Thread: Three days until North Carolina Amendment One and Marriage Protected

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. WTF does this even have to do with gay marriage?

In an earlier post you wrote:

The problem with the Culture Wars is you first advocate tolerance for abnormal behavior, meaning decriminalizing the behavior. Then your incremental policy is to move to have it accepted as EQUAL to normal behavior (even though it is not equal).

I was giving you a related example of inter-racial marriage. It was regarded as abnormal behaviour, then its tolerance was advocated through decriminalisation in 1967. Since that time it has become accepted as equal.

My question is why should gay marriage be any different? In a recent time it was considered abnormal behaviour and illegal. As society has become educated and informed, its tolerance has been advocated through decriminalisation. The next step is acceptance as equal (through marriage). Why do you differentiate the two?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

To make it simple. Also, as I've explained many times there is the potential the children can be the result of traditional heterosexual marriage. This potential does not exist with homosexuals. You advocate special rights (meaning entitlements) under the name of equality while denying homosexuality is NOT EQUAL to the benefits to the State in producing the next generation of citizens.

In your desperate attempt to equate these 2 groups you further subdivide the group with the potential to produce children.

Ok, so what if a heterosexual who is about to be married know that he/she is infertile, and therefore there is no "potential [that] children can be the result of [the] traditional heterosexual marriage". Should they then be allowed to get married, knowing in advance that they will not be able to produce children via natural means?

Originally Posted by noahath

The Bible maybe didn't deem it immoral, but US law did, up until 1968 when it was legalised in all 50 states. Up to that point it was still illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some states, and one of the arguments used was 'morality'.

Seeing as you raised The Bible issue though, can you answer me this question: why is The Bible cherry-picked when applying a standard of morality to the US? If you're going to use The Bible as the moral standard, then why not use all of it, not just certain parts. The reference to "man lying with another man" falls under Leviticus, yet the fundamental laws of The Bible - the Ten Commandments - contain one where "man shall not lie with another man's wife". Why then does US society condone, tolerate and accept extra-marital affairs? Heck, one of the front-runners (at one stage) for the GOP nomination this year (on a Christian platform no less) is a confessed multiple adulterer.

It seems to me that The Bible is only used as an argument when people refer to the passages within it to reinforce their pre-existing opinions, and not as a reference for action. If that was the case, then why aren't all of the laws written in Leviticus being debated, instead of just the one about homosexuality? Why does the US allow Sunday business trading? Why is polyester allowed to be used as a fabric in the production of clothing? etc etc etc. Thoughts?

My thoughts are it's a bit of strawman.

The basis for heterosexual marriage is rooted in tradition and the Bible is relevant only to the extent it has informed the tradition down through the centuries. Somewhat ironically, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn 'extra-traditional' marriages such as polygamy.

Traditional marriage is what it is because it has become established down through time---and the reasons for that are actually varied and not neccessarily biblical---or bigoted, for that matter.

This is an issue that belongs in front of the legislature and not the courts because the courts shouldn't redefine traditional marriage without the people having some say in the matter.

Originally Posted by .3dontVoteParty

Here is all I hear from conservatives on this issue...

"Waaaa, waaaa, those dirty gays want to have equal rights, well, this is just an afront to my worldview that says gays are dirty sinners and ought to be persecuted to the fullest extent the law will allow... waaaa waaaa".

I still haven't heard one argument about how allowing gays to file their tax return as married filing jointly, or how allowing gays to visit their gay partner in the hospital, or how allowing them to get a marriage license, DOES A DAMN THING TO AFFECT YOUR LIFE AT ALL!!! If it's about this question of child rearing again well, gays already can, this amendment is about marriage. And with the divorce rates and single parent rates the way they are, and with Mormon Utah allowing people to have 10 wives if they want, maybe gay people raising kids isn't the end of days the conservatives here think it is.

Why is it always conservatives though?

I don't see how someone can claim to be a conservative if they support laws, especially federal ones, prohibiting consenting adults from entering into marriage but over the weekend our Vice President strayed so close to supporting gay marriage that the Obama administration had to issue statements "clarifying" his meaning because they DO NOT support gay marriage.

Where is the liberal outrage against Pres. Obama?

Where is the Law & Order episode where the bi-racial Democrat POTUS pushing universal healthcare is the one killing gay prostitutes?

Originally Posted by darth omar

....

This is an issue that belongs in front of the legislature and not the courts because the courts shouldn't redefine traditional marriage without the people having some say in the matter.

This is an issue that belongs in the courts or at least the legislature, referendums on minority rights are not really a good idea.
Imagine a referendum on Negro Voting rights, held in Mississippi in 1958, what do think the result would have been?

Originally Posted by goober

This is an issue that belongs in the courts or at least the legislature, referendums on minority rights are not really a good idea.
Imagine a referendum on Negro Voting rights, held in Mississippi in 1958, what do think the result would have been?

