North Carolina Amendment One "1 Man, 1 Woman"

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

Seekster:
Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

Then that's even worse because now you're trying to "protect" an institution you have no horse in the race for.

No, I don't buy this "separate but equal" bullshit you keep trying to peddle. They're either equal or they're not. Pick one. And you still haven't answered my question why we should leave that to the states. The Supreme Court ruled that bans on interracial marriage had to go. Why can't we do that for bans on gay marriage?

The rights of the minority are infinitely more important than the comfort of the majority.

We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

No, this is not a states' rights issue for me. This is a human rights issue. Do not presume to tell me what my opinion is.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

So it's a distraction to say, "You don't want to let gays have even civil unions, and that's bullshit." Nice to know that's how you really feel.

Seekster:
To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

The ability to enter into a binding union with the person you love, thus granting you certain legal protections.

For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL.

In North Carolina, that is now exactly the case. But you don't want to talk about that. You want to talk about how the big bad liberals want to take away states' rights. Why are you so afraid to engage my real argument? Why do you keep trying to make it about North Carolina's right to be a bunch of ignorant, backwards rednecks instead of addressing the source of my moral outrage?

My grandfather...no, wait, my great-grandfather, married a black woman. He lived in Tennessee at the time, where this was a punishable offense, so he spent eight months in jail, moved to Illinois, and started his life back up there.

...what I'm getting at is, how are they planning on enforcing this ban? My great grandfather was thrown in jail. Are they going to start throwing married homosexuals, and the priests that married them, in jail? Are they going to start giving out fines? Are they going to patrol churches, start having random sweeps? "Oh, you're marrying gay couples, you're in trouble now!"

Having a law only makes sense if there's a way to enforce it. The state can't enforce marriage laws because there will still be churches that will marry people of the same sex, even in North Carolina. No, really. I'd bet money on it.

Don't get me wrong, that the law passed is still an example of the terrible homophobic bigotry we still have to overcome, but on another level entirely? It's just laughable.

Just a thought.

000Ronald:
My grandfather...no, wait, my great-grandfather, married a black woman. He lived in Tennessee at the time, where this was a punishable offense, so he spent eight months in jail, moved to Illinois, and started his life back up there.

...what I'm getting at is, how are they planning on enforcing this ban? My great grandfather was thrown in jail. Are they going to start throwing married homosexuals, and the priests that married them, in jail? Are they going to start giving out fines? Are they going to patrol churches, start having random sweeps? "Oh, you're marrying gay couples, you're in trouble now!"

Having a law only makes sense if there's a way to enforce it. The state can't enforce marriage laws because there will still be churches that will marry people of the same sex, even in North Carolina. No, really. I'd bet money on it.

Don't get me wrong, that the law passed is still an example of the terrible homophobic bigotry we still have to overcome, but on another level entirely? It's just laughable.

Just a thought.

I came to this thread because this news enraged me so much, and I wanted to see if anyone posted something that would make me feel better about this. This helped. Thanks :3

TheDarkEricDraven:

000Ronald:
My grandfather...no, wait, my great-grandfather, married a black woman. He lived in Tennessee at the time, where this was a punishable offense, so he spent eight months in jail, moved to Illinois, and started his life back up there.

...what I'm getting at is, how are they planning on enforcing this ban? My great grandfather was thrown in jail. Are they going to start throwing married homosexuals, and the priests that married them, in jail? Are they going to start giving out fines? Are they going to patrol churches, start having random sweeps? "Oh, you're marrying gay couples, you're in trouble now!"

Having a law only makes sense if there's a way to enforce it. The state can't enforce marriage laws because there will still be churches that will marry people of the same sex, even in North Carolina. No, really. I'd bet money on it.

Don't get me wrong, that the law passed is still an example of the terrible homophobic bigotry we still have to overcome, but on another level entirely? It's just laughable.

Just a thought.

I came to this thread because this news enraged me so much, and I wanted to see if anyone posted something that would make me feel better about this. This helped. Thanks :3

Seconded. There's no way they can enforce this so-called "law" without pissing some people off...

TheDarkEricDraven:

000Ronald:
My grandfather...no, wait, my great-grandfather, married a black woman. He lived in Tennessee at the time, where this was a punishable offense, so he spent eight months in jail, moved to Illinois, and started his life back up there.

