from yours.
But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.
Bilge_Rat
05-11-12, 02:33 PM
But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.
I understand the point, a legal union having all the rights and obligations of a traditional marriage, but with a different name. I personally always thought that would be a good compromise, but for that to be a viable alternative, there would have to be movement very soon. Politically, it may already be too late for that. If Gays are obliged to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to have their rights recognized, they will accept nothing less than full equality.
In Canada, our former liberal government had legalised same- sex marriage after losing a series of court cases, all using the same reasoning as the U.S. cases I mentioned previously. When the Conservatives came in, they toyed with the idea of creating a separate " civil union", but finally gave up since it did not make sense to get into a major political fight over a name.
geetrue
05-11-12, 02:58 PM
Isn't marriage between a man and a woman just a way to make co-habitation legal?
You now have the right to lay with your mate with a legal paper and legal status if the marriage doesn't work out they can terimate the marriage dividing property as the state they live in has already agreed to, which is 50% in California.
If this is so and I believe it is ... then all the gays really want is to do is make what they do legal.
Retirement pay and other US government restrictions to gay partners has already been lifted from what I understand. They can kiss each other upon returning from an overseas deployment in front of cameras without fear of pushiment.
Now they have someone from the white house, for the first time, on their side.
Just like North Carolina had someone, Billy Graham, on their side to defeat the gay marriage bill.
It's like black and white to me ... both sides have people in high places on their side.
mookiemookie
05-11-12, 03:14 PM
But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.
Ok let's say they do that. Gays can have their civil unions. But here's the kicker - since separate but equal has been found to be inherently unequal, they tell all married people, ok in the interest of equality, you're not married anymore...we now consider you a Civil Union and you still have all the rights and benefits, but you're just not legally "married" anymore. Can you imagine the crapstorm that would stir up?
But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.
So you're denying them the right to get married.
It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?
So you're denying them the right to get married.
It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?
I'm not denying them anything.
You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.
mookiemookie
05-11-12, 06:01 PM
I'm not denying them anything.
You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.
There doesn't need to be a practical difference for it to be unequal. If you're tired of everyone saying your "separate but equal" argument is inherently unequal, perhaps you should re-think it instead of stubbornly clinging to it.
To look at it from the other side, the only way I can see that it would possibly not apply is that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification under federal law...it'd be hard to draw a direct parallel from a case regarding race (Brown v. BOE or Loving vs. Virginia) which is a protected class, to sexual orientation, which isn't. As soon as the courts recognize sexual orientation as a protected suspect class, you'll see the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage in short order.
Sailor Steve
05-11-12, 08:05 PM
You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.
If there is no practical difference then why insist on a different name?
If there is no practical difference then why insist on a different name?
Because it involves a different combination of gender.
Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?
antikristuseke
05-11-12, 11:02 PM
Efficiency.
It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state what the gender of the married people is, to the state all it should be was a contract by which joint property etc. is divided, among other things. As far as the state is concerned marriage is no more than a legal contract.
Thats the way it should be anyway, at least in my opinion.
CaptainHaplo
05-12-12, 12:08 AM
It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state
If you had stopped with the above quote, I could have agreed in full. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
antikristuseke
05-12-12, 12:38 AM
That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.
That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.
That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.
Tribesman
05-12-12, 02:17 AM
Because it involves a different combination of gender.
Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?
Could they call it a union or would that be a union or a union or maybe a union?
damn they need another name for a union as they are not all the same. Maybe they should call it a coupling instead. Damn that can be coupling or coupling or coupling.
why oh why do people use the same name for different things:rotfl2:
That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.
Get with the program anti, don't let rational thought get in the way:03:
That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.
So you are familiar with the history and with the origins of the words involved.
You are wasting your time along that line though as those seemingly important details are brought up regularly in the all too frequent "gay marriage" topics and promptly ignored again and again by those who have a problem with gay marrriage but can't seem to make facts fit their arguement.
antikristuseke
05-12-12, 04:26 AM
Get with the program anti, don't let rational thought get in the way:03:
Alright, I shall get with the program.
Here is a picture of my new sunglasses, gay marriage should be banned!
http://i50.tinypic.com/15nkv2b.jpg
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/529180VillagePeopleMountRushmore32883.jpg
:88) http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/170912uglytock.gif
Ducimus
05-12-12, 05:20 AM
^
:roll:
Random, and obligatory Village people links:
YMCA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k&ob=av2e)
Macho man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08&list=UUeWkruiHm7NL7OvjPyVshkw&index=9&feature=plcp)
and of course....
In the Navy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw&list=UUeWkruiHm7NL7OvjPyVshkw&index=1&feature=plcp)
Good christ, what am i posting, I ain't even had coffee yet.
Tribesman
05-12-12, 06:44 AM
Good christ, what am i posting, I ain't even had coffee yet.
don't bring religion or stimulants into this.
u crank
05-12-12, 07:03 AM
don't bring religion or stimulants into this.
Oh no. More variables. :O:
Sailor Steve
05-12-12, 07:28 AM
That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.
I've heard that the ancient Greeks believed that the only true love could be homosexual, and marriage was invented as a legal contract to force a man and a woman to stay together for the sake of the children.
Sailor Steve
05-12-12, 07:32 AM
Because it involves a different combination of gender.
Which means exactly nothing. The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.
Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?
Because there is no reason to. The combinations only mean something to people who don't like them. You're trying to make the words fit your bias.
Bilge_Rat
05-12-12, 07:35 AM
On a semi-related note, what is going on out on the campaign trail?
It was inevitable that a Democratic candidate would eventually embrace same-sex marriage, but I was a bit surprised Obama would embrace a potentially toxic issue so openly, given how close the election is.
But I was really surprised by the Republican response. I would have thought this was the kind of cultural issue that they would pounce on, but Romney and the leadership are trying to stay as far away as they can from it.
u crank
05-12-12, 08:22 AM
But I was really surprised by the Republican response. I would have thought this was the kind of cultural issue that they would pounce on, but Romney and the leadership are trying to stay as far away as they can from it.
Smart move on their part. Big issue is economy, why muddy the water?
Which means exactly nothing. The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.
I'm sorry Steve but I disagree. Gender is not an artificial distinction.
Because there is no reason to. The combinations only mean something to people who don't like them. You're trying to make the words fit your bias.
No reason? Obviously a whole lot of people disagree with you or it wouldn't be the huge issue that it is. As for making words fit your bias, I could say the same thing about you. You only think combinations don't mean anything because you support the other side.
Tribesman
05-12-12, 10:45 AM
You only think combinations don't mean anything because you support the other side.
The arguement used works whichever "side" he is supporting or if he is entirely neutral on the issue, it deals with a claim that was made
Several people have taken your claim and shown it to be rubbish, in fact they have taken it in detail and shown it to be complete rubbish.
Your response ....
:wah::wah:its only because you are on the other side.
If you cannot deal with what was written and counter it effectively then you have no arguement against it...simple isn't it:yeah:
But hey lets be generous, maybe you are just missing the key word.
The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.
Gender is not an artificial distinction.
so try again, the important word is in the first and your red herring is in the second
NeonSamurai
05-12-12, 12:04 PM
I'm sorry Steve but I disagree. Gender is not an artificial distinction.
Umm, I think the term you guys want is "sex" not "gender".
"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.
"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.
Otherwise then you would be ok with gay marriage as long as one of the people involved considered themselves female and the other male, IE they are different genders but the same sex.
Anyhow I'll add my 2 cents to the topic. I could care less what other people do when it comes to forming unions. I also could care less what they want to call it. I do think that you can't force religions to perform union ceremonies, but I don't think that is the main issue. Personally I say just call them all civil unions period, and if the individuals want to consider themselves "married"... whatever.
I do however have a problem with passing laws against it as it is discriminating against certain groups and denying them the basic rights everyone else has. I don't care how many people vote in support of it, it is still completely unethical and should not be permitted. It is always the slippery slope, deny the rights of one group, and you probably will be the next group being denied rights.
Blood_splat
05-12-12, 02:10 PM
I don't think gays in NC should have to pay taxes now.
Sailor Steve
05-12-12, 02:22 PM
I'm sorry Steve but I disagree. Gender is not an artificial distinction.
No, it's not, but making it a criterion for different designations certainly is.
No reason? Obviously a whole lot of people disagree with you or it wouldn't be the huge issue that it is. As for making words fit your bias, I could say the same thing about you. You only think combinations don't mean anything because you support the other side.
It's only a huge issue because biased people make it so. My only bias here is against those who would dictate to others how they must live their lives.
CaptainHaplo
05-12-12, 10:24 PM
It's only a huge issue because biased people make it so. My only bias here is against those who would dictate to others how they must live their lives.
And there it is - the ultimate falsehood in this whole thing. Steve - please note I am not accusing you of lying - your repeating the disinformation that is constantly put out there.
This doesn't say 2 men or 2 women can't spend their lives together. It doesn't tell them what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home. It does not force them to seperate their lives and move on without one another.
To say that this tells other how they MUST live their lives is a total perversion of the truth.
Let me give another, related example. Polygamy. Yes - its illegal. But what is the "legal" definition? Being "married" - as defined by the state - to more than one person. But guess what - many poly families don't need some state recognition of their relationship. True relationships are not defined by a marriage certificate signed by some beaurocrat. If it is, then its not worth the paper it would have been printed on. I know of a few poly families, am friends with them - and yes there is only one "legal" marriage (or sometimes not one at all) involved - but everyone has a love for another in certain ways.
Know what - they don't care that polygamy is illegal - because the state can't define their love for each other. This isn't about relationships and what is or isn't allowed - its about forcing societal change.
No one can tell those families that there can't be 4 or 5 adults in one house. No one can tell them who can "sleep" with whom. Just as this amendment doesn't stop any couple of people of the same sex choosing to do the exact same thing.
Its never been about what people can or can't do - its been about making everyone else accept what some people do in their bedrooms. Its none of anyone's business - and it wouldn't be an issue if those that want to have same sex relationships didn't want to flaunt their bedroom preferences to the rest of the world. Its was none of anyone's business - till they decided to make it everyone's business.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 12:21 AM
To say that this tells other how they MUST live their lives is a total perversion of the truth.
So they MAY live their lives as a married couple?
Who knew?
Tribesman
05-13-12, 12:56 AM
So they MAY live their lives as a married couple?
Naughty
Are you repeating the disinformation that has just been put out there here?:03:
Its never been about what people can or can't do - its been about making everyone else accept what some people do in their bedrooms.
Complete bull.:doh:
So who is it that is repeating the disinformation again and again?