Indeed.

. . . North Carolina is the last of the former Confederate states without a similar constitutional amendment, reflecting the Democrats' control of the legislature until two years ago. More than 500,000 voters had cast ballots before Tuesday through one-stop and absentee options. That's more than in 2008, when Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for the Democratic presidential nomination. . . .

(bolding added)

Moderate NC weighs constitutional gay marriage ban | Fox News

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights", Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992

Not that the legislatures or courts always get it right over the public either when it comes to human rights. Sometimes these ballot initiatives cure bad calls by them. Society also establishes the constitutions over themselves. It's just that society itself tends to take a selfish and snails' pace towards recognising the rights of others by those who already have such rights. Most people like to think of their own expectations and freedoms but not that of others and especially when it feeds a prejudice and/or works to one's personal benefit. Our federal constitution when it comes to recognising rights is certainly case in point of that looking at the amendments and how long it took them to be added to them.

The people of NC have evey right to draft a law and vote on it. Those people so impacted also have evry right to challenge the law in court.

Marriage is supposed to bring stability, rejecting the desireof some mebers of the community to marry those they love who do love them in return is not supporting stability.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

My comment was not about this legislation. Expanding entitlements is ALL the homosexual agenda of gay marriage is about!

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. I'm worried about expanding entitlements for any reason whatever.

You have got me interested now, what entitlement is looking to be expanded? I guess another way to ask this is what entitlement is in potential worse shape fiscally, assuming gays and lesbians are allowed to marry thus increasing the numbers?

Originally Posted by .3dontVoteParty

Equal protection is a right... Call it a civil union if you want to, but they should be considered married for tax purposes and when making legal contracts.

Those will be banned too. If you have a problem with the tax code then change the tax code. The FAIR Tax would address your issue.

Today's the day for a marriage victory, in spite of all the lies, threats and whining by the Left.

Originally Posted by noahath

The Bible maybe didn't deem it immoral, but US law did, up until 1968 when it was legalised in all 50 states. Up to that point it was still illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some states, and one of the arguments used was 'morality'.

Seeing as you raised The Bible issue though, can you answer me this question: why is The Bible cherry-picked when applying a standard of morality to the US? If you're going to use The Bible as the moral standard, then why not use all of it, not just certain parts. The reference to "man lying with another man" falls under Leviticus, yet the fundamental laws of The Bible - the Ten Commandments - contain one where "man shall not lie with another man's wife". Why then does US society condone, tolerate and accept extra-marital affairs? Heck, one of the front-runners (at one stage) for the GOP nomination this year (on a Christian platform no less) is a confessed multiple adulterer.

It seems to me that The Bible is only used as an argument when people refer to the passages within it to reinforce their pre-existing opinions, and not as a reference for action. If that was the case, then why aren't all of the laws written in Leviticus being debated, instead of just the one about homosexuality? Why does the US allow Sunday business trading? Why is polyester allowed to be used as a fabric in the production of clothing? etc etc etc. Thoughts?

The US law was wrong and has now been corrected. This amendment will make North Carolina more correct as well.

Newt may have bee a front-runner, but for his past indiscretions he may have been the nominee. Morality prevailed yet again.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Why is it always conservatives though?

I don't see how someone can claim to be a conservative if they support laws, especially federal ones, prohibiting consenting adults from entering into marriage but over the weekend our Vice President strayed so close to supporting gay marriage that the Obama administration had to issue statements "clarifying" his meaning because they DO NOT support gay marriage.

Where is the liberal outrage against Pres. Obama?

Where is the Law & Order episode where the bi-racial Democrat POTUS pushing universal healthcare is the one killing gay prostitutes?

The excuse is that The Obama is "evolving" on this issue, just like he "evolved" into a naturally born citizen. LOL

Originally Posted by Sluggo

You have got me interested now, what entitlement is looking to be expanded? I guess another way to ask this is what entitlement is in potential worse shape fiscally, assuming gays and lesbians are allowed to marry thus increasing the numbers?

Tax breaks and I believe various employer mandated insurances.

Originally Posted by noahath

The Bible maybe didn't deem it immoral

Maybe?

Originally Posted by noahath

Seeing as you raised The Bible issue though, can you answer me this question: why is The Bible cherry-picked when applying a standard of morality to the US? If you're going to use The Bible as the moral standard, then why not use all of it, not just certain parts. The reference to "man lying with another man" falls under Leviticus, yet the fundamental laws of The Bible - the Ten Commandments - contain one where "man shall not lie with another man's wife". Why then does US society condone, tolerate and accept extra-marital affairs?

Noahath, you love to keep changing the subject, Appealing to Diversion. The main reason is that no one is suggesting the people who commit adultery receive benefits from the public treasury.