...what I'm getting at is, how are they planning on enforcing this ban? My great grandfather was thrown in jail. Are they going to start throwing married homosexuals, and the priests that married them, in jail? Are they going to start giving out fines? Are they going to patrol churches, start having random sweeps? "Oh, you're marrying gay couples, you're in trouble now!"

Having a law only makes sense if there's a way to enforce it. The state can't enforce marriage laws because there will still be churches that will marry people of the same sex, even in North Carolina. No, really. I'd bet money on it.

Don't get me wrong, that the law passed is still an example of the terrible homophobic bigotry we still have to overcome, but on another level entirely? It's just laughable.

Just a thought.

I came to this thread because this news enraged me so much, and I wanted to see if anyone posted something that would make me feel better about this. This helped. Thanks :3

I'm glad to help. Don't get me wrong, it still makes me angry, but it's the principal of the thing.

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

In other news Obama is now official pro same-sex marriage. Glad he finally stopped trying to have it both ways.

I actually want you to address this point. By accepting the government can force churches that want to marry gay people to not marry them arent you effectively telling the government it can control the church and religion? Surely a better option would be to grant any church the power to do whatever the hell it pleases.

This is a legal debate about same-sex marriage, the church is not a relevant factor. Churches can decide who they will hold a wedding ceremony for irregardless of the law.

El Danny:

Seekster:

El Danny:

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

Your analogy is flawed, you're suggesting marriage and gay marriage are different.

They're the same thing! When two gays have dinner it isn't a 'gay dinner', when two gays watch a film, that doesn't make it a 'gay film'.

You still didn't answer my question:
"Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?"

In some respects they are different in others they are not different. They are different enough for us to need to use a different term to talk about them, even you have little choice but to use a different term if you want to be understood.

When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married. Of course the important thing is that the couple love, respect, and cherish one another. I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to ask

A) Why aren't the churches introducing bills to outlaw Adultery - one of the Ten Commandments? Isn't that more important than a few lines in Leviticus surrounded by shellfish, shaving, and clothes of more than one type of fiber?

B) Why is gays marrying bad but first cousins marrying okay?

Seekster:
When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married.

How is it different? I want a list. Now. Stop saying it's different and actually show me how it's different.

I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

So now the legal protections granted by a marriage license are unimportant?

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

Then that's even worse because now you're trying to "protect" an institution you have no horse in the race for.

No, I don't buy this "separate but equal" bullshit you keep trying to peddle. They're either equal or they're not. Pick one. And you still haven't answered my question why we should leave that to the states. The Supreme Court ruled that bans on interracial marriage had to go. Why can't we do that for bans on gay marriage?

The rights of the minority are infinitely more important than the comfort of the majority.

We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

No, this is not a states' rights issue for me. This is a human rights issue. Do not presume to tell me what my opinion is.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

So it's a distraction to say, "You don't want to let gays have even civil unions, and that's bullshit." Nice to know that's how you really feel.

Seekster:
To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

The ability to enter into a binding union with the person you love, thus granting you certain legal protections.

For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL.

In North Carolina, that is now exactly the case. But you don't want to talk about that. You want to talk about how the big bad liberals want to take away states' rights. Why are you so afraid to engage my real argument? Why do you keep trying to make it about North Carolina's right to be a bunch of ignorant, backwards rednecks instead of addressing the source of my moral outrage?

Wait so its worse that I am NOT acting out of self-interest?

Its different but equal, same concept as why you have restrooms segregated by sex.

I am afraid you are going to remain confused until you realize that interracial marriage was an entirely different situation, Ill explain that to another poster in this post so just sit tight.

The state is denying the legal protections ill grant you that but the state is simply incapable of legally stopping you from entering into a marriage, it just doesnt have to legally recognize it.

000Ronald:
My grandfather...no, wait, my great-grandfather, married a black woman. He lived in Tennessee at the time, where this was a punishable offense, so he spent eight months in jail, moved to Illinois, and started his life back up there.

...what I'm getting at is, how are they planning on enforcing this ban? My great grandfather was thrown in jail. Are they going to start throwing married homosexuals, and the priests that married them, in jail? Are they going to start giving out fines? Are they going to patrol churches, start having random sweeps? "Oh, you're marrying gay couples, you're in trouble now!"

