Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
I know, Kat!I tried to be civil!
I hope that came through. I really did want an honest debate from him.
You can be civil without waffling on your position.There's a reason it's called "harsh" reality. Being more civil would have been waffling on your points.
I considered re-wording this the second after I posted it. It is terribly misleading to what I meant to say. I agree you can be civil and not waffle, totally. Kat was being civil. What I meant to convey was that the guy was interpreting disagreement as being uncivil, and you would have to agree with him to be considered civil by him. My apologies for the wonky wording.0 -
At the very least, the government should recognize that the only basis for the argument is religious.
I find it insulting that I grew up taught about the separation of church and state and then come to find that it is a farce. As long as the majority have the power, they will use it to discriminate against the minority.
We need to stop teaching a separation of church and state if we can't live up to it.
that's a terrible idea. we need to try harder not give up0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
Nobody is making fun of you or your religion, as far as I can tell. It sounds like the above person was making fun of the idea that it's a fantastic plan to base our Federal laws on a literal interpretation of the bible and nothing else. Seriously, it is a little silly to think of a productive, modern country with laws that ban eating shellfish, working on Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday depending on the Old or New Testament), cotton-poly blends and divorce, but permits slavery and polygamy as totally OK. You know, because Bible.
I don't care if he what he makes fun of. But don't act as though he or anyone else who thinks it was a great post is somehow more virtuous than those of us on the other side of the argument. If you actually digested my post, you'd see that.
I'm sorry, obviously you do care what people make fun of. Here: "...but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south."
Also, I think I digested your meaning quite well, thanks.
Look, I'm not trying to debate your faith or your virtue, or anyone else's for that matter. (Some people like to argue correctness of opinion -- I'm not that person.) It's not up to me or anyone else to decide who is more "virtuous." But it is up to all of us to treat each other with dignity, kindness and respect, even if we don't agree with their opinions and beliefs, who or what they are, or how they live their lives. Murderers, rapists, etc. excepted.
*edited for grammar.0 -
No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you out on that. Unless you mean something other than personal freedoms, I think you're mistaken. Canada is extremely "freedom loving." So is the UK. Scandinavia. Finland. I believe they all have constitutions too. Can I get some non-Americans to back me up here?
I think if you head over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index you'll see that exactly 18 nations value freedom *more* than we do in the US... just sayin
Nice!
See that y'all?? We need to up our Freedom Lovin' over here. Let's get Free!
(That is totally not snarky by the way. I want U.S. to be the BEST.)0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.
Yeah hilarious. Let me see, it wrong to mock homosexuals, but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south.
You libs really do own the mantle of virtue. Please keep enlightening us simpletons
Nobody is making fun of you or your religion, as far as I can tell. It sounds like the above person was making fun of the idea that it's a fantastic plan to base our Federal laws on a literal interpretation of the bible and nothing else. Seriously, it is a little silly to think of a productive, modern country with laws that ban eating shellfish, working on Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday depending on the Old or New Testament), cotton-poly blends and divorce, but permits slavery and polygamy as totally OK. You know, because Bible.
I don't care if he what he makes fun of. But don't act as though he or anyone else who thinks it was a great post is somehow more virtuous than those of us on the other side of the argument. If you actually digested my post, you'd see that.
I'm sorry, obviously you do care what people make fun of. Here: "...but it's ok to make fun of someone's faith and the book they live by and the fact they live in the south."
Also, I think I digested your meaning quite well, thanks.
Look, I'm not trying to debate your faith or your virtue, or anyone else's for that matter. Some people like to argue correctness of opinion -- I'm not that person.) It's not up to me or anyone else to decide who is more "virtuous." But it is up to all of us to treat each other with dignity, kindness and respect, even if we don't agree with their opinions and beliefs, who or what they are, or how they live their lives. Murderers, rapists, etc. excepted.
what did I tell you about being rational0 -
My parents were my creator. Besides, you're quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Our laws aren't based on the Declaration of Independence. Our laws also aren't based on the Bible or the 10 Commandments. The only Commandments that are law are murder, theft, and perjury which are illegal in most every other country. It's perfectly legal to say G-damn and to work on Sunday and to have sex before marriage and disrespect your parents and envy your neighbor's new car and pray to a goat if you want. Yet those all go against the 10 Commandments.1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.
I didn't use the Bible at all in my post in the initial thread. In fact, I believe its a bit judgmental to say this was defeated because of Christians.
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.
As a side note, why are people referencing Lincoln in comments about the founding fathers? Lincon wasn't even born until 1809. Heck, his own parents weren't even born when we declared our freedom as a nation.0 -
We need to stop teaching a separation of church and state if we can't live up to it.
This is exactly why I refused to say the pledge of allegiance as a kid. I felt that until we actually *strive* for liberty and justice for all, it's just empty words.0 -
what did I tell you about being rational
I know. Sorry. I'll stop now.0 -
what did I tell you about being rational
I know. Sorry. I'll stop now.
:laugh:0 -
Ah, so you just decided to randomly argue one of points in a thread about gay marriage just for the sake of arguing then? Got it.
Nah, I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. I've seen plenty of gay people live very happily together and seen plenty of married people get divorced. I for one have no problem with it. If it's against your religion or if you just think it's "icky" then that's your opinion, and I believer everyone is free to their opinion.
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...
Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought.
So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??
Are you somehow under the impression that I'm against gay marriage????
No, what I argued with was your ridiculous assertion that if you're against something that doesn't "effect" you, you should "get a life."0 -
No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you out on that. Unless you mean something other than personal freedoms, I think you're mistaken. Canada is extremely "freedom loving." So is the UK. Scandinavia. Finland. I believe they all have constitutions too. Can I get some non-Americans to back me up here?
It's not all social freedoms, there's economic freedom as well.
However, I'm talking about the founders and the American society. People in these countries you mention may love freedom, but there is a difference in cultures. Americans value individualism (although this is sadly changing) over government security. Socialism is not as excepted here(yet) as it is in Europe and Canada. Until that time comes, I will maintain that America is exceptional because of the guidelines our founders set inside the Constitution.0 -
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
This is incorrect. Most of the Founding Fathers were religious. Thomas Jefferson was more of a deist as was Thomas Paine (obviously). It's correct to say that the Constitution wasn't founded on Christianity. But it would be wrong to say that the Founders (for the most part) were not, themselves, devout Christians.0 -
Marriage:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Gay Marriage:
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender
Similar, but not marriage. For me, I do not support gay marriage. Not how I was raised, just not for me. Marriage is for a man and a woman as this gift was giving to us by God ( again, what I believe ) However, I am not heading parades to stop it.0 -
As a side note, why are people referencing Lincoln in comments about the founding fathers? Lincoln wasn't even born until 1809. Heck, his own parents weren't even born when we declared our freedom as a nation.
If you're referring to my comment on whether or not the founding fathers were religious, I went with Lincoln and Jefferson because the person who asked said "the first few presidents" as well as founding fathers. I had to go back into my knowledge of early presidents, and at #16, I still feel he qualifies as one of the first few presidents, and find someone I felt was without a doubt, at least agnostic.0 -
No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours.
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to call you out on that. Unless you mean something other than personal freedoms, I think you're mistaken. Canada is extremely "freedom loving." So is the UK. Scandinavia. Finland. I believe they all have constitutions too. Can I get some non-Americans to back me up here?
It's not all social freedoms, there's economic freedom as well.
However, I'm talking about the founders and the American society. People in these countries you mention may love freedom, but there is a difference in cultures. Americans value individualism (although this is sadly changing) over government security. Socialism is not as excepted here(yet) as it is in Europe and Canada. Until that time comes, I will maintain that America is exceptional because of the guidelines our founders set inside the Constitution.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you can't realistically "value individualism" while supporting government acts that tell people what to do with their personal lives. You're only valuing the individualism that aligns with your beliefs.
I'm not trying to change your mind. We're humans, we're flawed. Not everything we believe coincides with everything else we believe and what we want doesn't always line up with what is right. (If you're a Christian you know that this is the main struggle of being a Christian.) The first step to engaging in a meaningful discussion is accepting that there's no easy answer in any of these debates, but we have to at least talk honestly.0 -
Angryguy77--I may have missed it, but why, exactly, are you against homosexual people being allowed to get married?0
-
Marriage:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Gay Marriage:
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender
Similar, but not marriage. For me, I do not support gay marriage. Not how I was raised, just not for me. Marriage is for a man and a woman as this gift was giving to us by God ( again, what I believe ) However, I am not heading parades to stop it.
You're definition of marriage is just one definition which suits your belief. Here's the definition I found: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities
We can find definitions of words that suit our purpose, but there needs to be more than just a dictionary to back our claim. Now, I'm not going to ask you to go back and read all the comments we've had about religion and laws, so lets jump into your viewpoint. Will you take up the abandoned mantle of someone who opposes gay marriage and tell us what *non-religious* arguments support your belief, as religion should not dictate law? Also, welcome to the debate!0 -
1. You can't really call the sexual act of a gay person "repugnant" and then act like a victim when someone calls you a homophobe or a bigot. Feel free to share that opinion, but be prepared for the back lash.
