quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: All men are created equal in the eyes of our maker Us mortals not so much. God didn't make man equal, but he gave us the mind and spirit to know the difference. Some of us just don't listen. (Us in a general human sense of the phrase)

indeed, sadly most don't understand the written word

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Why? Usually because what you are saying does not seem to be relevant, or is not undetsood, same reason you don't understand what Todd wrote I guess. I've been following this thread in its entirety and it seems maybe context is what we all have differing. The only way I can see you applying your point which is still not clear, it that gays are like slaves. edit to add* Maybe its me taking into account your previous posts in this thread which seem to point that this is a good and natural progression, like certain minonrities getting rights in the past. Thats not a context i see this argument in.

Respectfully, I see any disparity in the rights of the few vs. the rights of the many as a potential problem for the whole.....and I don't mean by that any group whose actions attempt to supersede an obvious societal line. IMO, the LBGT community has done nothing that would justify their being singled out beyond who they wish to marry, like everyone else. If legislation can be proposed and passed infringing upon the rights of one group simply because other groups don't agree with or embrace their given lifestyle choices, what's to impede YOUR or MY group from being the next target for similar actions?

If it's good enough for some, it should be good enough for all.

To me, it's a clear matter of fairness, of equity, of consistency.

I guess that's my overall point.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: indeed, sadly most don't understand the written word

This also goes for all of "our" makers.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: If it's good enough for some, it should be good enough for all. To me, it's a clear matter of fairness, of equity, of consistency. I guess that's my overall point.

It sounds like a sort of zero tolerance rule in reverse.
I understand your point of view but don't agree with it.
Fairness is a man having the same opportunity as another man, to marry a wife and have children if they wish.
Equity, (impartiality) is the same as fairness.
Consistency is treating everyone with fairness.
I see that as already existing in this case. The problem is some don't want that. Some want to change a definition, to add a new scenario and call it the same thing that already existed. It was pointed out in some other posts that male and female are different, you cannot expect consistency in two fundamentally different things.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: It sounds like a sort of zero tolerance rule in reverse. I understand your point of view but don't agree with it. Fairness is a man having the same opportunity as another man, to marry a wife and have children if they wish. Equity, (impartiality) is the same as fairness. Consistency is treating everyone with fairness. I see that as already existing in this case. The problem is some don't want that. Some want to change a definition, to add a new scenario and call it the same thing that already existed. It was pointed out in some other posts that male and female are different, you cannot expect consistency in two fundamentally different things.

You know, I've had this same conversation with some of my gay friends and I personally don't see the argument over the specific wording applied as worthy of the fight. To me, it's like saying "If we can't call it XXXX then we don't want any of it." From my perspective and that of some within the LBGT community, believe it or not, it's like trying to win the battle while jeopardizing the war. I once even had a gay friend in Paris say to me (I'm paraphrasing) "Given the state of 'traditional marriage' in the world, why would gays even WANT to participate?"

Having said that however, there are those who would prohibit any such union on a legislative level regardless of verbiage....marriage, civil union, partnership, call it what you will.

To me, that seems grossly unfair.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 05-10-2012).]

why do most get married, well to raise a family, to pro crate.. procrate is something in the religous world you are not surpost to do untill your married..
I have yet to see a man with man or a girl with girl couple procrate without outside help.. they can't do it.. the parts are not there..
follow the money, this fight isn't about being equal. it's about money. plan and simple..
they will never be equal, they can't procrate, not from something being medically wrong.. but from the fact that all the pieces of the puzzle are not there to make it happen..
gay's are born that way, it's not a choice they just one day say, well I wanna be gay.. it's the way they are wired..
marriage is for procration. something gays just can't naturally do.. if a civil union that gives them the same rights under law. then I'm sorry..
I'm not the same as my wife, she can grow a new life inside her, I can not.. like it or not, that makes us not equal..
truth of the matter is, gays are pissed at the church for making them outcast and will do everything to get revenge.. that my friends came out of my gay uncles mouth, and all his friends(male and female) agreed
it's about belittling the meaning of the religous even of marriage..

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Why do people always ask "Are you saying?"

Because you make inexpicable statements about being "created equal".

What does that have to do with forcing people to call a non-marriage a marriage?

And as for my first paragraph, it is called a foundation. I can't point out the fallacy of your position unless you first understand that being BORN equal is not the same as having equal lives.

In this country you are free to do whatever you like as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Forcing someone to call a gay union a "marriage" is forcing a redefinition by a small minority onto people who have come to know what the word means over thousands of years and crossing hundreds of cultures. THAT is unfair.

Has anyone mentioned that in the U.S., marriage is licensed by State laws not federal? That’s why there is so much variance in the rules from State to State. How the President feels about the laws really has limited impact.

North Carolina just passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. And the Democrats will be holding their national convention in Charlotte this September. It should be interesting.

quote Originally posted by spark1: North Carolina just passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. And the Democrats will be holding their national convention in Charlotte this September. It should be interesting.

The NC amendment goes farther than that. It doesn't just define marriage. It states that a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the ONLY legal recognized domestic union.
Not only does it define marriage - it outlaws all other forms of domestic unions, such as civil unions.

Apparently this was necessary since gay marriage was already illegal in NC.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: why do most get married, well to raise a family, to pro crate..

I must have missed the memo.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: why do most get married, well to raise a family, to pro crate.. procrate is something in the religous world you are not surpost to do untill your married.. I have yet to see a man with man or a girl with girl couple procrate without outside help.. they can't do it.. the parts are not there.. follow the money, this fight isn't about being equal. it's about money. plan and simple.. they will never be equal, they can't procrate, not from something being medically wrong.. but from the fact that all the pieces of the puzzle are not there to make it happen.. gay's are born that way, it's not a choice they just one day say, well I wanna be gay.. it's the way they are wired.. marriage is for procration. something gays just can't naturally do.. if a civil union that gives them the same rights under law. then I'm sorry.. I'm not the same as my wife, she can grow a new life inside her, I can not.. like it or not, that makes us not equal.. truth of the matter is, gays are pissed at the church for making them outcast and will do everything to get revenge.. that my friends came out of my gay uncles mouth, and all his friends(male and female) agreed it's about belittling the meaning of the religous even of marriage..

So because a couple cannot procreate they are not equal to other couples?



So when I married my wife I knew we would likely never have children, and now I know we cannot ever (without outside help) that made us unequal, and therefore not deserving of the same rights as others.

Good argument there chief. As an old mentor used to say. "That's a good way to make friends and influence people."

Brad

Brad and I disagree frequently BUT I've got his back on this one.

I know many married couples that had no intention of procreation and still don't. Does that make their marriages less viable or more meaningless? I think they'd take issue with that assumption.

Besides...I've always been of the impression that marriage was first and foremost about love, not simply a partnership to make babies.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The NC amendment goes farther than that. It doesn't just define marriage. It states that a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the ONLY legal recognized domestic union. Not only does it define marriage - it outlaws all other forms of domestic unions, such as civil unions. Apparently this was necessary since gay marriage was already illegal in NC.

That's my point in a nutshell. If a state has a ban on gay marriage already on the books, why add insult to injury by banning any form of union in totality....other than to make a political or religious point.

It's legislative overkill.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: That's my point in a nutshell. If a state has a ban on gay marriage already on the books, why add insult to injury by banning any form of union in totality....other than to make a political or religious point. It's legislative overkill.

It did not ban any form of unity in totality. It defined marriage. Those that introduced the state constitutional amendment stated they did it as so as to prevent activist judges over turning the law.

If marriage is not sacred in it's traditional aspects, I suppose Nobama support's the Mormon philosophy of multiple wives. Why should those people be discriminated against ?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: That's my point in a nutshell. If a state has a ban on gay marriage already on the books, why add insult to injury by banning any form of union in totality....other than to make a political or religious point. It's legislative overkill.

I thought your point was marriage should be defined as people marrying eachother, whatever their gender.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: So because a couple cannot procreate they are not equal to other couples? So when I married my wife I knew we would likely never have children, and now I know we cannot ever (without outside help) that made us unequal, and therefore not deserving of the same rights as others. Good argument there chief. As an old mentor used to say. "That's a good way to make friends and influence people." Brad

if you look at two of anything.. if one can do something that the other can't, are they equal? are they the same..
is a gifted person with an ungodly high i.q. equal to say me with declexia, one picks up things and learns it without try'n, one it's a strugle.. we might both be human , but we're not equal..
is an OLYMPIAN gold metalist, equal to the high school jock running the same 100 meters?
sorry, life doesn't work the way that everything, everyone is equal..
if we have a nuke war, and everyones gone.. only 100 live, 25 women and 75 men, but only enough food for 50 people to make it through winter.. guess what the women are higher up that ltter than the men as they can bring another generation , so equal ,out the window..
are you equal to the lowest payed person in your field, if so.. why not pay you what they pay them.. your equal after all....
the dynamic goes deeper than, basic everyones equal.. cause fact is, no one is..
I have the knowledge to fix my doctors car, he doesn't, he has the know how to fix my ailments, I don't..

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: That's my point in a nutshell. If a state has a ban on gay marriage already on the books, why add insult to injury by banning any form of union in totality....other than to make a political or religious point. It's legislative overkill.

Agreed. That's why I voted against it.
That and I don't want a state constitution to be based on religious doctrine.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: ...they'd be trying to ban divorce.

Good luck with that.

The only reason is they can’t change the word “Marriage” to something else “softer” AKA as George Carlin said.

[

[This message has been edited by mike-ohio (edited 05-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Does this mean you want to ban sterile heterosexual couples from getting married? How about fertile couples that choose not to procreate? Should their marriage be nullified to protect the institution of marriage? Why is it all the reasons for banning gay marriage only apply to gays and not everyone else? The procreation argument is just one example. If the people trying to "protect" marriage based on their religious beliefs were honest and genuine, they'd be trying to ban divorce. 35-40% of married couples age 20-24 end up getting a divorce. Gays make up 1-2% of the population in America. FAR more damage is done to the institution of marriage by straight couples getting a divorce than even the total number of gays who could possibly seek marriage. http://www.divorcerate.org/ http://www.huffingtonpost.c...timate_n_846348.html In the case of the recent NC amendment, it wasn't about gays demanding anything. There was no money to follow towards them. Gay marriage was already illegal. It was an amendment pushed by the religious right from the beginning and did nothing to change whether or not gays could marry, which begs the question, why was it so important of an issue if the "danger" they were trying to protect us from was already illegal?

guess you missed the ,don't have the correct parts.. part.. eh.. me and my wife can't have kids. don't know why, never found out why, do I love her less because of this, no.. does she .I'd hope not..
but you KNEW what I ment, a men and a women have all the right parts to make it happen but something isn't working correctly...
two men don't have the needed resources to create life.. nor. do two women.. can they make it happen unnaturally, sure.. but us playing maker, is another whole thread.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: In the case of the recent NC amendment, it wasn't about gays demanding anything. There was no money to follow towards them. Gay marriage was already illegal. It was an amendment pushed by the religious right from the beginning and did nothing to change whether or not gays could marry, which begs the question, why was it so important of an issue if the "danger" they were trying to protect us from was already illegal?

In case you missed my above post, ..., and you being local, you are certainly welcome to correct me, ...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It did not ban any form of unity in totality. It defined marriage. Those that introduced the state constitutional amendment stated they did it as so as to prevent activist judges over turning the law.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-11-2012).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: In case you missed my above post, ..., and you being local, you are certainly welcome to correct me, ...

I did miss your previous post. Thank you for the heads up. Here's the text of the amendment:

quote Sec. 6. Marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Note the wording saying marriage is "the only domestic legal until that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

That goes far beyond just defining what marriage is.

Thanks.

There's already discussion of companies that offer marital benefits to couples having to discontinue all "faux-marriage" benefits.
That's heterosexual couples, too.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There's already discussion of companies that offer marital benefits to couples having to discontinue all "faux-marriage" benefits. That's heterosexual couples, too.

You mean that man old enough to be her father might be her father?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There's already discussion of companies that offer marital benefits to couples having to discontinue all "faux-marriage" benefits. That's heterosexual couples, too.

Links ? I'm interested.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: That's my point in a nutshell. If a state has a ban on gay marriage already on the books, why add insult to injury by banning any form of union in totality....other than to make a political or religious point. It's legislative overkill.

I'm not taking sides on the issue in THIS thread, one way or the other.


But for you to call this legislative overkill, and for Formula to make a "roll eyes" at this constitutional amendment since it is already illegal shows a fundamental ignorance (and I am NOT saying either of you are ignorant. You both are NOT. Let me make that clear) or intentional ignoring of what has happened in this country.


State legislatures have MADE LAWS regarding this, and other topics as well. So the "will of the people", whether you or I agree with it or not, has been spoken.

In INTENTIONAL attempts to SUBVERT the will of the people, activist supreme court justices in states have ruled the laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


What a constitutional amendment does is BANS ACTIVIST JUDGES from subverting the legislative will of the people, and shoving their agendas on the people.


So voting to have a constitutional amendment is NOT overkill. It is ENSURING that judges don't steal the rights of the people, by prohibiting them from even getting a chance to do so.

Not so fast. It turns out that the President came out personally in support of same sex marriage (no surprise there), but he says the issue is up to the states:



While this sounds like a conservative position, it is yet another lie. He already instructed his justice department to no defend DOMA. He has clearly taken a position on it but he continues to lie to the American people about his position.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I'm not taking sides on the issue in THIS thread, one way or the other. But for you to call this legislative overkill, and for Formula to make a "roll eyes" at this constitutional amendment since it is already illegal shows a fundamental ignorance (and I am NOT saying either of you are ignorant. You both are NOT. Let me make that clear) or intentional ignoring of what has happened in this country. State legislatures have MADE LAWS regarding this, and other topics as well. So the "will of the people", whether you or I agree with it or not, has been spoken. In INTENTIONAL attempts to SUBVERT the will of the people, activist supreme court justices in states have ruled the laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What a constitutional amendment does is BANS ACTIVIST JUDGES from subverting the legislative will of the people, and shoving their agendas on the people. So voting to have a constitutional amendment is NOT overkill. It is ENSURING that judges don't steal the rights of the people, by prohibiting them from even getting a chance to do so.

Respectfully, no it is not ignorance of the issue. I know exactly why they proposed the amendment and amendments can be ruled unconstitutional just as laws can, albeit much more difficult. I roll my eyes at it because there hasn't been any suggestion at the local level that there's even a risk of "activist judges" doing anything here. It was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet, and even if we allow that protecting that law from activist judges is important, it was sold to the people with misinformation. It was all about banning gay marriage with no mention that it was already illegal. No real discussion about why it's so important for there to be an amendment - only that gays must be stopped from wedding. With all the other issues in our state right now and a rare GOP majority - THIS is how they chose to use that majority.

Also, even if someone supports a ban on gay marriage, I still think they should have voted against the NC amendment because it's poor wording can, and I suspect will, have far reaching impact on many more than just gays. It was bad legislation and poorly worded even if you support the idea.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Respectfully, no it is not ignorance of the issue. I know exactly why they proposed the amendment and amendments can be ruled unconstitutional just as laws can, albeit much more difficult. I roll my eyes at it because there hasn't been any suggestion at the local level that there's even a risk of "activist judges" doing anything here. It was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet, and even if we allow that protecting that law from activist judges is important, it was sold to the people with misinformation. It was all about banning gay marriage with no mention that it was already illegal. No real discussion about why it's so important for there to be an amendment - only that gays must be stopped from wedding. With all the other issues in our state right now and a rare GOP majority - THIS is how they chose to use that majority. Also, even if someone supports a ban on gay marriage, I still think they should have voted against the NC amendment because it's poor wording can, and I suspect will, have far reaching impact on many more than just gays. It was bad legislation and poorly worded even if you support the idea.

I was going to address his post as well....but you did it better than I would've.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I was going to address his post as well....

Just as respectfully, because I like both you guys.

Doni posted, "It's legislative overkill."

You posted, "Agreed. That's why I voted against it."


I responded to THAT.

I took you at your word. I didn't know that you REALLY had OTHER reasons, too.


Regarding those OTHER reasons, I ABSOLUTELY agree with being pre-emptive against liberal, activist judges. They have NO reservation to write law from the bench and subvert the constitutional process. PLENTY of historical precident for that (although whether it has happened specifically in North Carolina, I don't know. Or care.)


Regarding having a rare GOP majority, it was my understanding that this was still a constitutional amendment not voted on BY the representatives, but BY THE PEOPLE OF North Carolina. So from afar, it appears they used their rare GOP majority FOR THE PEOPLE to give THEM a CHANCE to express their will.

My question, then, is WHY did the Democrat majority DEPRIVE the people of North Carolina of a chance to express their will.

Again, I'm not saying WHICH way the people should vote. But when given the opportunity, it sounds like the percentage was pretty CLEAR.


Regarding how it was portrayed, I wasn't there. But I'm disappointed, to be honest, that the people of NC are SO gullible and SO easily duped. I'm also disappointed in the media in North Carolina. I can GUARANTEE that the TOTALLY LIBERAL media in Wisconsin would have made DOUBLE TRIPLE SURE that the populace heard the liberal viewpoint, and it would have been presented as "objective".


Regarding poor wording resulting in unintended consequences, I DO feel for you on that one. That kind of thing shouldn't happen.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeesh now taking a defined stand on a such controversial issue is "cry for votes". With the U.S. polling as divided on the issue I'm unsure how.

I agree with Obama on this, but he's totally doing it for the drama of it. He's always been afraid to say it in fear that it'll affect his voting block. Immigrants, particularly blacks and Hispanics are largely VERY religious and VERY against homosexual marriage... so he runs the risk of alienating at least some of the more religious of those. I don't think it'll really make a huge difference though, because most people, except the independants, had already made their mind up long ago anyway.


Todd

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Regarding having a rare GOP majority, it was my understanding that this was still a constitutional amendment not voted on BY the representatives, but BY THE PEOPLE OF North Carolina. So from afar, it appears they used their rare GOP majority FOR THE PEOPLE to give THEM a CHANCE to express their will.

The referendum to get it on the ballot went through the legislature. And judging by the vote results, it clearly represents the will of the majority of the people in the state.
That's rarely been a reason to restrict individual rights, however. (I lump the "right" to marry under pursuit of happiness, but I can see some people may disagree)
Majority opinion wasn't enough to stop the Civil Rights movement in the South. Or continue segregation, or prevent interracial marriages.

I understand these aren't the same type of events, but it is the will of the majority restricting a specific minority. In that regard they are very similar.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: My question, then, is WHY did the Democrat majority DEPRIVE the people of North Carolina of a chance to express their will.

I don't recall any push by Democrats to legalize gay marriage.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Regarding how it was portrayed, I wasn't there. But I'm disappointed, to be honest, that the people of NC are SO gullible and SO easily duped. I'm also disappointed in the media in North Carolina. I can GUARANTEE that the TOTALLY LIBERAL media in Wisconsin would have made DOUBLE TRIPLE SURE that the populace heard the liberal viewpoint, and it would have been presented as "objective".

Well said. NC is a historically rural Democrat state and the media is definitely Liberal biased. But this is also the heart of the Bible belt, and judging by the vote results, the amendment had large bi-partisan support in virtually every county.

I'm a conservative Republican and my views on gay marriage aside, it was just a bad amendment all the way around. I have a feeling it's going to do more harm to non-married heterosexual couples than anything else.

I appreciate your point of view. Thank you for the discussion.