Having a law only makes sense if there's a way to enforce it. The state can't enforce marriage laws because there will still be churches that will marry people of the same sex, even in North Carolina. No, really. I'd bet money on it.

Don't get me wrong, that the law passed is still an example of the terrible homophobic bigotry we still have to overcome, but on another level entirely? It's just laughable.

Just a thought.

I don't think you understand what this amendment does. It defines marriage legally for the state of North Carolina. It does not ban anything. Its not like when they tried to ban interracial marriage and if a black guy and a white girl were caught living together like a married couple the police would break into your house at night and arrest you (which is basically how the Loving case started). If you have two guys or two girls living together like a married couple in North Carolina, the law doesnt care. The state legally and Constitutionally can't stop people from forming marriage unions, they just dont have to recognize those unions if they dont fit the legal definition of marriage. That is all.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married.

How is it different? I want a list. Now. Stop saying it's different and actually show me how it's different.

I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

So now the legal protections granted by a marriage license are unimportant?

Do you accept that men and women are different but fundamentally equal?

No the legal protections and benefits associated with marriage are the key issue here. I see no reason why marriage should be the only such union that gets special treatment by a secular government.

Seekster:
Wait so its worse that I am NOT acting out of self-interest?

It comes across as hollow, a knee-jerk reaction. Like you're only here because some dickhead told you the conservative thing to do is, "protect the sanctity of marriage," as if that were actually a thing.

Its different but equal, same concept as why you have restrooms segregated by sex.

Really? Really??

The state is denying the legal protections ill grant you

Meaning it's discriminatory bullshit. Case closed.

Seekster:
Do you accept that men and women are different but fundamentally equal?

No the legal protections and benefits associated with marriage are the key issue here. I see no reason why marriage should be the only such union that gets special treatment by a secular government.

List of all the ways it's different. Now.

Stagnant:

Even with all the other critiques which others have rightfully offered to this ludicrous line of logic, I feel there's one more piece in there, one that so many people, ESPECIALLY Seekster, seem to miss.

Replace gay with black and see if you feel any qualms about what you posted.

Gay is an immutable quality that does not directly influence the validity or strength of a relationship in any tangible manner.
Black is an immutable quality that does not directly influence the validity or strength of a relationship in any tangible manner.

See, what Seekster is either missing, or accepting (and thus becoming even MORE of a dickbag) is that placing such qualifiers before marriage happened before. Marriage wasn't just between a man and a woman, it was between a white man and a white woman. Between a white man of the upper class and a white woman of the upper class. Between a christian white man of the upper class and a christian white woman of the upper class. Want me to keep going?

In your case, it's not quite as drastic, but I'm left wondering - would it be wrong for the government to tell your church, "No, you cannot refuse to marry black people"?

I don't know but I do know this. There's no language in the Bible that can possibly be used to justify discrimination based on skin color. There is language that dictates sexual behavior. Now it can be debated, and I do debate it. However, I recognize that those that say gay sex is wrong have their evidence just as I have mine. There is no evidence supporting racism.

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Wait so its worse that I am NOT acting out of self-interest?

It comes across as hollow, a knee-jerk reaction. Like you're only here because some dickhead told you the conservative thing to do is, "protect the sanctity of marriage," as if that were actually a thing.

Its different but equal, same concept as why you have restrooms segregated by sex.

Really? Really??

The state is denying the legal protections ill grant you

Meaning it's discriminatory bullshit. Case closed.

Seekster:
Do you accept that men and women are different but fundamentally equal?

No the legal protections and benefits associated with marriage are the key issue here. I see no reason why marriage should be the only such union that gets special treatment by a secular government.

List of all the ways it's different. Now.

It may not mean anything to you but it means a hell of a lot to me.

Yes Really.

But thats a separate issue.

If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Seekster:
If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

You do realise that's a cry often used by religious bigots who actually mean to say 'I hate women and civil rights but it's no longer politically opportune to admit that', right?

Looks even more so if a declared proponent of discrimination based on religious hatred uses that wording.

Seekster, the whole point of the matter is he's not talking about how they're different. He's talking about how there shouldn't be any difference between a man and a man marrying, and a man and a woman marrying. The whole concept of marriage to to promise to spend the rest of your life with someone who you love, and who loves you back. When you're throwing gender into it, you're basically saying, "Our love is different from yours because we look different." And you're making it even worse on yourself, because you don't want to get married. You're saying "I may not be married, but I know enough about marriage to know that you guys shouldn't be able to enjoy it." You ever get annoyed of those childless people who tell parents how they should raise their children, it's pretty much like that.

Marriage is a union between two people who love each other, and I want a damn good reason as to why there's a difference between my love, and the love between two people you don't even know.

Atlas13:
Seekster, the whole point of the matter is he's not talking about how they're different. He's talking about how there shouldn't be any difference between a man and a man marrying, and a man and a woman marrying. The whole concept of marriage to to promise to spend the rest of your life with someone who you love, and who loves you back. When you're throwing gender into it, you're basically saying, "Our love is different from yours because we look different." And you're making it even worse on yourself, because you don't want to get married. You're saying "I may not be married, but I know enough about marriage to know that you guys shouldn't be able to enjoy it." You ever get annoyed of those childless people who tell parents how they should raise their children, it's pretty much like that.

Marriage is a union between two people who love each other, and I want a damn good reason as to why there's a difference between my love, and the love between two people you don't even know.

There isnt a difference between the love so much as the participants in the union.

We have very different views on what marriage is and you are just as entitled to your own views as I am.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

You do realise that's a cry often used by religious bigots who actually mean to say 'I hate women and civil rights but it's no longer politically opportune to admit that', right?

Looks even more so if a declared proponent of discrimination based on religious hatred uses that wording.

I don't always agree with you, but seriously this. Whenever I see people say that it seems to be some kind of vague justification that's really a cop out. If it's based on *real* differences, then he should be able to note what they are. Sure there's differences, but they're usually not relevant when people say that kind of thing. Boobs aren't going to get in the way of anything here, nor are gynaecology exams or any such thing.

Seekster:

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

In other news Obama is now official pro same-sex marriage. Glad he finally stopped trying to have it both ways.

I actually want you to address this point. By accepting the government can force churches that want to marry gay people to not marry them arent you effectively telling the government it can control the church and religion? Surely a better option would be to grant any church the power to do whatever the hell it pleases.

This is a legal debate about same-sex marriage, the church is not a relevant factor. Churches can decide who they will hold a wedding ceremony for irregardless of the law.

El Danny:

Seekster:

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

Your analogy is flawed, you're suggesting marriage and gay marriage are different.

They're the same thing! When two gays have dinner it isn't a 'gay dinner', when two gays watch a film, that doesn't make it a 'gay film'.

You still didn't answer my question:
"Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?"

In some respects they are different in others they are not different. They are different enough for us to need to use a different term to talk about them, even you have little choice but to use a different term if you want to be understood.

When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married. Of course the important thing is that the couple love, respect, and cherish one another. I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

The only reason we use different terms is because one situation is legal and the other isn't, how are they different but that? How do those differences justify an outright ban?

"I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married." So why is the Right making such a big deal out of it? I can tell you why the left makes a big deal out of it, you can't offer something to some people but deny it to others because of circumstances outside of their control, because that is a dictionary definition of discrimination.

Seekster:
It may not mean anything to you but it means a hell of a lot to me.

Yes Really.

But thats a separate issue.

If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

If they are different but inherently equal on all accounts, then why is their love not universal?

El Danny:

Seekster:

BiscuitTrouser:

I actually want you to address this point. By accepting the government can force churches that want to marry gay people to not marry them arent you effectively telling the government it can control the church and religion? Surely a better option would be to grant any church the power to do whatever the hell it pleases.

This is a legal debate about same-sex marriage, the church is not a relevant factor. Churches can decide who they will hold a wedding ceremony for irregardless of the law.

El Danny:

Your analogy is flawed, you're suggesting marriage and gay marriage are different.

They're the same thing! When two gays have dinner it isn't a 'gay dinner', when two gays watch a film, that doesn't make it a 'gay film'.

You still didn't answer my question:
"Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?"