Isn't it interesting that just about every arguement put forward by the "anti" side falls apart very quickly and they just throw up more increasingly obvious false claims instead of re-appraising their objections
CaptainHaplo
05-13-12, 01:09 AM
So they MAY live their lives as a married couple?
Who knew?
Again - depend on how you define live. If you mean live in a house together, share their lives, joys and concers with each other as they see fit, sleep with each other in the privacy of their own home (or in places where ownership allows same), talk about the day, troubles, finances, life worries, etc, argue and fight like other couples (married or not) - then yes.
If you mean they get to have some piece of paper from the state saying they are "married".... No
Which has a deeper meaning?
Its never been about what people can or can't do - its been about making everyone else accept what some people do in their bedrooms.
So marriage means forcing people to accept what you do in the bedroom with your spouse? Well I think the people against gay marriage would have a hard time accepting what some heterosexual couples do in their bedrooms. :rotfl2:
u crank
05-13-12, 05:20 AM
Again - depend on how you define live. If you mean live in a house together, share their lives, joys and concers with each other as they see fit, sleep with each other in the privacy of their own home (or in places where ownership allows same), talk about the day, troubles, finances, life worries, etc, argue and fight like other couples (married or not) - then yes.
If you mean they get to have some piece of paper from the state saying they are "married".... No
Which has a deeper meaning?
That is a very good question. And I think we all know the answer.
Tribesman
05-13-12, 05:48 AM
Again - depend on how you define live.
So in a short time have you meant live but not live and not discriminate but discriminate and not marriage but marriage and christian but not christian.
Haplo when you are managing to tie yourself in knots rather than say "ooooops that claim I made didn't make sense" doesn't it kinda drop a really unsubtle hint to yourself about your views on the subject?
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 09:03 AM
If you mean they get to have some piece of paper from the state saying they are "married".... No
So the real question is why the answer is "No". Is it because there is something inherently wrong with it, or is it because some people just don't like it? If it were any other subject most of the 'antis' would be crying "Tyranny of the masses!"
Which has a deeper meaning?
The answer is obvious, but the question is loaded. Why do some people really have a problem with the idea that they would like to be treated like other couples?
Onkel Neal
05-13-12, 09:24 AM
If matrimony a sacred bond between a man and woman, then why is it no big deal and a simple legal procedure to dissolve the bond? After the vows that pledge love no matter what, led by a man of god, and sealed by the state... if one partner decides "hey, I don't want to be married to you any more", that person can dissolve the marriage & drag the other partner into divorce against their will.
People make too big a deal out of marriage, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and hasn't for a long time. Where have your big protests been over the last 50 years against divorce? Been pretty quiet over there. Now gays want to "marry' and it's time to march? :shifty: Weak.
antikristuseke
05-13-12, 09:28 AM
Haplo, picking your partner or partners and living together in happiness is only part of the story and you know it. The real issue is the legal protections offered to spouses by the state when they enter that contract in the eyes of the state. That and equality are at the heart of this thing and as such denying homosexual couples the right to marriage is nothing but discrimination on either religious or just personal dislike grounds, which don't hold up to scrutiny.
The answer is obvious, but the question is loaded. Why do some people really have a problem with the idea that they would like to be treated like other couples?
There is no limit to what can be included in a definition if you generalize it enough.
After all why stop with two people? Why not just say two living beings? The example that someone posted earlier about a man marrying his dog for instance. Even if you just limit it to human beings it says nothing about their respective ages, or even if both of them are alive.
What the pro-gay marriage is asking is for us to extend the definition of marriage ONLY to the degree THEY want, but no further, at least not yet. They're like the driver who drives 5mph above the speed limit but will block anyone from passing him because he feels breaking the speed limit is ok but only to the degree he personally is comfortable with.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not too men or two women or a man and a corpse, and I will continue to oppose any and all attempts to expand that definition beyond it's original meaning.
People make too big a deal out of marriage, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and hasn't for a long time. Where have your big protests been over the last 50 years against divorce? Been pretty quiet over there. Now gays want to "marry' and it's time to march? :shifty: Weak.
There have been plenty of protests against easy divorces over the years but like this gay marriage thing they have been shouted down by a loud and pushy minority. Many whose only dog in that hunt is in further tearing down anything and everything that the church stands for.
After all why stop with two people?
Good question. I've yet to see a strong argument for only two people.
Why not just say two living beings?
The example that someone posted earlier about a man marrying his dog for instance. Even if you just limit it to human beings it says nothing about their respective ages, or even if both of them are alive.
The dog, the child, and the corpse are all unable to give informed consent. There's already a block on these unions for that reason.
(And why do these arguments always seem to head toward man on dog discussions?)
...I will continue to oppose any and all attempts to expand that definition beyond it's original meaning.
But the "original" definition of marriage hasn't always been the definition of marriage. Polygamy has just as long a history.
Tribesman
05-13-12, 09:55 AM
After all why stop with two people? Why not just say two living beings? The example that someone posted earlier about a man marrying his dog for instance. Even if you just limit it to human beings it says nothing about their respective ages, or even if both of them are alive.
Well that post is a decent into sillyness after his arguement has fallen apart.
But sillyness can be dealt with in detail, in fact it is so easy to deal with in detail that one word trashes the whole line august has put forward.
Consent....so simple isn't it when it comes to matters that are no more than a legal contract, like marriage :yeah:
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 10:42 AM
After all why stop with two people? Why not just say two living beings? The example that someone posted earlier about a man marrying his dog for instance. Even if you just limit it to human beings it says nothing about their respective ages, or even if both of them are alive.
You're stretching. A dog can't give consent, or sign on the dotted line. Neither can a corpse.
What the pro-gay marriage is asking is for us to extend the definition of marriage ONLY to the degree THEY want, but no further, at least not yet. They're like the driver who drives 5mph above the speed limit but will block anyone from passing him because he feels breaking the speed limit is ok but only to the degree he personally is comfortable with.
A totally useless and irrelevant analogy.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not too men or two women or a man and a corpse, and I will continue to oppose any and all attempts to expand that definition beyond it's original meaning.
That's fine, since none of us here can affect the issue in any direct way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is no better or more valid than yours, and vice versa.
Betonov
05-13-12, 10:52 AM
I'll move to the US, start my own church and start marrying gays for a fee. I'll be rooooolling in cash :DL
CaptainHaplo
05-13-12, 12:16 PM
Haplo, picking your partner or partners and living together in happiness is only part of the story and you know it. The real issue is the legal protections offered to spouses by the state when they enter that contract in the eyes of the state.
And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.
Why do some people really have a problem with the idea that they would like to be treated like other couples?
Why do "some" people - the small minority of extreme gay activists, insist that everyone else conform to their way of doing things? Why does that same small group have a problem with using the existing legal structure in place to give those couples the same rights without forcing their views on everyone else?
I'll move to the US, start my own church and start marrying gays for a fee. I'll be rooooolling in cash :DL
Your pool of actual couples who wish to marry is much smaller than you are led to believe. This is a very "loud" issue only because those who push for it are extremely vocal - the vast majority of the homosexual community (which is small in relation to general society) is not active on this. Don't be fooled into thinking its some massive push by some large part of society - its simply that the "squeeky wheel gets the grease" example of what gets attention in the media.
Betonov
05-13-12, 12:24 PM
Your pool of actual couples who wish to marry is much smaller than you are led to believe.
I'll raise the fee acordingly :03:
mookiemookie
05-13-12, 12:46 PM
So what if it's a minority?Gun owners are a minority in America - a very vocal one, too. But their rights are sacrosanct.
Blacks are a minority as well - I guess there's a problem there too when they pushed their views on the rest of the country and made everyone change the way things had been done for hundreds of years in order to respect their rights.
That argument doesn't hold any water.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 01:08 PM
Why do "some" people - the small minority of extreme gay activists, insist that everyone else conform to their way of doing things? Why does that same small group have a problem with using the existing legal structure in place to give those couples the same rights without forcing their views on everyone else?
No, the small minority only ask for the same benefits as the majority. The majority say "No" and pat themselves on the backs for being better people. As to "everyone else", they're not being asked to "conform", just accept and stop denying equality to the minority. They oppress the minority and then blame the minority for trying to "oppress" them.
Your pool of actual couples who wish to marry is much smaller than you are led to believe. This is a very "loud" issue only because those who push for it are extremely vocal - the vast majority of the homosexual community (which is small in relation to general society) is not active on this. Don't be fooled into thinking its some massive push by some large part of society - its simply that the "squeeky wheel gets the grease" example of what gets attention in the media.
It doesn't matter if it's only one. Oppression is oppression.
And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.
So why are you cheering so loudly over the State's "correct" decision?
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 01:11 PM
Blacks are a minority as well - I guess there's a problem there too when they pushed their views on the rest of the country and made everyone change the way things had been done for hundreds of years in order to respect their rights.
Have you ever seen Birth Of A Nation? :sunny:
CaptainHaplo
05-13-12, 01:43 PM
So why are you cheering so loudly over the State's "correct" decision?
I have not "cheered" it. I have problems with the amendment as it was written. However, I do support it over the worse alternative.
I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. The fact that it is however is reality - so if its going to be involved, I would rather see it protect what is a religious action as religion dictates it is rather than force religion to adapt to whatever standard is "fair, right and good" in the eyes of the state. Protecting religious freedom by NOT dictating what religion must say on this issue is more important to me than the "rights" of a few to get to call their shared lives by some term with a piece of paper.
...I would rather see it protect what is a religious action as religion dictates it is rather than force religion to adapt to whatever standard is "fair, right and good" in the eyes of the state. Protecting religious freedom by NOT dictating what religion must say on this issue is more important to me than the "rights" of a few to get to call their shared lives by some term with a piece of paper.
But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.
Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.
Takeda Shingen
05-13-12, 02:20 PM
But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.
Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.
This. No one is forcing any religious organization to conduct any services. This is about marriage at the courthouse.
u crank
05-13-12, 02:55 PM
But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.
Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.
Hmm, this sounds like discrimination.
Here in Canada where same sex marriage is legal, there have been cases where Marriage Commissioners refusal to marry gays on 'religious grounds' ended up in court. Quote: "accommodating the religious beliefs of the commissioners could not justify what would amount to discrimination against gays and lesbians."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/919095--sask-gay-marriage-refusal-law-ruled-unconstitutional
Granted this is somewhat different than a church refusing as the commissioner is a public servant but it is discrimination none the less.
Possibly a church here in Canada is just one court case away from being forced to marry anyone who asks them to marry them.
antikristuseke
05-13-12, 04:17 PM
And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.