2. "This country was founded on christian values". Which? We basically have the same laws every other nation in history has ever had at our conception except for "freedom from religion" Not stealing, murdering, and so on is not uniquely christian. The forefathers were undoubtedly for the most part believers in a supreme being, but the fact that they always mention god but never Jesus should have bare some light on the subject.
3. The forefathers were geniuses, warrior poets light years ahead of their time. But they were not right about everything. Slavery and genocide against the Indians is not exactly enlightened or a "christian" value.
4. People who are voting to ban gay marriage are hiding behind religion and fear for their childrens safety. There is no credible study that homosexuals or homosexual couples have any more chance of being abusive to children.
People using religion as a back drop for their argument are cherry picking their bible. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10 commandments, the 7 deadly sins, or by Christ. You don't here for anyone calling upon the government to greed or pride, hell, they are embraced. Besides, all the same people who are usually complaining about the government being to large and oppressive seem to only care about their taxes, but have no problem using the very government they think to intrusive to go after people they don't agree with.
5. The national debate.....who cares. I could care less if 99.9% of americans were against gay marriage. When was the last time our nation ever got anything right on the first try? That is the genius of not living in a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with three branches of government, democratically elected officials, and a Bill of Rights. It is slow, but it evolves, usually in a good way. So what will end up happening is in a generation, our children will look back at us as barbarians, much in the same way most my generation looks at old people who still use the racial slurs.
I didn't use the Bible at all in my post in the initial thread. In fact, I believe its a bit judgmental to say this was defeated because of Christians.
As far as having the same laws as other nations, ummm no. We have similar, but we are distinct as well. No other nation had a constitution that valued freedom as much as ours. We are different, hence why we were able to become what we are today. No other nation acknowledge that our rights were endowed by our Creator rather than men.
I haven't read most of your posts, but I was not aware anyone called you bigoted.
Yes, we had some new rights. One of them was freedom of religion.
Take a look through this thread and the other if it's still viewable. Not so nice stuff was said about those that disagree with ssm. I don't care what people say about my views, that's their right. But I do find it disingenuous and hypocritical for one side to claim it's all inclusive and accepts everyone, but then turns around and labels the opposition.
I'm not one of those hypocrites that likes to whine. Say whatever you want, I just think it's insane to tolerate intolerance. If someone says that they found a a black person and a white person getting married to be repugnant, it is fair to call that person a bigot or a racist. So if someone says the same thing about gay marriage, I have no problem with calling them a homophobe. Tolerance is an over-used word. We have plenty of tolerance in this country...we don't lynch or murder eachother anymore. But as far as ridiculing or mocking ideas and words, I'm fine with that.
On a side note, from my own personal experience, I like the fact that all of my conservative guy friends who think that gay marriage is so disgusting love watching two women kiss.....or more on the internet.0 -
Marriage:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Gay Marriage:
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender
Similar, but not marriage. For me, I do not support gay marriage. Not how I was raised, just not for me. Marriage is for a man and a woman as this gift was giving to us by God ( again, what I believe ) However, I am not heading parades to stop it.
But are you voting to stop it? Voting has more of an impact that parades. I don't mean that to be derogatory; how we vote privately is a lot more important and says more, I think, that how we behave publicly. I know of more than a few people who talk one way in polite company so to not rock the boat, but vote their heart on polling day, and I'm totally ok with that.0 -
Do you support civil unions between people of the same sex being given the same benefits legally and financially?Marriage:
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Gay Marriage:
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender
Similar, but not marriage. For me, I do not support gay marriage. Not how I was raised, just not for me. Marriage is for a man and a woman as this gift was giving to us by God ( again, what I believe ) However, I am not heading parades to stop it.0 -
I am SO glad to be Canadian where gay marriage has been legal country wide for a long time.....we have always been the leader in human rights, and glad we did not stop...
Thank God for Canada......
I cannot believe it is 2012, and you guys are still fighting over if everyone should have the same rights....
We The People is suppose to mean EVERYONE, not just the ones that look and think the same as you......0 -
Ahh, OK, thanks. I skimmed the 1st 10 pages as the thread was growing faster than I was reading. I just saw a few mentions of Lincoln and wondered why.As a side note, why are people referencing Lincoln in comments about the founding fathers? Lincoln wasn't even born until 1809. Heck, his own parents weren't even born when we declared our freedom as a nation.
If you're referring to my comment on whether or not the founding fathers were religious, I went with Lincoln and Jefferson because the person who asked said "the first few presidents" as well as founding fathers. I had to go back into my knowledge of early presidents, and at #16, I still feel he qualifies as one of the first few presidents, and find someone I felt was without a doubt, at least agnostic.0 -
Aaaand I think we've successfully killed this topic on the basis of religion. Too bad it's become impossible to discuss this issue without religion.
But if someone -- anyone! -- want to state some valid anti-SSM points that are not based in religion, I'd be happy to hear them! Here are mine in favor.
Economic Arguments in Support of SSM
- Married couples who file jointly are often taxed more because the combined incomes define the tax bracket. E.g. a person who makes $25,000 a year who marries someone who makes $75,000 a year is going to pay more in taxes. Two people who make close to the same amount of money will not realize much of a change in their taxes.
- Service and resort taxes collected for weddings will increase when SSM is legal. Contrary to popular belief, many same-sex couples do not feel a DP is reason enough to throw a fabulous "wedding reception."
- 3 words: gay wedding registry (<-- ok stereotypical but I'm trying to inject some levity).
- Same sex couples who are allowed to marry will able to access each other's health insurance. Uninsured Americans cost this country thousands of dollars when they present to a community ER for treatment and can't pay (someone has to pay that bill; it's usually the government).
- SSM will reduce the length and complexity of probate when a person dies without a will or trust, saving taxpayers money. If they are in a legal SSM, the spouse inherits as an intestate successor, without having to go through a lengthy legal battle to try to determine a dead person's "intent."
- Gay men make money. It's a fact. People are more likely to settle down in a state, and spend money in a state, where their rights are fully recognized.
Noneconomic Arguments in Support of SSM
- It's about equality. It was the right thing to do to ban anti-miscegenation laws, and it's the right thing to do to ban anti-SSM laws. Spare me the line about gay being a choice, it's tired and nobody on the pro-SSM side believes it. (Not that it should matter, even if it was a choice, it would still be a personal decision, and not something that should be controlled by the government.)
- SSM are overwhelmingly (so far) less susceptible to divorce. This is likely attributed to the fact that many SSM couples were living in a psuedo-marital relationship long before SSM and DP was legal. Sure, this is not always the case, so I'll bring up "Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage" preemptively.
Any takers to debate this issue on facts? Because if not I'm going to have to actually go back to work.0 -
But if someone -- anyone! -- want to state some valid anti-SSM points that are not based in religion, I'd be happy to hear them! Here are mine in favor.
I can't find it right now, but I read a viewpoint on reddit from a non-religious standpoint not that long ago. I'll look for it when I get home and post it. I'll also message you, as the topic may die down by then!0 -
I'll bite here. Not sure how "gay men make money" is a good argument to support SSM. So, poor gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Not really a logical argument for me, anyway.- Gay men make money. It's a fact. People are more likely to settle down in a state, and spend money in a state, where their rights are fully recognized.
- SSM are overwhelmingly (so far) less susceptible to divorce. This is likely attributed to the fact that many SSM couples were living in a psuedo-marital relationship long before SSM and DP was legal.
Sure, this is not always the case, so I'll bring up "Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage" preemptively.
Regarding SSM being far less susceptible to divorce. Where are you getting statistics on this? I'm sure this is a low number because of the low number of legal, SSM ending in divorce compared to the high number of legal marriages between man and woman.
The Brittney Spears 55 Hour Marriage line is getting old.0 -
I've actually heard arguments against SSM from people who are not religious and don't base it on religion at all. From what I can recall, one argument is: Where do we draw the line? Why is it okay for SSM, but not for brother-sister marriages? Why is it okay for SSM, but not for 1st cousins"? Etc....Aaaand I think we've successfully killed this topic on the basis of religion. Too bad it's become impossible to discuss this issue without religion.0 -
I've actually heard arguments against SSM from people who are not religious and don't base it on religion at all. From what I can recall, one argument is: Where do we draw the line? Why is it okay for SSM, but not for brother-sister marriages? Why is it okay for SSM, but not for 1st cousins"? Etc....Aaaand I think we've successfully killed this topic on the basis of religion. Too bad it's become impossible to discuss this issue without religion.
There is a very large difference between two people being the same sex and two people sharing the same genes... There are health risks involved in incest... whereas a homosexual couple would have so such issue because they can't procreate together0 -
But, what about two consenting adult siblings? And be careful not to get into subjective morality.There is a very large difference between two people being the same sex and two people sharing the same genes... There are health risks involved in incest... whereas a homosexual couple would have so such issue because they can't procreate together0 -
But, what about two consenting adult siblings? And be careful not to get into subjective morality.There is a very large difference between two people being the same sex and two people sharing the same genes... There are health risks involved in incest... whereas a homosexual couple would have so such issue because they can't procreate together
Consent does not negate the health risks to the potential offspring0 -
What if they don't want to have children? Do we ban people with mental retardation or other genetic diseases or deformities from marrying?Consent does not negate the health risks to the potential offspring0
This discussion has been closed.