In some respects they are different in others they are not different. They are different enough for us to need to use a different term to talk about them, even you have little choice but to use a different term if you want to be understood.

When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married. Of course the important thing is that the couple love, respect, and cherish one another. I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

The only reason we use different terms is because one situation is legal and the other isn't, how are they different but that? How do those differences justify an outright ban?

"I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married." So why is the Right making such a big deal out of it? I can tell you why the left makes a big deal out of it, you can't offer something to some people but deny it to others because of circumstances outside of their control, because that is a dictionary definition of discrimination.

Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman.

Also its not a ban.

The fact that this goes all the way to outlaw Gay Civil Unions means they cannot play the "sanctity of marriage" card on this; its bigotry plain and simple.

Seekster:

El Danny:

Seekster:

This is a legal debate about same-sex marriage, the church is not a relevant factor. Churches can decide who they will hold a wedding ceremony for irregardless of the law.

In some respects they are different in others they are not different. They are different enough for us to need to use a different term to talk about them, even you have little choice but to use a different term if you want to be understood.

When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married. Of course the important thing is that the couple love, respect, and cherish one another. I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

The only reason we use different terms is because one situation is legal and the other isn't, how are they different but that? How do those differences justify an outright ban?

"I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married." So why is the Right making such a big deal out of it? I can tell you why the left makes a big deal out of it, you can't offer something to some people but deny it to others because of circumstances outside of their control, because that is a dictionary definition of discrimination.

Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman.

Also its not a ban.

You know, that doesn't really match any kind of real definition of logic. Obvious mistake. Namely that not all differences would be relevant to a relationship, ergo men and women being different does not logically lead to the conclusion that the relationship will be different in any appreciable manner. Just like the differences between a book and a brick will not mean that they will necessarily perform different if I'm just using them to prop up a table with a short leg.

Seekster:

El Danny:

Seekster:

This is a legal debate about same-sex marriage, the church is not a relevant factor. Churches can decide who they will hold a wedding ceremony for irregardless of the law.

In some respects they are different in others they are not different. They are different enough for us to need to use a different term to talk about them, even you have little choice but to use a different term if you want to be understood.

When a man and a man marry it is a type of union or marriage if you will, but its different from say a man and a woman getting married. Of course the important thing is that the couple love, respect, and cherish one another. I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married.

The only reason we use different terms is because one situation is legal and the other isn't, how are they different but that? How do those differences justify an outright ban?

"I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married." So why is the Right making such a big deal out of it? I can tell you why the left makes a big deal out of it, you can't offer something to some people but deny it to others because of circumstances outside of their control, because that is a dictionary definition of discrimination.

Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman.

Also its not a ban.

"After same-sex marriage ban passes with 61% of the vote, opponents cite massive turnout and say they will fight on" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-gay-rights-regroup?newsfeed=true

If a government (or in this case a state) doesn't allow something then yes it is ban. Technically murder is banned, so is rape, banning something doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Only in this case the ban applies to some and not to others.

"Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman."

How is that relevant? Why are you avoiding most of my questions?

viranimus:

Zaleznikel:

Not targeting to target you specifically, but I still have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't 1) appeal to a certain group's morality, 2) vague, unfalsifiable fears of society being destroyed, or 3) have any logic/basis in the first place.

Until I hear one, I will not consider "antigay views" as a valid point of view, keyword: valid.

You're welcome to offer me one, by the way. I always ask people, but I never get anything different.

Here is your answer. You may not agree with it. But it is not based on religion, It is not fear of moral destruction, and it is based in logic.

So I have given you what you asked for. Know that it is not my position. It is nothing more than providing you what you asked for. Your going to feel free to refute it, but it is what it is. You will do with this information what you will, just like you will in your own subjective perspective deem if these statements are "valid" or not. So you got what you wanted, now its up to you if you can see clear to accept those as valid reasons or continue dismissing them. I have no control over what you will view as valid or not.

Thank you.

I won't bother taking time to refute these, because you've made it clear that they aren't your views. I've heard most of these before, and I just think that they don't stand up.

I wish you had offered a better example of "cramming it down everyone's throats" though. The example is pretty absurd, because the negative effects of displacing "over half a million people," and some of our landmarks, is just not comparable to the effect that gay marriage will have. At the very least, I'm still looking for what that effect will be in the eyes of opponents.

