North Carolina Amendment One "1 Man, 1 Woman"

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

Naheal:

I don't know about you, but progression is better than an illusion of safety - and yes, it's only an illusion of safety.

The right to let gays marry isn't exactly slavery. I don't think that is worth a single person's life on either side of the Mason-Dixie Line.

PrinceOfShapeir:

TheDarkEricDraven:

JoJo:

That pretty sucky, I hope one day your Supreme Count liberalises enough to just declare it legal across all the states whether they want it or not. Over here it looks like we'll get gay marriage soon since all three main parties agree with the concept, they're just dithering right now over the technicalities :-P

The Federal government forcing states to do something they don't want? Uhhh, we fought a war over that. Only then, "gay marriage" was called "abolition". Believe me, as soon as we start forcing people to do things, the South starts singing this again:

I'm just glad I live in a Northern sta-oh, wait, Arkansas. Hm. Oh well, at least my soon to be new state anthem is catchy. "I caughts the rheumatism/a-camping in the snow/but I killed a chance of Yankees/and I'd like to kill some mo'".

The American Civil War wasn't about abolition, my friend.

.
They seceded because Lincoln was elected as President. He was an anti-slavery person and they believed he would had abolished slavery at the time. Which is why they seceded.

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:
No one's asking you to consider it marriage if you're that bothered, they just want to make it law that they aren't discriminated against. Quoting Reagan doesn't help your argument, he's just a dude, there are 300 million people in your country with their own opinions. And the quote is just wrong, they're asking for recognition of the same lifestyle as everyone else.

No Reagan is right, I know he is just a dude...but he is a very clever and wise dude.

I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

Reagan is right in your opinion.
"I have no problem with the same rules being applied to gay and straight people, except the rules on marriage." How does this make any sense?

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Naheal:

I don't know about you, but progression is better than an illusion of safety - and yes, it's only an illusion of safety.

The right to let gays marry isn't exactly slavery. I don't think that is worth a single person's life on either side of the Mason-Dixie Line.

No, it isn't, but the presence of such a ban encourages bigotry. Do we need to give people another reason to intimidate and demoralize the LGBT community? Do I need to pull up LGBT teen suicide rates?

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

No Reagan is right, I know he is just a dude...but he is a very clever and wise dude.

I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

Reagan is right in your opinion.
"I have no problem with the same rules being applied to gay and straight people, except the rules on marriage." How does this make any sense?

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Seekster:
I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

That's a contradiction. First you point towards equal rights, which include marriage, and that you have no problem with that, and then you say you got a problem with people pushing for equal rights.

Both can't be true at the same time. Either you oppose or endorse discrimination, and if you oppose it, there can't be discrimination in marriages either.


And if one endorses it, then why not ban Christians from marriage? Christian marriage has been proven to lead to domestic violence, rape, child abuse, prostitution and a whole lot other nasty things. The case to ban Christians from marriage is a lot stronger than the idea of banning homosexuals from marriage.

Naheal:

No, it isn't, but the presence of such a ban encourages bigotry. Do we need to give people another reason to intimidate and demoralize the LGBT community? Do I need to pull up LGBT teen suicide rates?

So to stop gay teens from committing suicide, we send them off to die ourselves? According to a quick Google search, nearly 1100000 people died in the last Civil War. That's such a big number, I don't even know how to say it! The hundred year's worth of weapon tech advancement would only make it worse.

tendaji:
-snip-

I hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court. In California, they ruled that Prop. 8 served no purpose but to discriminate against gays. It's time that ruling went national.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Naheal:

No, it isn't, but the presence of such a ban encourages bigotry. Do we need to give people another reason to intimidate and demoralize the LGBT community? Do I need to pull up LGBT teen suicide rates?

So to stop gay teens from committing suicide, we send them off to die ourselves? According to a quick Google search, nearly 1100000 people died in the last Civil War. That's such a big number, I don't even know how to say it! The hundred year's worth of weapon tech advancement would only make it worse.

.
Are we seriously having this argument? Lets please stop this. I beg of you.
Gay teens have higher suicide ratings because being gay is discouraged greatly. In some places you are confused and in others we must change you with the help of jesus and clean you of your illness. These people are ridiculed and have their lives turn into a living hell.
How did you go into civil war territory?

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

No Reagan is right, I know he is just a dude...but he is a very clever and wise dude.

I have absolutely no problem with apply the same rules that apply to heterosexuals to homosexuals. If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

Reagan is right in your opinion.
"I have no problem with the same rules being applied to gay and straight people, except the rules on marriage." How does this make any sense?

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

I propose we just refer to this union as a 'marriage' to avoid the confusion and having to duplicate the paperwork.

TheIronRuler:

Are we seriously having this argument? Lets please stop this. I beg of you.
Gay teens have higher suicide ratings because being gay is discouraged greatly. In some places you are confused and in others we must change you with the help of jesus and clean you of your illness. These people are ridiculed and have their lives turn into a living hell.
How did you go into civil war territory?

I never said they have it easy. It enrages me that their lives suck so much. Hell, I'm bisexual and genderqueer in a southern state, I know how it feels and have thought about suicide a lot myself. I just don't think that marriage alone is a reason to go to war.

Skeleon:
For those interested: In Germany, the only legally recognized marriages are civil marriages. Religious people get their religious marriage ceremony in addition to their actual marriage.

In Canada the government hands out marriage licenses and recognizes marriages, but that is legally seperate from any religious marriage ceremony. Often, the religious leader is ALSO certified to do legal marriages and when you go to sign the paperwork they give you a government set and a religious set.

Basically I think that the seperation should be kept as distinct as possible. Civil marriage recognition (or civil partnerships or whatever you call it) should be open to "any two or more people of legal age to marry and who have the ability to give informed consent".

Religious people can then apply whatever standards they want for the religious recognition of marriages. The two have no need to cross.

We also have "common law" status in Canada. After living with someone for 1 year you begin getting rights and obligations that look similar to marriage (spousal support, splitting of key assets, pension eligibility, etc). It doesn't quite match up through so I think they need to expand common law marriage status to put you in EXACTLY the same situation as if you were married, maybe after 1-3 years of marriage (term up to debate)

TheDarkEricDraven:

Naheal:

No, it isn't, but the presence of such a ban encourages bigotry. Do we need to give people another reason to intimidate and demoralize the LGBT community? Do I need to pull up LGBT teen suicide rates?

So to stop gay teens from committing suicide, we send them off to die ourselves? According to a quick Google search, nearly 1100000 people died in the last Civil War. That's such a big number, I don't even know how to say it! The hundred year's worth of weapon tech advancement would only make it worse.

1.1 Million? That's not that much, really.

Compare that to a suicide rate that isn't currently measurable but can be reflected through other means. Modern warfare does turn military actions to something that's potentially more brutal, but can be viewed through civilian deaths in a more recent war.

War is nasty, which is why it's unlikely to be anything beyond a last resort. If we were to look at a more likely scenario, we'd have to look at the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Naheal:

1.1 Million? That's not that much, really.

Compare that to a suicide rate that isn't currently measurable but can be reflected through other means. Modern warfare does turn military actions to something that's potentially more brutal, but can be viewed through civilian deaths in a more recent war.

Fine, let's fight. Maybe me and a friend can defect to the North.

Naheal:

War is nasty, which is why it's unlikely to be anything beyond a last resort. If we were to look at a more likely scenario, we'd have to look at the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Yeah, that went well for Doctor King. -sigh- You're right though. Maybe when I'm an old man gays will be as accepted as blacks are now and the new hot button will be mutants.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Naheal:

No, it isn't, but the presence of such a ban encourages bigotry. Do we need to give people another reason to intimidate and demoralize the LGBT community? Do I need to pull up LGBT teen suicide rates?

So to stop gay teens from committing suicide, we send them off to die ourselves? According to a quick Google search, nearly 1100000 people died in the last Civil War. That's such a big number, I don't even know how to say it! The hundred year's worth of weapon tech advancement would only make it worse.

Should women not have sought the right to vote because they couldn't say the discrimination against them was worse than that of the Civil War? Should Oliver L. Brown have not gone after the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas because "separate but equal" wasn't quite as bad as slavery?

Just because it isn't as "bad" as something that's happened in the past doesn't mean it's not bad. If I break a toe, it may not be as bad as if I had lost the entire foot, but I'm still going to see a doctor anyway. Improvements should always be made if found. There is absolutely no excuse for a law like this in this day and age, except to advance religious values into law, which is completely unconstitutional. And if you don't think even ONE teenager dying as a direct result of gay bullying is worth changing a few things, then you aren't any better than the ones who did the bullying.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Naheal:

1.1 Million? That's not that much, really.

Compare that to a suicide rate that isn't currently measurable but can be reflected through other means. Modern warfare does turn military actions to something that's potentially more brutal, but can be viewed through civilian deaths in a more recent war.

Fine, let's fight. Maybe me and a friend can defect to the North.

Naheal:

War is nasty, which is why it's unlikely to be anything beyond a last resort. If we were to look at a more likely scenario, we'd have to look at the African-American Civil Rights Movement.

Yeah, that went well for Doctor King. -sigh- You're right though. Maybe when I'm an old man gays will be as accepted as blacks are now and the new hot button will be mutants.

.
"Ye can't let those damn three-legs marry! Marriage is a sacred union between two humans, so says the great master Xenu!".
Hopefully we won't get there.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Yeah, that went well for Doctor King. -sigh- You're right though. Maybe when I'm an old man gays will be as accepted as blacks are now and the new hot button will be mutants.

Androids or cyborgs seem more likely than mutants, but yeah.

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:
Reagan is right in your opinion.
"I have no problem with the same rules being applied to gay and straight people, except the rules on marriage." How does this make any sense?

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

.
But you are SEGREGATING the two, just like how Blacks and Whites were ""equal"" but kept apart.

Lilani:
And if you don't think even ONE teenager dying as a direct result of gay bullying is worth changing a few things, then you aren't any better than the ones who did the bullying.

My point was that causing a whole lot of death and destruction wasn't any better, but I've changed my mind. Maybe I could become a war hero and get a statue in Memphis, next to one of over thirty sculptures of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the South's OTHER big Civil War hero.

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

If the law says one man one woman that applies to EVERYONE. Now I agree thats not fair to homosexual couples which I why I think that whatever you are going to call a union of two men or two women you still have to give that union all the same rights and benefits you give to a marriage. There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

Even then it would still be greater status by the mere fact that gay partnerships would not be considered marriage, which does matter to people.

Could this also be seen as protecting Western Civilization from polygamy? It does reference 1 man, 1 woman rather than "heterosexual union". Personally, I think gay marriage would have socially constructive elements to it as well as being compassionate and fair, while polygamy is incredibly destructive, and I don't think our society is properly educated on the matter.

Amnestic:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Yeah, that went well for Doctor King. -sigh- You're right though. Maybe when I'm an old man gays will be as accepted as blacks are now and the new hot button will be mutants.

Androids or cyborgs seem more likely than mutants, but yeah.

image

On a side note, I disagree with the pursuant for Civil Unions as opposed to Marriage. This is essentially a separate but equal sort-of-thing. I might even go as far as to call it a form of segregation. To push for equal rights for everybody, it has to be allowable as marriage.

Amnestic:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Yeah, that went well for Doctor King. -sigh- You're right though. Maybe when I'm an old man gays will be as accepted as blacks are now and the new hot button will be mutants.

Androids or cyborgs seem more likely than mutants, but yeah.

Oh, hush. Robots aren't human, and anyone who thinks they should be treated as such is a filthy liberal member of PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Automatons).

TheDarkEricDraven:

anyone who thinks they should be treated as such is a filthy liberal member of PETA(People for the Ethical Treatment of Automatons).

Of which I happen to be a member of! Fair rights for androids! We're here! We're gears! Get used to it!

TheIronRuler:

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:
But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

.
But you are SEGREGATING the two, just like how Blacks and Whites were ""equal"" but kept apart.

No I'm not. Its not like I am saying there is one union for homosexuals and another for heterosexuals. I am saying we have one union which is between members of the opposite sex and another similar union between members of the same sex.

DJjaffacake:

Seekster:

DJjaffacake:
But giving one greater status than the other is favouritism. A law applying to everyone doesn't mean the same rules apply, there's a difference.

Its not greater status though at least it wouldnt be if they simply gave all the same rights and benefits to civil unions.

Even then it would still be greater status by the mere fact that gay partnerships would not be considered marriage, which does matter to people.

If people want to say one is better than the other that is on them. However the Constitution demands equality before the law. Perception really isnt important here.

Seekster:
Good news, I hope this passes. Then we can see the hypocrisy of the people who cheered the likes of New York but would jeer North Carolina.

What's up Seeks, you're loving the false equivalencies these days, aren't you?

The two are not the same. Aside from the obvious difference of the New York case being a granting of rights while the North Carolina case is a denial of rights, the differences between the two go deeper.

As was said in the OP, North Carolina already bans gay marriage. The purpose of this law is not to define marriage, but to make it harder for the state to change its mind. That's quite problematic. A ban on gay marriage is reasonable only in so far as it is possible to rescind the ban when the population of the state comes to its senses. Enshrining the ban in the state constitution is little more than a middle finger extended toward the gay community combined with chest-thumping to the conservative base. It's legislation that solves no problem and meets no need. And I'm not familiar with NC state politics, but I suspect they do actually have meaningful problems to deal with.

sephyboy:

Of which I happen to be a member of! Fair rights for androids! We're here! We're gears! Get used to it!

Pffft. Gears. We're totally upgrading to artificial organic technology by 2030.

TheDarkEricDraven:

sephyboy:

Of which I happen to be a member of! Fair rights for androids! We're here! We're gears! Get used to it!

Pffft. Gears. We're totally upgrading to artificial organic technology by 2030.

I'll have a new slogan.

Naheal:

tendaji:
On a side note, do you think that marriage should be controlled by religion?

Marriage has long since stopped being a purely religious institution. Therefore, religious reasons to limit marriage are invalid.

Marriage didn't start as a religious function. Marriages easily pre-dates all existing religions, and very likely pre-dates any kind of organized religion. People have attached a religious aspect to it, but the fundamentals of marriage have been economic and social rather than religious.

Way to be assholes, North Carolina. Actually, that's a bit premature. I'll say that when they pass the amendment.

Seekster:

"My criticsm is that the gay rights movement isn't just asking for civil rights; It's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I."
-Ronald Reagan

My questions is why can't we condone it? We (as in society in general) have condoned a hell of a lot worse. Alcoholism is legal, as is smoking, and in a lot of places so is adultery (and in the vast majority of places where it is illegal it's rarely prosecuted). All three of those are things that I would consider a lot worse than a homosexual relationship, and yet we're totally fine with them. It is entirely possible that no living person can completely condone all the possible lifestyles that are being lived this very moment in their given country, and yet it is still allowed. In fact, I consider some inter-faith marriages to be more offensive than homosexual relationships because some faiths considers relationships of non-believers a sin/crime. I'm sorry, but it takes a lot more justification than what is essentially "I don't think it is right" to ban a lifestyle.

Remember that banning gay marriage isn't just banning an action or legal status. It's banning people.

Seekster:

-snip-
No I'm not. Its not like I am saying there is one union for homosexuals and another for heterosexuals. I am saying we have one union which is between members of the opposite sex and another similar union between members of the same sex.

Yes you are. See the parallels here. I beg of you, look at this again and see how segregating the two populations of couples bears similarities to the same attitude that allowed "NO COLORED" and "WHITE ONLY" signs to exist. Equal, yet segregated. This is madness.

Gorfias:
Could this also be seen as protecting Western Civilization from polygamy? It does reference 1 man, 1 woman rather than "heterosexual union". Personally, I think gay marriage would have socially constructive elements to it as well as being compassionate and fair, while polygamy is incredibly destructive, and I don't think our society is properly educated on the matter.

If that were the case, those advocating the amendment would be perfectly open to changing it to "2 persons, regardless of gender".

The reason that won't happen is because those pushing the bill forth are anti-gay, and as such are disgustingly bigoted individuals.

Seekster:
There is no reason to show favoritism to one kind of union over another.

Right, so let the gays have their marriage. And call it marriage too. Anything less is showing favoritism to one kind over another.

Seekster:
Shnip

Perception evidently is an issue, otherwise what's the point of the Supre Court? As for the US constitution demanding equality before the law, that's exactly the opposite of what you're advocating, which is where the law elevates one group of people above the other.

Yeah I also just wanted to point out that this Amendment One Bill will be voted on by the public on May 8th, so there might be some interest in looking into it when the polls open.

Also North Carolina doesn't really have many 'liberal activist' judges (according to some of the websites) so there isn't much of a chance of this being put down by the State Judicial system. Of course I'm not sure how the entire process works to be honest.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked