North Carolina bans gay marriage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

I really hope everyone knows that they actually did this (ban gay marriage) a while ago, and this is a superfluous amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a bond strictly between a man and a woman. The common theory is that this is a politcal move to get voters distracted. Meh.

TK421:

I'm mostly just tired of all of the complaining that has gone on recently by both sides of this thing.

I know, right?! Man, everyone's all like "treat me equally" and "I'm a human being and deserve the same rights as you" and its like, god, shut up already! I'm trying to watch TV!

I swear, they go on and on and on about common human dignity and oppression of an innocent minority and all I hear is yap yap yap. So tiresome. But I guess that's the burden of the straight white male cisgendered American. All day long, whining and complaining. If only they were born white, straight, male and American like me, I wouldn't have to hear it all the time!

You know when its legalized nationally its going to be hilarious.

"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."

Nope the "whole point" of the United States is that the government is not ruled by God's law, and that the Establishment Clause and debates by the founding fathers made clear a separation between church and state.

You cannot pass such blatantly religious laws without defying the constitution. There is no reason to ban same-sex marriage other than religion or homophobia, both forbidden by the constitution.

RyoScar:

Stu35:
*shrugs*

For some bizzarre reason, Gay marriage isn't legal in the UK yet either (it's called a 'civil partnership' and for all intents and purposes is the same thing, personally if I were gay, and in a civil partnership, I'd just tell everybody we were married, but hey ho).

At least legalising gay marriage is now in the works.

The worrying thing is how hard it is, Cameron is apparently having to kowtow to a lot of the rebel backbenchers in his own party and cannot risk losing them.

In fact part of america have had gay marriage before anywhere in the UK.

Broadly I find the hypocrisy of conservatives astounding they go on and on about the importance of marriage, monogamy, family and yet throw a tantrum at the bare suggestion that gay couples could have that. It reveals quite how hollow and empty their arguments are, they want people to settle down to be families not because they think it is good for them... but simply because they want them to be like them.

And they don't want families with two mums, or two dads. For no other reason than the knee jerk prejudice of "herp, can't be different from MY family!".

Rose and Thorn:
I would be ashamed and embarrassed to live in North Carolina if I lived there. So that pretty much sums up my thoughts.

Its really disappointing that in 2012 we have states that continue to subscribe to forms of segregation.

"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."

Nope the "whole point" of the United States is that the government is not ruled by God's law, and that the Establishment Clause and debates by the founding fathers made clear a separation between church and state.

Amen to that brotha

Rastien:

If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

That's a bit of a bastardizing paraphrase of the law. Actually, it's pretty standard common law marriage where you have to live with someone for x number of years and declare yourself married in public situations (like hotels). The kicker is that's not legal in NC. It's New Hampshire that has that specific law. There are also a dozen other states that have some sort of informal marriage, including South Carolina, but not North Carolina.

subtlefuge:

Rastien:

If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

That's a bit of a bastardizing paraphrase of the law. Actually, it's pretty standard common law marriage where you have to live with someone for x number of years and declare yourself married in public situations (like hotels). The kicker is that's not legal in NC. It's New Hampshire that has that specific law. There are also a dozen other states that have some sort of informal marriage, including South Carolina, but not North Carolina.

wow this threads still goin!

Yeah turns out i dun goofed and ripped the info from false website.

But yeah instrestin dude

Like any change, the whole idea will take a while. It was swept under the carpet for a long time and homosexuality as a whole has not been an acceptable idea for very long. We are heading in the right direction as a whole but there are bound to be some areas who will take a lot longer to get with the times. It's just the way things are.

Kendarik:

EeveeElectro:

Kendarik:

I don't get the message at all, what is the comparison supposed to be? First cousin marriage is a totally different issue than same sex marriage.

Are you suggesting that first cousin marriage is "worse" and yet accepted somehow? If so, that's only old predjudice with no basis in reality. There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Or were you suggesting the US is backward in general so both should be allowed and both still face unreasonable restrictions? If so, I agree with you.

The latter.
I have no problem with cousin marriage (not for me, but whatever makes you happy) but if you can marry your own family members you can sure as shit marry your own gender.

I'm still not seeing the comparision. What does whether or not you can marry a cousin have to do with whether or not you can marry your own gender? Unless somehow you assuming marrying your cousin is bad, what you are saying makes no sense. What you are suggesting is "well we let them do XXXX" that means they should also be allowed to do [unrelated]YYYY". Kind of like the people who erroneously suggest if we allowe gay people to marry then we'd have to allow people to marry their pets.