Seekster:
Yes I too have my misgivings about the language of the amendment, I am anxious to see how its applied. If its just definition of marriage thats fine but the language is rather ambiguous.

I'm still very curious what is ambiguous about it. As is it both defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and stipulates that marriage is the only domestic union that shall be recognized by the state which does away with the prospect of civil unions and currently registered domestic partnerships. This isn't an opinion this is immutable fact.

If I recall correctly you're generally particular on the how rights and privileges are handled by the government. How do you feel about the domestic partnerships in North Carolina that have become invalidated by this amendment and the removal of rights and privileges afforded by them?

I also wouldn't tout this as glorious representation of the democratic process either considering the voter turnout to be a sparse 34.37% while polling from Public Policy Polling indicates that 60% of the public being uneducated and ignorant of the amendments effects. With an understanding of it's effects the polling indicated quite clearly that the bill would fail so by it's passing the will of the people is contorted into something they didn't want through what is quite frankly rampant stupidity. (Source) [Full report PDF]

So essentially a 1/3 of the population showed up to amend the state constitution against their own wishes. I would call that objectively bad politics aside.

Bohemian Waltz:

Seekster:
Yes I too have my misgivings about the language of the amendment, I am anxious to see how its applied. If its just definition of marriage thats fine but the language is rather ambiguous.

I'm still very curious what is ambiguous about it. As is it both defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and stipulates that marriage is the only domestic union that shall be recognized by the state which does away with the prospect of civil unions and currently registered domestic partnerships. This isn't an opinion this is immutable fact.

If I recall correctly you're generally particular on the how rights and privileges are handled by the government. How do you feel about the domestic partnerships in North Carolina that have become invalidated by this amendment and the removal of rights and privileges afforded by them?

I also wouldn't tout this as glorious representation of the democratic process either considering the voter turnout to be a sparse 34.37% while polling from Public Policy Polling indicates that 60% of the public being uneducated and ignorant of the amendments effects. With an understanding of it's effects the polling indicated quite clearly that the bill would fail so by it's passing the will of the people is contorted into something they didn't want through what is quite frankly rampant stupidity. (Source) [Full report PDF]

So essentially a 1/3 of the population showed up to amend the state constitution against their own wishes. I would call that objectively bad politics aside.

I've been trying to think of how to reply to this thread since the news, but I couldn't think of how to word it properly. You just said what I wanted to perfectly, thank you.

Seekster:
If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I'm not going to answer your question until you give me that list. You keep saying it's different, but you won't explain how. I want that list of reasons why it's different. Get to it.

Mortai Gravesend:

Seekster:

El Danny:

The only reason we use different terms is because one situation is legal and the other isn't, how are they different but that? How do those differences justify an outright ban?

"I would think that would mean so much more to a couple than whether or not that have a certificate from the government saying they are married." So why is the Right making such a big deal out of it? I can tell you why the left makes a big deal out of it, you can't offer something to some people but deny it to others because of circumstances outside of their control, because that is a dictionary definition of discrimination.

Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman.

Also its not a ban.

You know, that doesn't really match any kind of real definition of logic. Obvious mistake. Namely that not all differences would be relevant to a relationship, ergo men and women being different does not logically lead to the conclusion that the relationship will be different in any appreciable manner. Just like the differences between a book and a brick will not mean that they will necessarily perform different if I'm just using them to prop up a table with a short leg.

Logic is built upon if/then statements, its basic logic.

El Danny:

Seekster:

El Danny:

I'm still very curious what is ambiguous about it. As is it both defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and stipulates that marriage is the only domestic union that shall be recognized by the state which does away with the prospect of civil unions and currently registered domestic partnerships. This isn't an opinion this is immutable fact.

If I recall correctly you're generally particular on the how rights and privileges are handled by the government. How do you feel about the domestic partnerships in North Carolina that have become invalidated by this amendment and the removal of rights and privileges afforded by them?

I also wouldn't tout this as glorious representation of the democratic process either considering the voter turnout to be a sparse 34.37% while polling from Public Policy Polling indicates that 60% of the public being uneducated and ignorant of the amendments effects. With an understanding of it's effects the polling indicated quite clearly that the bill would fail so by it's passing the will of the people is contorted into something they didn't want through what is quite frankly rampant stupidity. (Source) [Full report PDF]

So essentially a 1/3 of the population showed up to amend the state constitution against their own wishes. I would call that objectively bad politics aside.

It is quite ambiguous, I mean its an amendment about marriage and I do not think North Carolina currently has civil unions. If it does pre-empt civil unions as well then yes it goes too far I think but for now the only thing we know it will deal with is marriage.

Also that poll is funny for reasons I very much doubt most people here would get.

[quote="DrVornoff" post="528.373694.14517325"][quote="Seekster" post="528.373694.14514978"]If you don't accept that men and women are different but equal there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I'm not going to answer your question until you give me that list. You keep saying it's different, but you won't explain how. I want that list of reasons why it's different. Get to it.

Well we seem to be at an impasse because I will not go to the trouble of providing a list unless I know that I am not wasting my time because you don't approach men and women the same way I do.

Seekster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Seekster:

Well if men and women are different then logically a relationship between two men or two women is going to be different than a relationship between a man and a woman.

Also its not a ban.

You know, that doesn't really match any kind of real definition of logic. Obvious mistake. Namely that not all differences would be relevant to a relationship, ergo men and women being different does not logically lead to the conclusion that the relationship will be different in any appreciable manner. Just like the differences between a book and a brick will not mean that they will necessarily perform different if I'm just using them to prop up a table with a short leg.

Logic is built upon if/then statements, its basic logic.

It's fallacious. I pointed out why. You don't get a pat on the head for claiming something logically follows when it doesn't just because you said 'if' and 'then'.

Bohemian Waltz:
So essentially a 1/3 of the population showed up to amend the state constitution against their own wishes. I would call that objectively bad politics aside.

I'm awestruck that you can even change a constitution with a less than 2/3s majority and such an enormously low voter turnout. I would've hoped that constitutions had better protections/higher requirements than that to be changed.

Seekster:

Logic is built upon if/then statements, its basic logic.

If it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

If it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and has all the same rights as a marriage, then it must be a marriage.

Might I simply say this.

I don't like what I've been hearing out of Carolina lately.

And nobody deserves to have their sexuality given legal privilege.

Mike Fang:

Stagnant:
In your case, it's not quite as drastic, but I'm left wondering - would it be wrong for the government to tell your church, "No, you cannot refuse to marry black people"?

I don't know but I do know this. There's no language in the Bible that can possibly be used to justify discrimination based on skin color. There is language that dictates sexual behavior. Now it can be debated, and I do debate it. However, I recognize that those that say gay sex is wrong have their evidence just as I have mine. There is no evidence supporting racism.

I know. I don't care, I'm using it for the sake of analogy. If your church found something objectionable with marrying black people, I still don't think there'd be a problem with forcing you guys to not be racist, even if your invisible friend told you to be. Ask the Mormons about that one.

Seekster:
Well we seem to be at an impasse because I will not go to the trouble of providing a list unless I know that I am not wasting my time because you don't approach men and women the same way I do.

Quit making excuses. You don't actually know what I think of men and women. You would actually have to talk to me to find out. And at this point you're practically admitting that you have no intention of having a real argument if you're just going to blow me off because of your speculation about my beliefs.

Now write the damn list.

evilneko:

Seekster:

Logic is built upon if/then statements, its basic logic.

If it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, and looks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

If it looks like a marriage, acts like a marriage, and has all the same rights as a marriage, then it must be a marriage.

So far the counterargument as near as I can tell is, "I choose to call it a goose instead of a duck because it's a male and it's trying to copulate with another male."

I don't think this will last long in place, or at least with the seemingly overwhelming majority it passed with. It was voted on by a barely 20% voter turnout that was highly oblivious to the amendment and it's effect. In reality 14% of NC supported this view and likely a sizeable amount of that 14% woefully ignorant to what they were voting for in the first place.

The citizens of NC didn't know what they were doing but they do now with the media storm.

And Seekster, you are a bigot. No different than the anti-civil rights and womens rights before you. You don't see it that way but we're trying to show you your morally horrible position. Separate is unequal. Only the bigoted see differently.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked