north carolina const. amendmnt on gay marraige

justam

catefrances wrote:

but see thats the thing a.m. women were shackled to men in marriage so they could reproduce legally. it all came down to property.

back in the early days of colonisation in here in oz, common law marriages that had existed for many many years werent accepted because the powers that be.. the british overlords decided it wasnt the way things were done. fully forgetting that those they discriminated against in most cases were irish or lower class and didnt subscribe to the rules of the ruling class. but then again they also didnt allow catholics practice their own faith and catholics were punished for doing so, so...

And yet, the big problem of opposition to gay marriage is linked to some underlying issues. The issues appear to be related to different thoughts about the function of marriage or the purpose of marriage or religious intolerance, or even the nasty underlying issue of discrimination against homosexuals because of hatred. It's all stewing in a big ol pot under the surface of these arguments about gay marriage.

I think the best way to solve this problem would be to pull all the issues out from under the table and up into the air so they can be addressed one by one.

catefrances

justam wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but see thats the thing a.m. women were shackled to men in marriage so they could reproduce legally. it all came down to property.

back in the early days of colonisation in here in oz, common law marriages that had existed for many many years werent accepted because the powers that be.. the british overlords decided it wasnt the way things were done. fully forgetting that those they discriminated against in most cases were irish or lower class and didnt subscribe to the rules of the ruling class. but then again they also didnt allow catholics practice their own faith and catholics were punished for doing so, so...

And yet, the big problem of opposition to gay marriage is linked to some underlying issues. The issues appear to be related to different thoughts about the function of marriage or the purpose of marriage or religious intolerance, or even the nasty underlying issue of discrimination against homosexuals because of hatred. It's all stewing in a big ol pot under the surface of these arguments about gay marriage.

I think the best way to solve this problem would be to pull all the issues out from under the table and up into the air so they can be addressed one by one.

i vote for ingrained religious intolerence.

and no for all those folks who just burst into flames through righteous indignation im not saying ALL religious folk are intolerant.. just that the accumulative effect of thousands of years of indoctrinated scripture tends to take hold and isnt easily shaken from its myopically discriminant viewpoint.

mysticweed

i cast my futile vote
but i am by no means surprised by the overall outcome

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

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."

A proponent of the law yesterday stated perhaps the gay community could leave marriage as is
and establish a new amendment, giving a new name for the union of same sex couples
with the same legal rights.

The law passed yesterday made it very clear that a union of two people of the same sex can NEVER be equal to that of a married man and woman. So whomever said that is a fucking idiot who didn't read the bill before voting for it. :fp:

catefrances

you know what i find interesting... that marriage equality is a state issue. it makes no sense to me that my marriage is legal in one state and if i move to another state it can be nullified. trippy shit america trippy shit.

EmBleve

mysticweed wrote:

i cast my futile vote
but i am by no means surprised by the overall outcome

nor am I.

ComeToTX

Anyone else feel completely let down by Obama for his lack of stance and balls on this issue?

EmBleve

ComeToTX wrote:

Anyone else feel completely let down by Obama for his lack of stance and balls on this issue?

yes, not impressive. But, unfortunately, I can see why he would be rather close-lipped on it. It is election year. :roll: I read today that he said he was 'disappointed'. That's all I've seen.

pandora

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.

This based in the tradition of the word marriage and what it has
meant for thousands of years, for billions of participants.

Most protecters of the union of marriage do not oppose rights being equal
or that there is a union
it is obvious there are many unions and gay is here to stay.

Gay people can not marry because of the fact they are the same sex.
By definition and now by law which could expand unfortunately because
of the definition and history of marriage.

But a new word a new amendment can bring equality to the unions to end this.
It will not be called marriage but will be called _ _ _ _ _ _
with the same legal rights and may, in my opinion, more than likely,
out number 'marriages' in the distant future.

Those wanting the traditional marriage union, that was created long ago,
to stay intact, it does
as gay couples move forward with a new life, a new word,
a new union with the same rights as all.

If the haters still hate that is their problem ...so be it....
there are more lovers than haters.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.
...

time to look into the future instead of looking back at the past. there was a time quite recently when in my country the indigenous were not even considered people. we got over that and i think those who dont want gay union to be called marriage should get over it and embrace the future world. one where equality trumps outdated tradition.

justam

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

People opposed clearly do not want a gay union to be called 'marriage'.
It is not marriage by definition nor history.
...

time to look into the future instead of looking back at the past. there was a time quite recently when in my country the indigenous were not even considered people. we got over that and i think those who dont want gay union to be called marriage should get over it and embrace the future world. one where equality trumps outdated tradition.

Cate, this is VERY well put and exactly to the point. It's time to make equality more important than tradition!

Pandora, please don't take this lack of agreement to mean anyone hates your opinion or religion. You're still a lovely human being.

It's just that it's time for the world to change so that homosexuals are treated as equally valuable human beings.

know1

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

I want to ban southerners from having children....


sadly in will not come to pass

Ive lived in the north and the south. Both have ignorance. I've known just as many yankees that think a woman shouldn't have the choose as rebels who think gays should be allowed to marry.

The common denominator of ignorance isn't where someone was raised, its religion.

So being anti-abortion is ignorance? That statement itself is ignorance.

know1

Personally I do not think gay marriages are right. But I also think couples shouldn't live together without being married either.

That being said, I'm not out campaigning against either of them.

The biggest issue to me is why is our government wasting so much time on this issue. I think the government should get out of sanctioning marriages and let people do whatever they want to do.

Rosdower

it's disturbing what this world is coming to, pretty soon people will want the right to be "married to their pet" or claim their dog or cat on their tax form, claiming that it's "my child". And when this happens i can't wait to hear all of you defending them quoting "the world is changing, just accept it for what it is bro" "get with the times"

riiight

pandora

Once again the word marriage was created and intended to be a union
between a man and a woman. It is the definition and the intention.

This is important to many people to preserve this fact
and that is what is hindering the progression of equal rights.

So if we create a new word a new definition and amendment with equal rights
we can move forward and have resolution.

I think the passing of this law tells us we need a resolution as we are facing
further division.

pandora

justam wrote:

Pandora, please don't take this lack of agreement to mean anyone hates your opinion or religion. You're still a lovely human being.

It's just that it's time for the world to change so that homosexuals are treated as equally valuable human beings.

:wave:
It is not my opinion nor do I have a religion ... besides having God with me
I just see the Preservers of marriage side clearly.

I am proposing total equality ... absolute equality and rights for the gay union.

JonnyPistachio

Rosdower wrote:

it's disturbing what this world is coming to, pretty soon people will want the right to be "married to their pet" or claim their dog or cat on their tax form, claiming that it's "my child". And when this happens i can't wait to hear all of you defending them quoting "the world is changing, just accept it for what it is bro" "get with the times"

riiight

Did you really seriously just compare gay marriage to people wanting to marry their pets?! :roll: ..talk about disturbing... :?

mikepegg44

Rosdower wrote:

it's disturbing what this world is coming to, pretty soon people will want the right to be "married to their pet" or claim their dog or cat on their tax form, claiming that it's "my child". And when this happens i can't wait to hear all of you defending them quoting "the world is changing, just accept it for what it is bro" "get with the times"

riiight

who cares if any of those things happen. explain to me how it affects you. Claiming a cat on taxes would just show how ridiculous our tax code is...it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. what is wrong with marrying a pet...how does that affect you specifically? how does it change your life?

the idea that we all must care about what our neighbor does in their own time is strange to me. Quit trying to legislate your morality, it isn't the same as everyone else and it isn't every going to be...

Rosdower

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Rosdower wrote:

it's disturbing what this world is coming to, pretty soon people will want the right to be "married to their pet" or claim their dog or cat on their tax form, claiming that it's "my child". And when this happens i can't wait to hear all of you defending them quoting "the world is changing, just accept it for what it is bro" "get with the times"

riiight

Did you really seriously just compare gay marriage to people wanting to marry their pets?! :roll: ..talk about disturbing... :?

mark my words. when that day comes, i want to hear all the backers come out and support it.

keeponrockin

Rosdower wrote:

it's disturbing what this world is coming to, pretty soon people will want the right to be "married to their pet" or claim their dog or cat on their tax form, claiming that it's "my child". And when this happens i can't wait to hear all of you defending them quoting "the world is changing, just accept it for what it is bro" "get with the times"

riiight

Do pets have legal rights as human beings?

Didn't think so.

Moving on.