Well since the state is in the business of making and enforcing laws, ofcourse they should be involved. Either that or abolish any joint ownership via marriage etc. anything else and it is arbitrary discrimination.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is no better or more valid than yours, and vice versa.
Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".
A totally useless and irrelevant analogy.
Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.
Tribesman
05-13-12, 04:30 PM
I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
Which is where you are going hopelessly wrong.
Marriage is a legal contract that may or may not involve religion but certainly involves the state in lots of ways.
Despite everything shown to the contrary you still think it is a religious ceremony and nothing else.
Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant.
It was totally and utterly useless and irrelevant.
You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.
Because it is so totally and utterly useless it certainly cannot support your opinion.
If it supported it then it couldn't have been shown as nonsense so easily in a single word
Well since the state is in the business of making and enforcing laws, ofcourse they should be involved. Either that or abolish any joint ownership via marriage etc. anything else and it is arbitrary discrimination.
There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?
Tribesman
05-13-12, 04:39 PM
There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?
Who inherits the cabin if one of you dies?
Who inherits if both of you die?
you really are setting yourself up for a fall again and again with your attempts to defend your view on this:yep:
mookiemookie
05-13-12, 04:45 PM
Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.
Gay marriage is not a car, nor a traffic law. It's indeed useless and irrelevant.
Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".
If you're going to take one of your trademark petty swipes at someone, at least have the courtesy to quote what I said correctly.
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off. That's a far friggin' cry from "August is a bigot and I hope he dies soon." It's stating a plainly obvious truth that's been the case for thousands of years. Social change doesn't happen overnight, it happens generationally, as the previous generation passes along with their ideas. If you don't like that and feel offended over that fact, I don't know what to tell you. It's going to happen, as it's happened time and time again. Deal with it.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 05:44 PM
Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.
No, I say that because it had nothing to do with the subject.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 05:46 PM
Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".
I was stating my own. And I was trying to be nice. Sorry if that concept is foreign to you.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 05:48 PM
There can still be joint ownership without marriage.
If your friend dies and leaves all his money to you the government will take a large share. If you are married you will get it all. That's one of the things they are asking for and you want to deny them.
Gay marriage is not a car, nor a traffic law. It's indeed useless and irrelevant.
You're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to it.
your trademark petty swipes
Now isn't that just lovely, more personal insults. :roll:
mookiemookie
05-13-12, 06:07 PM
Now isn't that just lovely, more personal insults. :roll:
But no admission of how you intentionally misquoted me. Nice.
And denying rights to others because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. is still bigotry.
If your friend dies and leaves all his money to you the government will take a large share. If you are married you will get it all. That's one of the things they are asking for and you want to deny them.
Uhm, that's just not true Steve and i'm kind of surprised that you'd accuse me of such a thing. Perhaps you have forgotten that I have repeatedly said in both this and other similar threads that I have no problem with Civil Unions which were created for that very reason.
Oh and BTW he's joint owner of the land. He pays nothing when I die except maybe another Land Management Plan which we have to do every 10 years anyway.
But no admission of how you intentionally misquoted me. Nice.
Funny I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere in that post Mookie. You seem quite eager to claim the mantle though.
antikristuseke
05-13-12, 06:26 PM
There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?
I ment joint ownership as part of marriage, that should have been obvious from the context.
I ment joint ownership as part of marriage, that should have been obvious from the context.
I understood what you meant. My point was that one does not need to be married to have joint ownership of something.
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 06:46 PM
Uhm, that's just not true Steve and i'm kind of surprised that you'd accuse me of such a thing.
Exactly where did I accuse you of anything? Certainly not in the statement you quoted. You seem to reach a point in every debate where you attempt to make it personal by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of attacking you. I've been very careful to do no such thing.
As for civil unions, they are not the same as marriage in everything but name. In fact there seem to be very great differences.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
Exactly where did I accuse you of anything?
Right here:
you want to deny themThat sounded like an accusation to me. Can you show where I said I want to deny gays inheritance rights?
You seem to reach a point in every debate where you attempt to make it personal by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of attacking you.I get called a bigot, repeatedly, and *I'm* the one making things personal? That's just rich.
I've been very careful to do no such thing.I never said that you're attacking me. I said you're accusing me of something I never said and that I was kind of surprised that you'd do it. Sorry if you think that's getting personal.
mookiemookie
05-13-12, 07:14 PM
Funny I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere in that post Mookie. You seem quite eager to claim the mantle though.
Yeah, sure. "Oh I didn't quote yoooooou when I was quoting a completely hypothetical person talking about "bigots dying off" and twisting it into this completely hypothetical person wishing that I was the bigot who would die soon. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about!" :roll:
When it gets to this level of ridiculousness, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm done here.
CaptainHaplo
05-13-12, 07:24 PM
Relax August - I am the bigot here - I am one who voted for the amendment so by their definition I must be a bigot.
Never mind that "team R" offered at one point to codify civil unions and make them equal to in all respects to marriage. Never mind that this has only come because the gay lobby refused to accept ANYTHING short of their demands. Of course, the gay lobby wants you to think of this as "discrimination" by a bunch of "religious bigots" - so don't google "Church sued over gay marriage" because facts show that gay activists have been trying to FORCE religious institutions to accept gay marriage through the courts since at least 2007.....
The reality is that the homosexual activists pushed way too hard - and finally the rest of society - at least in NC - got sick of it and decided to push back. So now they scream "its not fair".
So Mookie, Bilge and whoever else - go ahead and call me a bigot all while claiming I am treating people unfair because they can still have every single "benefit" of a married couple except one.
Live together? Check
Share finances? Check
Leave inheritance? Check
Medical decisions and visitation? Check
Get a state certificate that says married? Nope
Cry me a river.....
Relax August - I am the bigot here - I am one who voted for the amendment so by their definition I must be a bigot.
Oh i'm completely relaxed, although several folks on the other side of this argument seem to be getting pretty hot under the collar. It's actually pretty funny to read. :DL
Sailor Steve
05-13-12, 09:42 PM
Right here:
That sounded like an accusation to me. Can you show where I said I want to deny gays inheritance rights?
You've openly admitted you want them denied the right to be married, and the benefits that go with it. I didn't accuse you of anything you didn't say yourself.
I get called a bigot, repeatedly, and *I'm* the one making things personal? That's just rich.
I've seen people using a broad brush and using "bigot" as a general term for everyone who would deny these rights. I don't think in those terms, but you do seem to enjoy making it about you.
I never said that you're attacking me. I said you're accusing me of something I never said and that I was kind of surprised that you'd do it. Sorry if you think that's getting personal.
I didn't say you were getting personal. I said that sooner or later you make every argument about yourself, and accuse others of making it personal.
Oh i'm completely relaxed, although several folks on the other side of this argument seem to be getting pretty hot under the collar. It's actually pretty funny to read. :DL
I'm not sure who that would be. From an objective viewpoint your responses have been no more and no less antagonistic that your opponents. You come across as just as hot as you think they do.
You've openly admitted you want them denied the right to be married
I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Two people of the same gender do not meet that basic requirement. Your use of the term "openly admitted" implies that I am guilty of some crime. Do you feel that my opinion is criminal?
and the benefits that go with it.
This is the second time you have claimed this and it is still totally false. Now either find where I said anything about denying gays these benefits or admit that you are fabricating this.
I've seen people using a broad brush and using "bigot" as a general term for everyone who would deny these rights. I don't think in those terms, but you do seem to enjoy making it about you.
Then you obviously have no idea what I enjoy or not Steve.
I didn't say you were getting personal. I said that sooner or later you make every argument about yourself, and accuse others of making it personal.
Telling a person that they are making the argument about them then repeatedly posting fabrications about their position sounds pretty darn personal to me. What do any of these unfounded claims of yours have to do with the thread topic?
I'm not sure who that would be. From an objective viewpoint your responses have been no more and no less antagonistic that your opponents. You come across as just as hot as you think they do.
Well that's your misunderstanding then. Not very objective of you...
Tribesman
05-14-12, 02:13 AM
I understood what you meant. My point was that one does not need to be married to have joint ownership of something.
Another red herring.
Ducking the issue as it destroys your claim:yep:
I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Two people of the same gender do not meet that basic requirement.
You have shown what you believe, however your attempts at justifying and supporting those beliefs have failed in spectacular at every stage. Which means your "basic requirement" isn't an actual basic requirement in the real world as it doesn't stand up.
Your use of the term "openly admitted" implies that I am guilty of some crime. Do you feel that my opinion is criminal?
"Openly admitted" implies openly admitted.
So is that "criminal" another red herring but with a side order of victim mentality?
This is the second time you have claimed this and it is still totally false. Now either find where I said anything about denying gays these benefits or admit that you are fabricating this.
oh dear:doh:
Your whole arguement has been about denying them this.
It has been expalianed in detail and people have even posted links to show you how you are doing it.
So that makes it appear that as well as being unable to support your views on the subject you also do not seem to know what exactly it is you are arguing in favour of.
Telling a person that they are making the argument about them then repeatedly posting fabrications about their position sounds pretty darn personal to me. What do any of these unfounded claims of yours have to do with the thread topic?
I am afraid you seem to be having problems with the words "fabrications" and "unfounded"....would you like a link to a dictionary to learn what they mean?
Tribesman
05-14-12, 02:19 AM
Live together? Check
Share finances? Check
Leave inheritance? Check
Medical decisions and visitation? Check
Get a state certificate that says married? Nope
Your formula is faulty as it is incomplete. So......
Not quite
not quite
not quite
not quite
exactly.
the "exactly" is the issue which clears up all the "not quites" into "check"
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 07:08 AM
Never mind that "team R" offered at one point to codify civil unions and make them equal to in all respects to marriage. Never mind that this has only come because the gay lobby refused to accept ANYTHING short of their demands. Of course, the gay lobby wants you to think of this as "discrimination" by a bunch of "religious bigots" - so don't google "Church sued over gay marriage" because facts show that gay activists have been trying to FORCE religious institutions to accept gay marriage through the courts since at least 2007.....
The reality is that the homosexual activists pushed way too hard - and finally the rest of society - at least in NC - got sick of it and decided to push back. So now they scream "its not fair".
so, in other words, uppity Gays were not willing to accept whatever second class status was cobbled together, so "y'all" decided to put the Gays back in their place by stripping away ALL their rights. :o
Good call, very mature. :rolleyes:
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 07:25 AM
apparently, allowing gay marriage will bring about the destruction of society as we know it...:o
When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase in female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married biological parents.
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/threat/
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 08:16 AM
Not quite
not quite
not quite
not quite
exactly.
Ahhh its nice to know some things never change. I see your still stalking ME here on subsim. Still consumed by ME..... My thanks to the person who pointed out I should see this post, as it truly is an opportunity to good to pass up....
For all of you actually silly enough to pay attention to tribesman and his stalking of my every post - lets examine his foolish stance here, shall we?
I say that in NC, homosexuals can live together.
His position is "not quite".
Hmmmm... "not quite"? So they are allowed to live on the same street? They can live next door to each other or across the street from each other? Heck, maybe in the LA-LA land that is the "brain" of poor tribesman, one of the gay folks can even set up a tent in the front yard of his partner? But don'tcha know they are just not allowed to actually live under the same roof.... I bet he is sure that the "gay police" are coming around randomly every night to make sure that honosexual #2 is in that tent, too!
"not quite" :har:
I say that in NC, homosexuals can share finances.
He says - "not quite".
Oh boy.... did you all notice that amendment and existing state law that says a gay person can not deposit his or her money into any one else's account? Did you see where it said they couldn't be on the account of another person? no?!?! You must not be reading the LA-LA land version on NC existence.
"not quite" - Well, you see, in LA-LA land of tribalboy, gays ARE (at least apparently) allowed to use the same bank. They are allowed to get the same kinds of accounts. Amazingly, they can even have accounts that are just 1 tiny number off - so they are "not quite" sharing - but just ever so close to it. But LA-LA land NC apparently makes banks have a form that asks customers about their sexual orientation, so that no homosexuals can share accounts. But if your straight and simply have a business arrangement of any kind, that's ok - the bank won't ask. Only thing that matters is that form answer of "are you gay?"
"Not quite" :woot:
I stated NC allows homosexuals to leave behind anything they choose in a will as they see fit.
Do I even need to remind you all what the "it takes a tribal.... idiot" thinks? That's right ......... "not quite"...
Apparently, in LA-LA land NC, you have to fill out one of those pesky "are you gay" forms when you register your will. If you said yes, you can't leave your stuff to your lover - but you could leave it to anyone else. Maybe your gay lover's doctor, or dentist? You could leave it to their Mom or their Dad. You could leave it to their sister or brother. Just not any other homosexual with whom you have had a (gasp) "relationship" with. Yes, you see - LA-LA land NC must have a serious amount of bureaucracy to make sure those gay folks can "not quite" do the stuff they want.
"not quite" :haha:
Then we come to the issue of Medical rights. I make clear that a homosexual can determine who can make decisions, etc. Its called a medical power of attorney. Alas - the subsim tribe's resident "LA-LA land" expert has a different view. Can you guess?
If you said "not quite" - congrats - your at least smarter than tribesman. That's correct - he says "not quite". So we once again compare reality to the imaginary fairy foo-foo land in which tribesman exits.
In NC, a homosexual is allowed to get the appropriate paperwork that will allow whomever they want to have medical authority. There is no restriction on if its another homosexual.
Of course - in LA-LA NC, any Power of Attorney comes with those ever present "are you gay" forms. Those poor, repressed and discriminated against gay folks, they can't put their gay lovers on the forms. Almost, but not quite. They can still put their dentist though. And their "partners" parents or siblings. Or the straight neighbor that lives on the other side of their lover - since remember their gay lover isn't allowed to live with them.
"Not quite"........:O:
And finally we come to the one that is agreed upon. No little piece of paper that says "your married". At least tribesman got this one right.
Considering he is speaking from across an ocean, and his expansive history of inaccuracy on other things he knows nothing about, this is significant. 1 out of 5 is MUCH better than he normally does! Lets all give him a hand! :yeah:
Now, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the lesson here for poor tribesman. So, young lad, notice that (once again) your right only when you agree with ME. Now, we all know you follow ME around, always have to post after ME, have an obsession bordering on stalking with ME. So bask in the glory that you actually got one right by agreeing with your idol - ME - and be proud of your accomplishment. Who knows - maybe one day - you might actually agree MORE - and thus be right more. You see, there is hope for your (somewhat perverse) worship and obsession with ME. Keep up the good work, lad - there may be hope for you yet! :sunny:
Tribesman
05-14-12, 08:57 AM
Ahhh its nice to know some things never change. I see your still stalking ME here on subsim. Still consumed by ME.....
So you still have your false victim complex and still have a propensity for spouting bull.
Hmmmm... "not quite"? blah blah blah
"not quite" :har:
Yes, not quite:yep:
Oh boy.... blah blah blah
"Not quite" :woot:
Yes, not quite:yep:
I stated ...blah blah blah
"not quite" :haha:
Yes not quite.:yep:
Then we come to .....blah blah blah
"Not quite"........:O:
yes not quite.:yep:
And finally we come to the one that is agreed upon. No little piece of paper that says "your married". At least tribesman got this one right.
Well done for your epic fail. you managed more red herrings than august and more strawmen than a wizard of oz convention
You amazingly managed to get all four wrong again which is quite some achievement.
You even detailed a few times how you were wrong without even noticing.:rotfl2:
Now, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the lesson here for poor tribesman. So, young lad, notice that (once again) your right only when you agree with ME. Now, we all know you follow ME around, always have to post after ME, have an obsession bordering on stalking with ME. So bask in the glory that you actually got one right by agreeing with your idol - ME - and be proud of your accomplishment. Who knows - maybe one day - you might actually agree MORE - and thus be right more. You see, there is hope for your (somewhat perverse) worship and obsession with ME. Keep up the good work, lad - there may be hope for you yet! :sunny:
You really are showing youself up to be a plonker there.
CAPS LOCK really does strike again to emphasise the fact:smug:
But hey, you seem to be having real mental problems over grasping this simple issue so lets be really generous and spell it out nice and easy using only simple words.
The last one changes the legal conditions attatched to all the others which is why all of those others are "not quite".
AVGWarhawk
05-14-12, 09:46 AM
Live together? Check
Share finances? Check
Leave inheritance? Check
Medical decisions and visitation? Check
Get a state certificate that says married? Nope
Medical decisions are not allowable if I remember correctly. You might recall Leovampire here at Subsim? His partner was not legally able to make any decisions medically for Leovampire. ICU in most hospitals are family only visitation.
The state certificate allows two things:
1. Noted married
2. Marriage tax penalty.
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 10:04 AM
You might recall Leovampire here at Subsim? His partner was not legally able to make any decisions medically for Leovampire. ICU in most hospitals are family only visitation.
I do indeed remember Leo, may he rest in peace.
If memory serves, he lived in the northern part of the US. DE,CT - something like that. I can't speak for that state or its laws. However, I would suspect that no medical power of attorney was in place.
Its important to remember - we are talking NC here - not anywhere else.
If Leo had been in NC - now or prior to this amendment - he would have had the right to do a medical power of attorney - and that would have allowed his partner to visit him and make decisions on his behalf regarding his care.
It is all too easy to point to other cases - in other places - and equate them to what has occured in NC. However, that fails to account for the fact that different states have different laws. NC is clear on what it does not allow - and that is "marriage". Anything else is available.
You bring up the marriage tax penalty. Why would someone want to incur an extra penalty? If homosexuals REALLY want to pay more in taxes - they can still donate to the state tax office. Though there is some discussion as to whether the penalty still exits.
Literally AVG - the ONLY thing they can't do in NC is get a marriage license in NC. Yes - they might have to do paperwork to get the same legal authority - but they would have to do paperwork to get married. Its not about the "right" - its about making everyone else accept their view.
I will say it again - google "church sued over gay marraige" and do a little research. Gay activists have been suing private citizens of religious conviction and churches trying to force them to "accomodate" gay weddings against their religious beliefs.
AVGWarhawk
05-14-12, 11:31 AM
Good points CH.
The marriage penalty I would believe overrides the other "benefits", if folks see them as benefits, in their minds? I would venture to guess the same reasoning as a man and a woman getting married overrides the tax penalty.
As far as the license. The last time I looked at mine was 19 years when my wife and I applied for it.
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 01:23 PM
I will say it again - google "church sued over gay marraige" and do a little research. Gay activists have been suing private citizens of religious conviction and churches trying to force them to "accomodate" gay weddings against their religious beliefs.
You have raised that claim a few times, but that is a specious argument. This is how Canada got around the problem.
Our same-sex marriage law:
2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Marriage not void or voidable
4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
Sailor Steve
05-14-12, 01:37 PM
I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Two people of the same gender do not meet that basic requirement. Your use of the term "openly admitted" implies that I am guilty of some crime. Do you feel that my opinion is criminal?
And you're doing it again. Everybody's attacking poor August. You said I accused you. I said it was repeating what you had said yourself. I used the term "admitted" in that context, and you know it. So you ask if I feel your opinion is criminal, knowing it's not remotely true. As far as I can tell, this constitutes game-playing, not honest debate.
This is the second time you have claimed this and it is still totally false. Now either find where I said anything about denying gays these benefits or admit that you are fabricating this.
You said that "marriage" and "civil union" are one and the same. I provided a link that says differently, and you've ignored it. If the differences listed are true, then not allowing marriage does indeed deny them certain rights and benefits. So, no fabrications. Also I've asked several questions you also ignored.
Then you obviously have no idea what I enjoy or not Steve.
The operative word here is "seems to". It's been observed that you take this same line of defensive argument a lot.
Telling a person that they are making the argument about them then repeatedly posting fabrications about their position sounds pretty darn personal to me. What do any of these unfounded claims of yours have to do with the thread topic?
I've shown that I posted no fabrications. My statements have nothing to do with the thread topic. They're directed at the same ultra-defensive style you always seem to end up at, and have been using for the last several pages.
Well that's your misunderstanding then. Not very objective of you...
Only a reaction to all your recent posts.
Only a reaction to all your recent posts.
Yeah whatever. :roll:
Jimbuna
05-14-12, 01:50 PM
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
Pretty much how it is in the UK as far as I am aware.
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 02:05 PM
You have raised that claim a few times, but that is a specious argument. This is how Canada got around the problem.
Our same-sex marriage law:
Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.
I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.
Now, if people are about enjoying the "benefits" of marraige, and are offered those benefits in an "official" way - then they would have accepted them. Thus, logic dictates that the claim of "equal access to benefits of marriage" was in fact a red herring. So then we must ask - what was the real purpose?
Looking at the continual history of gay activism in the most recent years, one can see from a simple search - as I defined - how the religious convictions against gay marriage are in fact under attack by the gay activist community.
Now, I have provided a logical position. Debate and discussion consist of more than the tired old tactics of "Nu huh!' and "That's not right!" - it requires an opposing view - in this case yours - to be explained clearly and concisely, with verifiable facts to back up your position.
So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.
So here is your chance Bilge-rat - its your turn to represent the left at the grown up table. The right always says we can win in the arena of idea's - here is your shot to prove that wrong. You just gotta use facts to do it. Good luck!
Sailor Steve
05-14-12, 02:14 PM
I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.
"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.
Also I've been looking over some of the discussions elsewhere, and there is some indication that "civil unions" are not allowed in North Carolina. Can you provide clarification on this?
Tribesman
05-14-12, 02:32 PM
"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.
So you mean "not quite":03:
Check:up:
but don't forget the first one either, as terms and conditions apply since marriage is a legal contract which even covers that aspect.
Literally AVG - the ONLY thing they can't do in NC is get a marriage license in NC. Yes - they might have to do paperwork to get the same legal authority - but they would have to do paperwork to get married. Its not about the "right" - its about making everyone else accept their view.
As plain as can be, he shoots his own arguement down yet still cannot see the truth that puts the lie to his claims.
So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.
Unfortunately for you its among the very few antis (as in two of you) who are the ones who are coming up with emotional arguements namecalling and playground tactics and it is you who are ignoring facts, even those that you manage to write yourself but not see.:yep:
AVGWarhawk
05-14-12, 03:03 PM
Tribesman, inheritance is not automatic when marriage is concerned. Items and wealth need to be Willed. If not Willed in a legal binding manner the state(place he lives) where the individual dies can contest ownership of what is left behind. Marital contract does not assure inheritance. It is never tax free. However, any individual can Will wealth and belongings to people or animals. In divorce marital property is 50/50.
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 03:13 PM
"Equal" except for the parts about automatic inheritance, tax-free inheritance and medical incapacitation.
Also I've been looking over some of the discussions elsewhere, and there is some indication that "civil unions" are not allowed in North Carolina. Can you provide clarification on this?
I sure can, Steve - and thank you for being willing to discuss instead of assume.
First, your correct -Civil Unions are no longer an option for homosexuals. It was offered at one time - and they refused it - instead demanding the ability to call it marriage. Due to this being a long running, vocal debate in the state, and the history noted above - this issue came to a head on May 8th. As I stated in an earlier post - the gay lobby chose to push way to hard - and the reaction (whether proper or not) was one much less lenient than it could have been.
Now - on the issue of inheritance. There is no such thing as automatic inheritance in the State of NC. If you die without a will, the estate goes through probate. While I am sure you know, for the sake of others - this means that a judge sits and decides who gets what - and that includes the state as being a "beneficiary" of the estate as well. Yes - if your estate goes to probate, its likely the state may take some of it.
It doesn't matter if your married, or have children. A court will decide how your estate is "divided" - and who can lay claim to it or a portion thereof. So - without a will - whomever you want to leave stuff to is screwed and in for a fight - regardlss of if they are your wife, husband, child(ren), gay lovers or life partners. Thus - to protect inheritance rights - EVERYONE in NC needs a will - regardless of their choice in sexuality.
Now - let me be clear - if you mean "automatic inheritance" in the sense of shared "marital" assets - this DOES exist. One half of the assets of a marriage remain with the surviving spouse. The same can be accomplished via insuring the partner has equal share on the appropriate titles of ownership - aka , home - auto - etc. In essence, the estate is "shared" via law before the death of one partner. Essentially, it functions the same as any business partnership.
Tax free inheritance. NC repealed its estate tax rules in 2009. Prior to that, there were rare situations where an estate would be taxed. After Dec 31, 2009 - you may pass your estate on to a non-spouse without any estate tax. So - this is a total non-issue.
Medical incapacitation. Again - I have dealt with this but I will say it again. You have to go through a legal process involving paperwork to get married. You have to go through a legal process to provide a mendical power of attorney. In fact, the power of attorney is LESS cumbersome, less time consuming and less expensive than a marriage license. Getting a Medical power of attorney provides all the rights and authority as a spouse would have in the case of a medical issue.
This issue in fact is a perfect example of WHY May 8th happened - the gay lobby knows they can get these same rights by going through the same type of bureaucratic hassle that a hetero couple would go through to get married. But they won't. They want it their way and only their way - not just the rights, but the rights delivered on a silver platter, cooked to order, and service with a smile. Everyone else's views be damned.
Hopefully Steve, this has helped clear up some of the confusion. Every "right" a married couple can get - a homosexual couple can also get (with 2 exceptions - the right to call themselves married in the eyes of the State - and the "right" to owe more in taxes due to being married). Yes, they have to do paperwork to get it. But the married couple has to do paperwork to get married - and if marriage was extended to gay couples - they would have to do paperwork for that too.
If this is about rights being denied, would these paths exist? No.
If this is about changing society to meet the demands of a few - would these issues - provably solved already - even be mentioned? Yes.
This is why I say it is not about the rights - because they DO exist. Its about making society change.
************************************************
Now - in the interest of full disclosure - it hit me that this amendment did in fact do one thing that negatively affects the homosexual community. It does not allow local or state government to offer same sex (or unmarried differing sex) benefits to employees. It does NOT prohibit such benefits being extended by private companies, however.
Now, 2 things on this.
Is that discriminatory? No more than it is for an unmarried couple to be denied the same rights and access. I don't say that is right or wrong - its simply a fact.
Secondly, some local governments were offering such benefits (mainly the 3 liberal metro's of the state). Thus those benefits have ended.
The only argument that has any real weight at first glance in this is the health benefits available through an employer are not automatically available to a same sex couple. Yet that is limited only to government employees affected - and they work for the people and the people have chosen not to offer it. Any private business can offer it as they choose. So while the issue is there - on further review it is clear that it is not a true issue. The people "own" the state - and like any owned enterprise, the owners can decide if they will or will not offer such benefits.
Oh - and before someone tries to claim it - remember - gays as wel as straight folks have the RIGHT to decide who they work for - so its not like gays are being forced into government slavery where they are doomed to always be denied partner benefits....
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 03:17 PM
Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.
I made the claim that this was not about equal "rights", but about a forced acceptance upon society. If it were about rights, then the initial civil union equal to marriage offer would have been accepted originally. It was not.
Now, if people are about enjoying the "benefits" of marraige, and are offered those benefits in an "official" way - then they would have accepted them. Thus, logic dictates that the claim of "equal access to benefits of marriage" was in fact a red herring. So then we must ask - what was the real purpose?
Looking at the continual history of gay activism in the most recent years, one can see from a simple search - as I defined - how the religious convictions against gay marriage are in fact under attack by the gay activist community.
Now, I have provided a logical position. Debate and discussion consist of more than the tired old tactics of "Nu huh!' and "That's not right!" - it requires an opposing view - in this case yours - to be explained clearly and concisely, with verifiable facts to back up your position.
So far - pretty much the "pro gay marriage" side of this has done nothing but use playground tactics of "NUHUH!", namecalling and emotional heartstring pulls trying to compare this to the civil rights movement. I mean really - you can put the "tribesman's guide to ignoring facts to win a debate" away - it won't help you.
So here is your chance Bilge-rat - its your turn to represent the left at the grown up table. The right always says we can win in the arena of idea's - here is your shot to prove that wrong. You just gotta use facts to do it. Good luck!
I will respond soon, although I am a bit busy right now. However, your point on activism is wrong, since it is very easy to grant same sex marriage while still protecting religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will.
Again, this is not a right-left issue, many prominent Republicans back same-sex marriage. Please do not insult me by calling me a leftist.
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 03:19 PM
Its not a "specious argument". How is that the case - your making the claim, now back it up. You forget - the homosexual lobby was offered basically what you just posted - and refused it.
You keep making that claim. Show me exactly what was offered.
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 03:52 PM
You keep making that claim. Show me exactly what was offered.
I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.
Lets see if you can actually step up and prove YOUR case for once - instead of just trying to keep everyone you disagree with on the defensive.
Isn't it funny - you are so busy you can't answer my points - but you sure can post more to demand more "proof".....
Bilge_Rat
05-14-12, 03:58 PM
I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.
Lets see if you can actually step up and prove YOUR case for once - instead of just trying to keep everyone you disagree with on the defensive.
Isn't it funny - you are so busy you can't answer my points - but you sure can post more to demand more "proof".....
no, you are making a claim, but I cant find a shred of evidence that there was such an offer. As far as I can tell, you are making that up.
Tribesman
05-14-12, 05:17 PM
@AVG
Tribesman, inheritance is not automatic when marriage is concerned. Items and wealth need to be Willed. If not Willed in a legal binding manner the state(place he lives) where the individual dies can contest ownership of what is left behind. Marital contract does not assure inheritance. It is never tax free. However, any individual can Will wealth and belongings to people or animals. In divorce marital property is 50/50.
Run through the various provisions for the states covering people who die intestate
You can do the same when there is a will too.
Leave out all the ones which give it automatic.
Who tops the list with or without a will through probate every time?
How far down the list after spouse offspring parents siblings cousing aunts uncles nieces nephews .........for possible contested ownership does the state get a look in?
Even at the point that the state gets a look in they can only claim to act as custodian of the wealth as anyone with a legitimate claim to the estate can step up at any time.
Though of course for this subjecrt the only issue which matters is who comes top on all the lists.
@haplo
I think I have documented enough - you and the rest of the pro-gay marraige crowd have made a lot of claims and not backed up one of em. I have discussed and laid out facts - for folks that want to have a discussion - like Steve.
Your documentation has been pitiful, just about every claim you have made has been thoroughly trashed, when you are at that stage it is a joke that you can even think of refering to your contributions as
facts.
Unless of course you mean your "facts" have taken such a battering they really are laid out.... cold:rotfl2:
Your latest attempt...they can do lots of different paperwork but hey marriage needs paperwork too, really shines brightly like the back of the bus policy.
And then as a bonus you go and trash your own arguement by saying if they didn't have to do all the different paperwork they would have to get the married paperwork....which is what they are asking for.
Haplo you are making a better case for the gays to be allowed marriage than they are making themselves:yeah:
What exactly is the harm in letting gays get married, and to who is that harm done?
I'm not seeing where there is any meaningful harm, and if there is no harm, why restrict anyone's rights?
Tribesman
05-14-12, 07:18 PM
What exactly is the harm in letting gays get married, and to who is that harm done?
I'm not seeing where there is any meaningful harm, and if there is no harm, why restrict anyone's rights?
Razark, the more important angle is what reason is there for it to not be allowed.
All the reasons so far given have not held water very well, so it appears the only "reason" remaining is "some people don't like it".
When it comes to a matter of equality before the law then "some people don't like it" is no good as an arguement.
soopaman2
05-14-12, 08:00 PM
So people hate "queers" being married.
Why?
Cuz god says so? Prove it, with facts?
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6802/breakthecycle.jpg
Oh well, not the first time I get chastized or banned for such pics.:haha::har:
Oh well, not the first time I get chastized or banned for such pics.:haha::har:
Are you looking to be? :hmmm:
But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...
soopaman2
05-14-12, 08:38 PM
Are you looking to be? :hmmm:
But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...
I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)
I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)
But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?
soopaman2
05-14-12, 09:09 PM
But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?
I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity.
I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.
I believe in Jesus, but I do not subscribe to any "group"
Jesus would be disgusted by the intolerance displayed by modern Christians, and treat alot of them like he treated the merchants in the temple.
The prevelent feeling in America, is that Jesus hates gays, when it is a proven fact he preferred the company of sinners. (paradox eh?, do they sin or not?)
(OTOH)
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.
Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore
I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity. I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.
Whether you are or not or who in particular that you're aiming at is immaterial. It's going to be taken that way by anyone who doesn't share your disdain. Mocking and insults are poison to the exchange of ideas.
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.CaptainHaplo pretty much lays it out in the preceding pages. I've already got the forum nanny's on my ass for objecting to being called a bigot so I think i'll pass.
Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.
Sailor Steve
05-14-12, 09:34 PM
Are you looking to be? :hmmm:
But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...
"Get in trouble"? Who has "gotten in trouble" for posting anything within the forum rules? Examples, please.
In your very first post in this thread you said
I see this push for same sex marriages as nothing more than yet another attempt to stick it to religion.
Did you "get in trouble" for that? Did you get anything more than disagreement? Can you cite examples of how that works? You've accused several people of attacking you directly, including me. Can you give an example of a direct attack? I agree that calling everyone who is against same-sex marriage a "bigot" is painting with a very broad brush, but it strikes me as more an opinion than an attack, pretty much the same as calling everyone who supports it "anti-religious".
CaptainHaplo
05-14-12, 09:47 PM
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.
I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.
There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.
You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.
Takeda Shingen
05-14-12, 09:57 PM
I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.
The Management
nikimcbee
05-14-12, 11:24 PM
So when he said his wife is a bitch......
:haha:
Tribesman
05-15-12, 01:53 AM
The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?
Any christian that knows their text wouldn't have much of a problem with his comment, "christians" might though.
Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.
Can anyone top that for a display of false victim mentality?
It really is a doozy of magnificent proportions.
Jimbuna
05-15-12, 05:38 AM
I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.
The Management
That is my understanding also....and having just checked the moderators section I can also confirm there is no reference to this thread to be found there.
CaptainHaplo
05-15-12, 06:11 AM
I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.
The Management
While that may be the case - there I would say that there should have been action some time ago.
[REDACTED] you [REDACTED] stupid bigoted [DATA EXPUNGED]
Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...
I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.
That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.
If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.
Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times - accused of marrying their cousin and told to "grow up". Not to mention, stupid and [redacted].... which in and of itself violates the rules here. Statements looking forward to the death of people probably are not within the guidelines either....
I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling.....
But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.
I haven't brought it up until now - but the above quotes were only in the first 4 pages - and there are more. Discussions are hard enough as it is in this medium - allowing blanket statements that say anyone who is anti-gay marraige is somehow a stupid bigot who marries their cousin..... well lets just say that those kinds of allowed comments don't make discourse any easier.
I haven't brought it up until now - but the above quotes were only in the first 4 pages - and there are more. Discussions are hard enough as it is in this medium - allowing blanket statements that say anyone who is anti-gay marraige is somehow a stupid bigot who marries their cousin..... well lets just say that those kinds of allowed comments don't make discourse any easier.
You're wasting your time Hap, they see only what they want to see.
This country most of you live in is what it is, an area where every scientific/social/etc. innovation can be considered an improvement and essential advance for the betterment of humanity (lol), and so I'm sure being part of the homosexual/transsexual/bisexual/hermaphrodite/whatever community will be considered THE cutting edge of fashion worldwide the day when there will be this kind of people living in the White House for some years. It's trendy to be dark-skinned these days, after all.
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/915804haha.jpg
Bilge_Rat
05-15-12, 08:05 AM
The case for same-sex marriage is based on civil liberties.
America was founded by men and women who wanted to escape from the oppressive tyrannies of Europe. America was founded on the principle that a man (or woman) should be free to live his life as he wishes, within reasonable limits.
The 1789 U.S. Bill of Rights codifies the principle that individual liberty must be protected as much as possible.
Over the years, the notion of what is an accepted right has evolved. Blacks were not considered to be human beings in 1789 and it was not until the 1960s that they achieved full legal equality. Women faced the same struggle.
Gays are the latest group to demand full equality. They want the right to get married. The Surpreme Court in Loring v. Virginia stated that the right to get married is a basic civil right.
Once you recognize that: 1) each individual is equal before the law; and 2) you can not discriminate against an individual based on his/her race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, then there is no rational argument to justify why black, mixed race and heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, but homosexual couples may not.
Team Haplo, you are up. :arrgh!:
Bilge_Rat
05-15-12, 08:11 AM
Here is a news item which shows that this issue is no longer left-right. In Massachusetts, the Republicans are backing an openly gay, pro same-sex marriage candidate because he has the best chance to win:
The avid support from the National Republican Congressional Committee doesn’t represent a breakthrough for the party on gay rights, but it does reveal that there are certainly shades of gray within the GOP on the issue. At one point, it would have been unthinkable for an openly gay man to run on a GOP ticket, but now many Republicans in Washington privately profess that they’re not as adamant about things like gay marriage as the evangelicals in the party base.
But the national party isn’t exactly touting Tisei’s support for gay rights either — in fact, it goes unmentioned in all the endorsements from the GOP powers in Washington. Instead, they are focused on his experience as a 26-year veteran in the Massachusetts Legislature and his fiscal conservative bona fides. It also helps that Tisei was able to win 13 elections in a row as a state legislator in a part of the district he’s now running in — with the help of independent and Democratic voters. He’s also outraised his opponent in the first quarter of 2012: $354,467 to Tierney’s $325,125.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76291.html#ixzz1uwYwWvsJ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76291.html#ixzz1uwYwWvsJ)
AVGWarhawk
05-15-12, 08:30 AM
Are there any compelling reasons other than religious that gay marriage should not be accepted and instituted? What does the gay couple achieve, receive, obtain or gain as a result of winning the right to marriage? Is itmonetary gain, self-esteem or just a equal right? What, in their lives, is being suppressed by not having the right to marriage? Is this just the fight for the right?
Sailor Steve
05-15-12, 08:58 AM
While that may be the case - there I would say that there should have been action some time ago.
Based on what, exactly? Yes, people get to state opinions, even wrong ones. Most of the "bigot" comments were directed generally at all people who oppose gay marriage. While impolite and possibly not true, and unquestionably an insult, the term reflects an actual belief held by the user. And, as Mookie said "then don't act like one". I don't know what is in anyone's mind, so I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but to their minds the term is valid and true, so they use it.
Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times - accused of marrying their cousin and told to "grow up". Not to mention, stupid and [redacted].... which in and of itself violates the rules here. Statements looking forward to the death of people probably are not within the guidelines either....
I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling.....
But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.
Yes it did, but again it was used generically. I don't see you objecting when people on the right talk about "Stupid lefties", and that happens at least once a week here. It now becomes a case of goose and gander.
You're wasting your time Hap, they see only what they want to see.
"They" aren't the only ones. Again, goose and gander.
Bilge_Rat
05-15-12, 09:05 AM
Based on what, exactly? Yes, people get to state opinions, even wrong ones. Most of the "bigot" comments were directed generally at all people who oppose gay marriage. While impolite and possibly not true, and unquestionably an insult, the term reflects an actual belief held by the user. And, as Mookie said "then don't act like one". I don't know what is in anyone's mind, so I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but to their minds the term is valid and true, so they use it.
Besides, all this occurred last week when everyone was more worked up about the issue. I think this is just a distraction by Team Haplo to cover up the fact that they don't have a strong argument. :ping:
"They" aren't the only ones. Again, goose and gander.
But you only care when it's someone who holds a different opinion than you. In your little world the goose gets cooked and the gander is allowed a free pass to say whatever it wants.
Don't bother to reply. I think i'll take a break from you for awhile.
Tribesman
05-15-12, 09:30 AM
Are there any compelling reasons other than religious that gay marriage should not be accepted and instituted?
Be fair, the religious argement is no more compelling than all the other failed arguements.
So onto matters of measure.
Since the last big bigotted marriage amendment in NC took 96 years to get rid of how long will it take for this amendment to be struck off?
You're wasting your time Hap, they see only what they want to see.
An interesting statement, is this the same person who has been complaining about posts that only exist in his imagination?
But hey I will make it OK for you
Would you like the religious one sorted or the recent one man horde posting about tax?:hmmm:
Religion is on topic.
If I use time travel it can appear you were correct so here goes...
originally posted on this forum
no jesus on this forum, hide the jesus, jesus must be banned, jesus doesn't rulez, everyone put jesus on your ignore list so he can't be seen.
And back to the present...wow august you were right this forum is full of that :yep:
well "not quite" since that doesn't cover the "many" people.
So we need more time travellers to go back and make the same posts to show you are not just making it up.:salute:
AVGWarhawk
05-15-12, 09:36 AM
Be fair, the religious argement is no more compelling than all the other failed arguements.
I was not being fair or unfair. I was asking a question. I don't find the religious reason to be compelling as some. Perhaps I should have worded it differently. At any rate, what of my other questions? What will the gay community gain other than an equal right to marry? Does the issue go away?
Sailor Steve
05-15-12, 09:41 AM
But you only care when it's someone who holds a different opinion than you. In your little world the goose gets cooked and the gander is allowed a free pass to say whatever it wants.
Not true. I have a long record of going after people with whom I agree, mostly because they are so adamant in their "rightness" that they make the rest of us look bad. This has included Subman1, Frame57, and more recently Yubba and Bubblehead1980.
Don't bother to reply. I think i'll take a break from you for awhile.
You'll have to take a break from Subsim itself for that to work.
Bilge_Rat
05-15-12, 09:51 AM
Does the issue go away?
well, if I can talk about the canadian experience. Now that same-sex marriages are legal in Canada, the issue has completely disappeared. The medias no longer talk about it and it has had no impact at all otherwise.
As a straight man leading a boring middle class family life, I have no idea if there are any same-sex couples in my neighborhood or at my work. I have some acquaintances who are gay, some in long term relationships, but I have no idea if they are married, nor would I feel comfortable prying.
We know exactly one married same-sex couple and only because one woman is a high-school friend of my wife who came out of the closet a few years ago. They are both very discreet about it and if you did not know they were married, you would have no idea.
Tribesman
05-15-12, 09:54 AM
What will the gay community gain other than an equal right to marry? Does the issue go away?
Well if equal rights are granted thats what they gain and the issue should be sorted, after all they can't make a claim for equal rights if they have equal rights, that would be like women getting the vote and then asking for the vote.
A couple of people have tried the slippery slope argement earlier about what it would lead to but they were so ludicrous a single word was enough to shoot down every angle on that.
There may be a slight issue with religious institutions where they cross with the state on work, but as its nothing other than a legal issue on those levels it would be no different than where they cross on existing levels.
AVGWarhawk
05-15-12, 10:20 AM
Well if equal rights are granted thats what they gain and the issue should be sorted, after all they can't make a claim for equal rights if they have equal rights, that would be like women getting the vote and then asking for the vote.
A couple of people have tried the slippery slope argement earlier about what it would lead to but they were so ludicrous a single word was enough to shoot down every angle on that.
There may be a slight issue with religious institutions where they cross with the state on work, but as its nothing other than a legal issue on those levels it would be no different than where they cross on existing levels.
It is not leading to anything other than a right. Perhaps the perceived notion that if this right is granted others will demand rights for just about anything?
A right is defined by what body of people or piece of paper? Is it encompassed by the notion of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What really constitutes a right to anything? Is marriage a right or just a practice of Monogamy? Ultimately the argument is not about marriage. It is about a right. I don't believe the issue will go away because equal rights do not stop discrimination. Sure, the battle was won but the war continues.
NeonSamurai
05-15-12, 11:08 AM
FYI I have been monitoring this thread since the beginning. I haven't seen anything yet that crosses the line into warning/infraction level (though, that post by steve_the_slim does come close). Just the usual GT level of insults, faulty logic, unreferenced claims, etc found in every other hot topic here. The general policy of GT (and subsim in general) is to let people have their say, even if some of us find it really offensive, as long as it does not degenerate into nothing but insults, flaming, trolling, etc. or break the other rules.
As for the pro/anti accusations relating to subsim staff, anything posted is that individual's own personal opinion on the subject. I try my best to stay neutral as a moderator, and permit debate and criticism, even if it is of a person's cherished beliefs (If you do not want your beliefs to be criticized then don't post them), as I think absolutely nothing should be free from questioning (personally I question everything, even what I may hold to be true).
Honestly, though I think this forum is pretty evenly divided amongst the different camps. But we all like to think that our side is the underdog.
Takeda Shingen
05-15-12, 03:22 PM
While that may be the case - there I would say that there should have been action some time ago.
Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times - accused of marrying their cousin and told to "grow up". Not to mention, stupid and [redacted].... which in and of itself violates the rules here. Statements looking forward to the death of people probably are not within the guidelines either....
I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling.....
But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.
I haven't brought it up until now - but the above quotes were only in the first 4 pages - and there are more. Discussions are hard enough as it is in this medium - allowing blanket statements that say anyone who is anti-gay marraige is somehow a stupid bigot who marries their cousin..... well lets just say that those kinds of allowed comments don't make discourse any easier.
None of that is any less offensive that the reciprocal slurs made against those on the left in numerous threads on this very forum. No action is taken against those individuals either. People only tend to get worked up when it is their 'side' that is on the business end of those type of remarks. To that effect, it is not the business of the moderator to police one's politics. Members are encouraged to ignore those who they feel either take cheap shots or argue dishonestly.
This forum sometimes resembles a kindergarten.
'Ow, he hit me!'
'But he was touching me!'
'He stole my crayon!'
'Nuh uh, it was MINE!'
Pretty much sums up the last few pages of 'discussion'. Honestly, it is probably time for some of our more respectable members to walk away from this one. Besides, if it started with insults, why in the hell did you guys let it get to be 16 pages long? Let the refuse sink rather than keeping it bumped to the top.
Bilge_Rat
05-15-12, 03:26 PM
The thread is cooling off, but I saw an interesting tidbit.
The pollster for President Bush's 04 campaign put out a memo for GOP insiders advising them that with rapidly changing attitudes towards Gay rights that they will have to recalibrate their message:
Memorandum
From: Jan R. van Lohuizen
Date: 05/11/12
Re: Same Sex Marriage
Background: in view of this week's news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
Protections against bullying and harassment
Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Right to visit partners in hospitals
Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.
Other thoughts / Q&A:
Follow up to questions about affirmative action: This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone regardless of sexual orientation is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.
Why public attitudes might be changing: As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.
Conservative fundamentals:As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/bush-pollster-change-in-attitudes-on-gay-marriage-123235.html
This may partially explain why the GOP has been so muted in its response to President Obama's announcement. It makes more sense to keep hammering away on the economy rather than get sidetracked and wind up on the wrong side of such a potentially explosive issue.
Betonov
05-15-12, 04:00 PM
So all the gay agendas, them trying to kill us straights off by releasing marriage related diseases and completely destroy our cultural heritage trough tasteless dressing and promiscuity. How horrible.
But I have a feeling that there's something more important than medling in lives of homosexuals....
.
.
.
Maybe, just maybe
.
.
.
IT'S THE ECONOMY
How about if our glorius idiots we are forced to call leaders start fixing the economy and stop fixing trivial, and most of all private busineses like marriage.
And fer crying out loud, this thread has 16 pages and GDP growth is still a crying mess. Too bad
Since 1989, Denmark have allowed two person of same sex to get, what we call
civil partnership. They can only get "married" at the local City Hall.
But for them it seems that this isn't enough, they are fighting for the rights to get married in churches
And the right to adobt.
I'm quite alone on my standpoint
I Say yes to civil partnership at the local City hall
I Say no to married in church
I say no to adopt.
Maybe I'm an old in my thoughts, but a child naturally born or adobt shall have a real dad and a real mother, not two fathers, were the one of them play the role of being the childs mom.
Markus
Tribesman
05-15-12, 06:03 PM
But for them it seems that this isn't enough, they are fighting for the rights to get married in churches
And the right to adobt.
I'm quite alone on my standpoint
I can see why you are alone in your standpoint, you say they are fighting to get a right, that right was granted a couple of years ago.
So you are objecting to them possibly getting something in the future on adoption that they already get.
As for the right to get married in church the main complication comes there because you don't have seperation of church and state.
It also blurs from the fact that most of the senior clergy in the state church approve of church blessings of all civil ceremonies.
Platapus
05-15-12, 06:25 PM
I was talking with The Frau on this issue. She tells me that in Germany, everyone who wants to get married first goes through a secular civil ceremony that established the legal state of marriage. After that, if the couple wishes, they can go through a church ceremony to establish the religious state of marriage. Whether they can get a religious ceremony is up to the specific church.
If that's the way they do it in Germany, that seems like the perfect solution as it clearly separates the legal and religious states of marriage. That is the problem in the US. For so many years, in the context of marriage, the division between the legal and religious states of marriage has been intertwined; when they should be separated.
The government should not control religious marriages, and churches should not control secular legal marriages.
As for gay marriage; no one has ever been able to explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow denigrate heterosexual marriage.
Perhaps we should ask Kim Kardashian or Britney Spears about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? :D
That's almost the same here in Denmark
When I mention the church, I was talking about a real marriage
That's is what they want.
Our danish polticians, are working on some law, so that two male of female can get a real marriage in the local church
However I do not know if this legislative has a majority or not among the politician.
Markus
u crank
05-15-12, 08:03 PM
As a relative new comer to this forum I'm somewhat disappointed at the way some of this discussion has gone. There have been good points raised on both sides but also some pretty immature stuff as well. The kindergarten analogy was a good one.
If you want some one to listen to and respect your viewpoint you should afford them the same kindness.
It has been some interesting reading so far and I've learned a few things.
In review, is there a single reason to say that legalization of same-sex marriage is a bad idea, religious arguments aside? The only one I could conceive someone making a proper go at is raising of children, which is really an adjoining issue. Of course if someone wants to say having 2 daddies or two mommies is bad then should we create legislation to prevent a single mother or father from getting their best friend of a same sex to participate closely in the upbringing (you know, the informal uncle or aunt)? Should the state begin a mandated obligatory matchmaking department to force all single parents to marry immediately so as to prevent the child from being deprived from the traditional view of a family (Mom, Dad, bitter arguments, infidelity, fighting about money, slowly dying inside as their identity is subsumed by the family)?
Marriage is a legal contract, something created long ago by many cultures to either affirm privately a loving relationship between two consenting parties or more cynically as a means to solidify patriarchal relationships as a means to guarantee the passing down of land rights and other such trappings of power much the same way those of great ambition sought to control and solidify claims to things like thrones or kingdoms.
Taking the religious angle is difficult against agnostic or atheistic thinkers since they're more prone to identify the dishonest nature of that claim to marriage. There are many subsequent topics relating ultimately to the religious argument which often rears its head in the form of "family values" and the idea that if kids aren't raised by the textbook-never-existed ideal couple then they'll somehow become perverted miscreants. In reply to the Family Values pitch I simply say why then are people so frequently apathetic to dealing with poverty and other social considerations that more directly affect the quality of the person who emerges from their broken up bringing?
Aversion to same sex marriage is a phobia brought on by long entrenched value systems that are still being kicked off our boots like so much dry **** long overdue for excision. The process of softening to the idea is effectively inevitable but every now and then some enterprising and desperate political entity picks it up and shakes it like some voodoo doll at its constituents to try and manufacture another wedge issue, a tactic that has long worked well in favor of the Republicans in the US. However it seems that the wedge-issue tactic is shifting in favor of the Dems as more and more of the traditional issues become popularly in favor of the liberalized mindset.
Basically its a step backwards in NC that will eventually be taken forward again. The world is changing and slowly the traditional values are being outed as outdated, small minded, and really a function of control through institutions like the church.
One thing that seems true of history is that values are as malleable of as the people who hold them. We're in a period where values seem as flexible as silly putty. Its good for gays and blacks, not so good for traditionalists. Its a pretty big shift compared to the inevitable changes people have had to come to terms with in other periods, but honestly its nothing new. Jokes about Greeks and their boy love must predate Jesus by a great measure. Another opportunity to crack out the old trite statement of "its all just going in cycles."
PS. My first 2 cents on the Subsim political index in many years. I seem to recall the moderators being heroic at letting it play out, and some of the members being equally heroic at testing the limits of patience. I don't know why I ever left this place. :hmmm:
soopaman2
05-15-12, 11:54 PM
I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.
There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.
You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.
:salute:
So we should cut wives off insurance and pension plans, just like they cut off gay life partners.As long as it is the same for everyone.
Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?
Pardon my liberal-ness. I know that is considered a scourge here.
EDIT: (No don't pardon it, I am proud of my open mindedness. I am ashamed of other Americans lack of it)
Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?
Its impossible to deny the higher rate of AIDS in the homosexual community. With that said shouldn't affirming their right to marry reduce this seeing as how the quickest road to abstinence is marriage? :yeah:
However, in reply to Haplo's absurd statements about financial consideration relating to extending human rights, is that how we're going to quantify freedom now? Can we afford it? Sounds an awful lot like the arguments of those who seek to limit freedom for the sake of security "We can't afford it".
The whole idea of freedom is that its inalienable. Cost-benefit analyses applied to such a concept demeans it as a matter of course. Only moments of pure survival can justify that mode of thinking and our view of freedom presupposes it as a function of our values.
Cost-benefit analyses have been used in vulgar circumstances before. The classi Pinto case comes to mind. The one where a car manufacturer did some math and determined that it would be cheaper to pay out settlements for lawsuits relating to wrongful death than to make the $11 minor repair. Basically it was cheaper to let a bunch of people die. Thats what cost benefit analyses do to our so called rational progressive value system.
So what do we learn from this? That religious value systems might lead to bigotry, but freedom from a religious value system can make people apathetic and detached from humanity. So what do we prefer? Bigotry or Callousness? :hmmm:
Sailor Steve
05-16-12, 05:37 AM
As a relative new comer to this forum I'm somewhat disappointed at the way some of this discussion has gone. There have been good points raised on both sides but also some pretty immature stuff as well. The kindergarten analogy was a good one.
I have to point out that as a relative newcomer you, as they say, ain't seen nothin' yet. In the great scheme of General Topics this has actually been fairly tame.
I didn't address your other points because I agree with them and didn't think they needed comment. :sunny:
Tribesman
05-16-12, 06:15 AM
I didn't address your other points because I agree with them and didn't think they needed comment.
You only say that when you agree with people, that's taking sides that is.
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 08:18 AM
:salute:
So we should cut wives off insurance and pension plans, just like they cut off gay life partners.As long as it is the same for everyone.
Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?
Pardon my liberal-ness. I know that is considered a scourge here.
EDIT: (No don't pardon it, I am proud of my open mindedness. I am ashamed of other Americans lack of it)
The closeminded the scourge of America! :shifty: GRIDS? Never heard of it. I was in my teens in the 80's. I remember it as AIDS. Is GRIDS something that was created in your neck of the woods? Just who is 'they'? I also recall a preponderance of AIDS in the gay community as reported and growing more so in the heterosexual community. In the 80's there was very little known concerning AIDS.
nikimcbee
05-16-12, 08:29 AM
So all the gay agendas, them trying to kill us straights off by releasing marriage related diseases and completely destroy our cultural heritage trough tasteless dressing and promiscuity. How horrible.
But I have a feeling that there's something more important than medling in lives of homosexuals....
.
.
.
Maybe, just maybe
.
.
.
IT'S THE ECONOMY
How about if our glorius idiots we are forced to call leaders start fixing the economy and stop fixing trivial, and most of all private busineses like marriage.
And fer crying out loud, this thread has 16 pages and GDP growth is still a crying mess. Too bad
Post of the year.:salute:
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 08:44 AM
The gay marriage issue/discussion in the news is a well placed diversion sir. :03:
Tribesman
05-16-12, 08:54 AM
The closeminded the scourge of America! :shifty: GRIDS? Never heard of it. I was in my teens in the 80's. I remember it as AIDS. Is GRIDS something that was created in your neck of the woods? Just who is 'they'? I also recall a preponderance of AIDS in the gay community as reported and growing more so in the heterosexual community. In the 80's there was very little known concerning AIDS.
Aids replaced grids as a term in the US in about 82 I think.
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 09:16 AM
Aids replaced grids as a term in the US in about 82 I think.
Can not say I have heard AIDS referred to as GRIDS. In 82 the scientific community did not have a name at all for AIDS if I remember correctly. It was possibly proposed to be labeled as GRIDS not as Soopman portends the acronym originated or even adopted. Darn open minded people.
mookiemookie
05-16-12, 10:26 AM
Can not say I have heard AIDS referred to as GRIDS. In 82 the scientific community did not have a name at all for AIDS if I remember correctly. It was possibly proposed to be labeled as GRIDS not as Soopman portends the acronym originated or even adopted. Darn open minded people.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-health-officials.html?scp=1&sq=New%20homosexual%20disorder%20worries%20officia ls&st=cse
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 10:40 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-health-officials.html?scp=1&sq=New%20homosexual%20disorder%20worries%20officia ls&st=cse
What is your point Mookie? The coined term GRID was hardly visable on the map. Specifically from the closed minded(soopaman) scientists.
mookiemookie
05-16-12, 10:48 AM
What is your point Mookie? The coined term GRID was hardly visable on the map. Specifically from the closed minded(soopaman) scientists.
It was prevalent enough for it to be included in a 1982 article in the New York Times.
Seriously, what is with people around here completely refusing to admit they were wrong about something, no matter how damning the evidence to the contrary is provided? Especially over something so trivial. "I've never heard of it referred to as GRID, it was never called that" *is then provided 1982 article from a major U.S. newspaper referring to researchers calling it GRID* "Yeah, what's your point?"
Sheeshk.
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 11:00 AM
It was prevalent enough for it to be included in a 1982 article in the New York Times.
Seriously, what is with people around here completely refusing to admit they were wrong about something, no matter how damning the evidence to the contrary is provided? Especially over something so trivial. "I've never heard of it referred to as GRID, it was never called that" *is then provided 1982 article from a major U.S. newspaper referring to researchers calling it GRID* "Yeah, what's your point?"
Sheeshk.
The coined term was used less than a year by scientists. Not closed minded American as sooperman suggests.http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1884330&postcount=236 Read from my first post a few back. Again, the coined term was hardly visable on the map. In 82 I was 16 years old getting the news on AIDS as it happened. I never heard GRID used when talking of AIDS. SO what is your point? Google works on my computer as well as yours. There are other articles on the subject other than ONE that does what? Proves me wrong.
Sheeezzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x590.htm
The History of AIDS and ARC
The terms AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and ARC (AIDS-related complex) are historical artifacts, dating from the period between the recognition of an immunosuppression syndrome in gay men and the identification of HIV. In 1981 physicians in San Francisco and New York City began to see a pattern of unusual infections and cancers in young and otherwise healthy homosexual men. The first report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) focused on the men's infection with an atypical pneumonia and a cancer that had been previously seen only in elderly men of Mediterranean descent.[133]
Early research quickly pointed to common trends among cases, but these were obscured by many extraneous factors. The most suggestive of these was the use of drugs, such as inhalant stimulants, by some of the affected men. As these leads were being pursued, more cases of the syndrome were diagnosed. While epidemiologically inconsistent with the toxin hypothesis, they had the same distribution as hepatitis B. Many victims were positive for hepatitis B acquired in the bathhouses. The most crucial evidence for an infectious agent was the appearance of the disease in persons who had no visible link with the bathhouses.
While a toxic agent might have caused the disease among homosexuals and intravenous drug users, it did not explain the development of the disease among recipients of blood and blood products. Initially a mystery, these cases were soon traced back to the blood donors: homosexual men dead or dying of AIDS. The traditional test for an infectious agent was satisfied, and the parallel to hepatitis B was complete. When the antibody test for HIV became available, it was found in frozen blood samples that had been saved during the study of hepatitis B in the late 1970s.
There was some controversy over what to call this syndrome. Terms such as GRID (gay-related immunodeficiency disease) were considered but rejected in favor of the more neutral AIDS.134 The CDC promulgated a broad surveillance definition of what it called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome to facilitate the reporting and investigation of this new syndrome:
For the limited purposes of epidemiologic surveillance, CDC defines a case of AIDS as a reliable diagnosed disease that is at least moderately indicative of an underlying cellular immunodeficiency in a person who has had no known cause of underlying cellular immunodeficiency or any other underlying reduced resistance reported to be associated with that disease.[135]
As cases were reported and analyzed under the broad CDC definition, common patterns emerged. It was found that various combinations of unusual infections, indirect measures of immune system function, and a rare cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma, characterized most of the reported cases. This lead the CDC to revise its definition of AIDS to reflect the most common manifestations presented by the reported cases.[136] The revised criteria took the form of a list of the unusual infections and cancers, abnormal immune system tests, and other diagnostic findings that were significantly correlated with symptomatic HIV infection.
These revised criteria were sufficiently restrictive to create a class of persons who were infected with HIV and had symptomatic disease but did not meet the CDC criteria for AIDS. These persons were identified as having ARC. Persons with ARC were not reportable, and their numbers did not count toward the CDC's running total of AIDS cases. Persons with ARC also had difficulty in qualifying for categorical programs funded for treating AIDS patients. Moreover, persons who were positive for the then newly discovered HIV but had no symptomatic disease were not reported and followed to track the epidemiology of the disease.
In 1987 the CDC definition of AIDS was broadened to include neurological symptoms, wasting syndrome, and more common infections such as tuberculosis.[137] This redefined many persons with ARC as persons with AIDS. In our view, once it was possible to test for the presence of HIV and it was proved that persons with AIDS or ARC were infected with HIV, then the presence of HIV or its antibodies should have become the reportable condition. Most states, however, persist in requiring AIDS cases to be reported but do not require the reporting of HIV-infected persons. This masks the epidemiology of the disease in women who do not fit the male-oriented standards for HIV.[138] Given that the latency of AIDS may exceed ten years, counting AIDS cases rather than HIV infection makes it difficult to predict accurately the movement of the disease into new population groups. If the CDC again revises the definition of AIDS to include low T4-cell counts, it is estimated the number of persons with AIDS will double.
[133]Karposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among homosexual men--New York City and California. MMWR 1981 Jul 3; 30(25):305-8.
134Shilts R: And the Band Played On. 1987.
[135]Leads from MMWR, current trends; update: acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)--United States. JAMA 1983; 250:1016.
[136]CDC: Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 1987; 36(suppl 1S).
[137]CDC: Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR 1987; 36(suppl 1S).
[138]Chu SY; Buehler JW; Berkelman RL: Impact of the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic on mortality in women of reproductive age, United States. JAMA 1990; 264:225-29.
mookiemookie
05-16-12, 11:45 AM
I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.
http://i.imgur.com/Oogkw.gif
AVGWarhawk
05-16-12, 12:04 PM
I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.
Thanks for the innocent correction. :doh:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.