Well, I'm pretty sure the people who find gays marrying a bad thing find those things bad too, which is where the comparison was made... You know, all the stupid bigots.

Gavmando:

Kendarik:
There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Really? REALLY? Dude. You're really not helping the USA in their quest to look sane.

RazadaMk2:
The entire debate on if homosexuals should be able to get married or not is just pants on head retarded. In my eyes there are two options. Legalise gay marriage and give gay couples exactly the same rights, responsibilities, tax breaks and the like as strait couples get. Or get rid of all of the perks that married couples get.

Either way annihilates a social injustice. And hell, if you care about the "Institution of Marriage" from a religious perspective, hence thinking homosexuals should be UNABLE to get married, the latter option should appeal as it would prevent people from getting married due to reasons OTHER than a deep love and respect for their partner.

Well, that is my view on the matter.

I could not agree with this more. It is logical and right.

Come on, besides the obvious scientific repercussions... does it really matter? :D

DANEgerous:

Okay no just NO you have cleared up nothing whatsoever. the word marriage is just as important to the homosexuals that want it to be considered marriage as it is the religious should that do not want it to be called marriage. and yes i will call you a bigot of you think they are not married and apply that exclusively to terminology.

IT MEANS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID ENOUGH TO BE CALLED A MARRIAGE.

No getting around that, this implies you have a problem with gays as you put their "civil union" on a different level as your "marriage" that is bigotry full stop no question. I do not care if you approve of their marriage, fact remains they should be able to get married.

so yes unless I am missing something and you do not mean "Only heterosexuals can consider them selves married by law" you are a bigot. and you may not mean that as you stated "remove the word marriage" which may mean that by law no one is married and to be honest if marriage is going to be religious that in fact is a fantastic solution, and if that is so ignore the whole you being a bigot thing and i am in fact just ranting and insulting you for no reason. for that would take marriage as both a word and concept out of the legal realm, rename it civil union and place all people by law into that category and the validity of their marriage is truly solely your opinion and has no implication on the lives of others.

Marriage is a cultural ceremoney thought, its always been "under god" its why as an athiest im very tempted to get a civil union myself because i'd prefer to have no part of that religious hebejebe.

Strictly speaking this shouldn't be a legal matter, and the church institutions should be the ones deciding who they consider to be marriage worthy (as offensive as that may be its cultural tradition, its kinda of a whole package).

The only issue to me is in certain places the rights of civil unions don't match those of marriages closely enough. And no getting married isn't a right, its a choice by a religon based on what that sect chooses to believe. So while you shouldn't legally be denied, equally you shouldn't be given the right to force churches to marry you.

Two way street.

Jeffrey Crall:

Kendarik:

EeveeElectro:

The latter.
I have no problem with cousin marriage (not for me, but whatever makes you happy) but if you can marry your own family members you can sure as shit marry your own gender.

I'm still not seeing the comparision. What does whether or not you can marry a cousin have to do with whether or not you can marry your own gender? Unless somehow you assuming marrying your cousin is bad, what you are saying makes no sense. What you are suggesting is "well we let them do XXXX" that means they should also be allowed to do [unrelated]YYYY". Kind of like the people who erroneously suggest if we allowe gay people to marry then we'd have to allow people to marry their pets.

Well, I'm pretty sure the people who find gays marrying a bad thing find those things bad too, which is where the comparison was made... You know, all the stupid bigots.

Ah, but there you are clearly wrong. There are plenty of people on this forum alone who have supported gay marriage that think cousin marriage is wrong.

There are also plenty of people who support cousin marriage that don't support gay marriage (as is obvious by the laws)

I do agree both groups are ignorant though.

bahumat42:

DANEgerous:

Okay no just NO you have cleared up nothing whatsoever. the word marriage is just as important to the homosexuals that want it to be considered marriage as it is the religious should that do not want it to be called marriage. and yes i will call you a bigot of you think they are not married and apply that exclusively to terminology.

IT MEANS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID ENOUGH TO BE CALLED A MARRIAGE.

No getting around that, this implies you have a problem with gays as you put their "civil union" on a different level as your "marriage" that is bigotry full stop no question. I do not care if you approve of their marriage, fact remains they should be able to get married.

so yes unless I am missing something and you do not mean "Only heterosexuals can consider them selves married by law" you are a bigot. and you may not mean that as you stated "remove the word marriage" which may mean that by law no one is married and to be honest if marriage is going to be religious that in fact is a fantastic solution, and if that is so ignore the whole you being a bigot thing and i am in fact just ranting and insulting you for no reason. for that would take marriage as both a word and concept out of the legal realm, rename it civil union and place all people by law into that category and the validity of their marriage is truly solely your opinion and has no implication on the lives of others.

Marriage is a cultural ceremoney thought, its always been "under god"

Not in America, by law it has never been religious in the slightest in that people of any faith or those who are atheist are able to get married and always have been.

DANEgerous:

bahumat42:

DANEgerous:

Okay no just NO you have cleared up nothing whatsoever. the word marriage is just as important to the homosexuals that want it to be considered marriage as it is the religious should that do not want it to be called marriage. and yes i will call you a bigot of you think they are not married and apply that exclusively to terminology.

IT MEANS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID ENOUGH TO BE CALLED A MARRIAGE.

No getting around that, this implies you have a problem with gays as you put their "civil union" on a different level as your "marriage" that is bigotry full stop no question. I do not care if you approve of their marriage, fact remains they should be able to get married.

so yes unless I am missing something and you do not mean "Only heterosexuals can consider them selves married by law" you are a bigot. and you may not mean that as you stated "remove the word marriage" which may mean that by law no one is married and to be honest if marriage is going to be religious that in fact is a fantastic solution, and if that is so ignore the whole you being a bigot thing and i am in fact just ranting and insulting you for no reason. for that would take marriage as both a word and concept out of the legal realm, rename it civil union and place all people by law into that category and the validity of their marriage is truly solely your opinion and has no implication on the lives of others.

Marriage is a cultural ceremoney thought, its always been "under god"

Not in America, by law it has never been religious in the slightest in that people of any faith or those who are atheist are able to get married and always have been.

The legal ramifications of marriage i wilfully accept homosexuals to take on, but the term comes from religious backgrounds and at the end of the day whether or not they do the practise should be down to how the religion works, no matter if it is offensive.

You have the right to be together and have the legal benefits, but the church equally has the right to who and who should not be married by them. In the same way that most businesses have the right to pick and choose their clients on any number of factors.

bahumat42:

DANEgerous:

bahumat42:

Marriage is a cultural ceremoney thought, its always been "under god"

Not in America, by law it has never been religious in the slightest in that people of any faith or those who are atheist are able to get married and always have been.

The legal ramifications of marriage i wilfully accept homosexuals to take on, but the term comes from religious backgrounds and at the end of the day whether or not they do the practise should be down to how the religion works, no matter if it is offensive.

You have the right to be together and have the legal benefits, but the church equally has the right to who and who should not be married by them. In the same way that most businesses have the right to pick and choose their clients on any number of factors.

Which is a right they already have and would still lot lose even if homosexuals could marry, kind of a moot point.

They are never forced to marry any individual or rather couple, this would remain the same.

RyoScar:
Well that's total bullshit. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to marry.

image

No no you don't seem to understand. If we let gays marry children might see them together. They'll get all confused and than we'll actually have to explain to them how human attraction works instead of filling their minds with ignorance and hate. You, know the way god intended.

Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!

Bruenin:

there were the 30th state to do this ... not 1 out of 50... 30 out of 50

Wasn't it the 31st?

Treblaine:

Nope the "whole point" of the United States is that the government is not ruled by God's law, and that the Establishment Clause and debates by the founding fathers made clear a separation between church and state.

You cannot pass such blatantly religious laws without defying the constitution. There is no reason to ban same-sex marriage other than religion or homophobia, both forbidden by the constitution.

That's what I/'m said/saying! Thank you!

Another step for utterly pointless inequality.

Does any state, or city, or politician in the united states actually follow their fucking constitution? There was a bit there about seperation of church and state, did you miss that?

omicron1:

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause. And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.
To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny. It does not matter how right you think you are. Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours. We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that. The end. The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people. Any questions?

That's an argumentum ad populum, a complete and utter fallacy, and the reason we have representative democracies instead of direct ones. What you're saying would be true if all opinions were equally worthless and arbitrary (in which case we'd just be fighting over whose fantasy gets centre-stage), when in fact that's not the case.

Had the majority of the population voted for slavery, that would not validate slavery as a concept, it would just reveal the majority to be ignorant, wrong and in need of an education. They do not have informed opinions and there's nothing "relative" or "subjective" about the topic that needs to take into account different worldviews. Unless you're telling me no one can ever be wrong in anything, and they just "disagree."

Easton Dark:

Bruenin:

there were the 30th state to do this ... not 1 out of 50... 30 out of 50

Wasn't it the 31st?

Treblaine:

Nope the "whole point" of the United States is that the government is not ruled by God's law, and that the Establishment Clause and debates by the founding fathers made clear a separation between church and state.

You cannot pass such blatantly religious laws without defying the constitution. There is no reason to ban same-sex marriage other than religion or homophobia, both forbidden by the constitution.

That's what I/'m said/saying! Thank you!

I was sure the article said 30th... i'm probably wrong but eh, close enough :P I heard 30 before and I 'think' I read 30 in the article

Mortai Gravesend:

Fluoxetine:

Mortai Gravesend:

I doubt most people believe in an unfettered democracy. We don't even live in one. Now I'm sorry you hate the 14th amendment and all those other ones that give rights that we can't just easily overrule, but we try to limit what people can vote on.

And oppress others? Since when was stopping people from oppressing other people oppressive itself? That's laughable.

The mass majority accepted the process and voted. They went to the voting machines, wagered no complaints about their legitimacy, and unless there's some huge conspiracy at work, the majority voice was heard. That's not oppression, that's losing.

You seem confused. Voting does not mean oppression is impossible. If people voted that we needed to kill all the anti-gay people, is that now not oppression if they lost the vote and managed to win? The law itself is oppressive. I'm not sure if you're just clueless or what if that escaped you.

Can I chime in to help out, Mortai, by indicating that Hitler was voted into power in the 30s? I mean, he killed millions of people but I guess it's okay, because people voted for him.

omicron1:
And you're (probably; I don't know for certain) for criminalizing the teaching of creationism. Doesn't matter that it's not currently allowed anyway, simply because of policy; I can gain pity points by making you out to be the controlling villain trying to take away something fundamental.

The difference between the gay marriage debate and the creationism debate is that creationism is patently unprovable and therefore has no place in a science class. Gay marriage on the other is based on opinions.

A lot of these arguments seem to hinge on people's definitions of right and wrong without taking into account the difference between Right and Correct and Wrong and Incorrect.

Kendarik:

Jeffrey Crall:

Kendarik:

I'm still not seeing the comparision. What does whether or not you can marry a cousin have to do with whether or not you can marry your own gender? Unless somehow you assuming marrying your cousin is bad, what you are saying makes no sense. What you are suggesting is "well we let them do XXXX" that means they should also be allowed to do [unrelated]YYYY". Kind of like the people who erroneously suggest if we allowe gay people to marry then we'd have to allow people to marry their pets.

Well, I'm pretty sure the people who find gays marrying a bad thing find those things bad too, which is where the comparison was made... You know, all the stupid bigots.

Ah, but there you are clearly wrong. There are plenty of people on this forum alone who have supported gay marriage that think cousin marriage is wrong.

There are also plenty of people who support cousin marriage that don't support gay marriage (as is obvious by the laws)

I do agree both groups are ignorant though.

True, I know that not EVERYONE is the way I said, I'm just saying that the Escapist, as far as anywhere on the internet goes, has a much larger group of people tolerant to other peoples... eh... fetishes...? Except ponies. Ayup.

Samantha Burt:

Mortai Gravesend:

Fluoxetine:

The mass majority accepted the process and voted. They went to the voting machines, wagered no complaints about their legitimacy, and unless there's some huge conspiracy at work, the majority voice was heard. That's not oppression, that's losing.

You seem confused. Voting does not mean oppression is impossible. If people voted that we needed to kill all the anti-gay people, is that now not oppression if they lost the vote and managed to win? The law itself is oppressive. I'm not sure if you're just clueless or what if that escaped you.

Can I chime in to help out, Mortai, by indicating that Hitler was voted into power in the 30s? I mean, he killed millions of people but I guess it's okay, because people voted for him.

More examples are always welcome =D

Really, I don't get why some people see democracy as the goal, so much as the means to an end. What we want are fair laws that are good for everyone. Democracy is supposed to help us achieve that. But it can fail, which is why we have things like the Constitution and certain amendments, to try and make it harder to make mistakes.

Bruenin:

I was sure the article said 30th... i'm probably wrong but eh, close enough :P I heard 30 before and I 'think' I read 30 in the article

This'd be an instance where I'd be A-ok with being wrong. I swear I heard 31 other places/in posts here. It's at least 30. Which is over half. ... Disheartening.

and nothing of value was lost and not a single fuck was given

bahumat42:
Marriage is a cultural ceremoney thought, its always been "under god" its why as an athiest im very tempted to get a civil union myself because i'd prefer to have no part of that religious hebejebe.

Different for each country. If in the Netherlands a priest of any religion carries out their religious rites for marriage between two unmarried people, he commits a crime punishable by a fine up to € 5000. If he re-offends within five years, he gets that maximum amount plus two months prison sentence. The only people who can perform a marriage ceremony are the people appointed as marriage officials.

It's kind of a big stick to wave around to make sure everybody understands that marriage is not religious in any way or form, but merely the state recognizing a relationship between two people.

The religious rituals the churches call 'marriage' are basically meaningless and without any legal results.

jizzytissue:
and nothing of value was lost and not a single fuck was given

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The US has already had the socialists and the communists with McCartheism, and some are openly saying trade unions are teh evil. Niemöller forgot to put in homosexuals, but I'm sure you get where I'm going;

If you're apathic towards religious loonies like in North Carolina, sooner or later they're going to come for you because you've done something to sin against their doctrine.

image

Could someone find a bigger version of this chart? Second, If you or anyone you know uses religion as the reason they are against gay marriage, read this well-written article here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new

This one is even better than the Foamy rant.

jizzytissue:
and nothing of value was lost and not a single fuck was given

Well aren't you a bundle of joy!

TK421:

Mortai Gravesend:

TK421:
Seriously people. The only reason anyone has basis to complain is if they live in NC and voted against said legislation. It doesn't affect anyone outside of NC, and the majority of people who vote in NC wanted this law, so let them have it.

What is is so magical about the majority that they should be free from criticism for their bigotry?

The fact that they are the majority and that is how democracy works.

You clearly don't understand how human rights work. The whole point of human rights is to protect the rights of the minority from mob rule. If a state passed a law saying that all ethnic minorities should be killed that wouldn't make it right just because it was voted in democratically.

I don't get all the outrage. I voted against it and lost but that's how democracy works. If we didn't like it we wouldn't live in a democracy, we'd have changed to something else. I'm against gay marrige but I hated how it made civil unions illegal. Civil unions are the real way forward, just get rid of marrige and give everyone a civil union. Sadly I don't think the government knows about that compromise.

GistoftheFist:
image

Could someone find a bigger version of this chart? Second, If you or anyone you know uses religion as the reason they are against gay marriage, read this well-written article here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new

This one is even better than the Foamy rant.

Bigger version of the chart to be found here:

http://www.findfreegraphics.com/image-79/against.htm

lol why are people shocked at this? Dumbasses.

RyoScar:
Well that's total bullshit. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to marry.

Makes old people uncomfortable.

Old people are the folks voting the most, probably because of all the free time they have.

Xan Krieger:
I don't get all the outrage. I voted against it and lost but that's how democracy works. If we didn't like it we wouldn't live in a democracy, we'd have changed to something else. I'm against gay marrige but I hated how it made civil unions illegal. Civil unions are the real way forward, just get rid of marrige and give everyone a civil union. Sadly I don't think the government knows about that compromise.

Being against gay marriage is fascinating to me.

It's like if someone said "I'm against children smiling." Why? "Well, you know, I have my poorly supported reasoning."

Bmagada:
You know when its legalized nationally its going to be hilarious.

That's what happened with interracial marriage.

Basically the folks against gay marriage would have been against interracial marriage in the past. Perhaps further back they'd have been against people of different faiths marrying.

It's basically just bigots having to pick a new group to oppress because the old one is legally protected now.

Mortai Gravesend:
Snip

You know, your one of the most educational people I've found on this website. I enjoy finding your posts in topics just to see how you debate, its rather fascinating how you pull apart arguments so easily. Even when I disagree with you, I still love seeing what you say to things. Hope you stick around even with the amount of stupid that gets hurled at you :)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked