North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban

[Doodles]

Well the results are out and gay marriage is officially banned on a whole new level in North Carolina. It is officially amended in their state constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Any type of civil union or domestic partnership is officially banned as well.

Sigh... I think I have lost a lot of faith in many Americans. Many Americans are so anti-gay and personally I don't understand why. How would a marriage between a loving couple have any impact on your life?

I just hope one day that a clear majority of Americans are willing to open up and see that there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. Heck let me throw in that I hope Americans will also see that genital cutting is a horrid practice that needs to end also.

-end rant-

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Doodles

Well the results are out and gay marriage is officially banned on a whole new level in North Carolina. It is officially amended in their state constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Any type of civil union or domestic partnership is officially banned as well.

Sigh... I think I have lost a lot of faith in many Americans. Many Americans are so anti-gay and personally I don't understand why. How would a marriage between a loving couple have any impact on your life?

I just hope one day that a clear majority of Americans are willing to open up and see that there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. Heck let me throw in that I hope Americans will also see that genital cutting is a horrid practice that needs to end also.

-end rant-

We all hope that society will decide to "live and let live". Humans =/= Sex, they just are not going well together right now.

[admin]

It's so crazy how people hate and fear homosexuality.

Louis C K has a hilarious bit where he explains it would only make sense if it was common to be standing in line at say the ATM and have a man come up behind you and fuck you in the ass. "HEY man, quit it!"

[Them Boots]

I fail to understand why so many are thinking that they are "defending the institution of marriage" against its supposed destruction by gays who are simply demanding to be treated equally as everyone else, when marriage as an institution is dead anyway.

How in the hell can you call marriage an institution when the divorce rate is over 50%, with idiots like the Kardashians pulling off two week marriage stunts for the headlines and attention? Marriage vows are meaningless nowadays, people should be required to list and say the exceptions to the vows upfront at the ceremony.

People keep getting married for the wrong reasons, and since the vows were meaningless anyway, they walk away from the relationship at the drop of a hat. Gay people want to get married? I say let them do it. Maybe they will be more successful at it. "Defending" the "institution" of marriage these days is like guarding an empty bank vault, it's pointless.

[admin]

I think only truly biblical old-testament marriage should be allowed. How many wives did Abraham have again?

Bill Maher put it well: "We're the Republicans and we fuck our WIVES, damn it!"

[Nyc1063]

Originally Posted by admin

I think only truly biblical old-testament marriage should be allowed. How many wives did Abraham have again?

Bill Maher put it well: "We're the Republicans and we fuck our WIVES, damn it!"

Not to mention it was the contract with Abraham that deemed circumcision necessary! Continued bloodline as long as men are circumcised...wtf?

[Sephardi8Dad]

It seems the tone on here is pretty one-sided. Allow me to add a bit of parity to the discourse.

How in the hell can you call marriage an institution when the divorce rate is over 50%[...?]
Marriage is most certainly an institution as it is well-established universally through all cultures. The fact that it is being treated lightly now is no reason to further dilute its cultural importance and religious implications. The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. It's purpose is not merely to vindicate our sexual urges. Study after study has validated the axiom that a child fares best brought in a home with a mother and father in a committed, loving relationship, viz. marriage.

How would a marriage between a loving couple have any impact on your life?
Two questions here:
1) Why stop at homosexual unions?
Why not allow your father to marry your aunt? Why not marry your first cousin? Why only allow adults to marry? Why NOT allow a 40 year-old man to marry an eight-year-old girl?

By perverting the definition and intent of the institution once, you serve only to weaken it further. Gay people want to get married? I say let them do it. It's a documented fact that homosexual unions (even for women, but especially for men) are MUCH more subject to infidelity, multiple partners, or even serial "monogamy". You can point to isolated cases (which I notice tend to favor homosexuality with tales of committed men or women but DISfavor heterosexuality by noting the Kardashians or Larry King), but the averages say otherwise.

2)The live and let live attitude would be just fine, if homosexuals activists weren't so militant. Have you heard about the photographers in New Mexico being subject to penalties from a Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony even though they found a comparable photographer for the same price? How about the T-shirt company in Kentucky who is ALSO in the same predicament for declining to print T-shirts for a gay pride event even though they found a competitor willing to honor their initial quote?

Well if you haven't then it's obvious that you're missing the point. The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Notice please that Life takes precedence over Liberty, takes precedence over Happiness. In the backward world of homosexual militancy, my Liberty to worship according to the dictates of my conscience are being co-opted by another person's Happiness. Never, I say. And THAT is why homosexual "marriage" is a danger to me, personally. It iss NOT a live and let live attitude - instead it is often (not always) a "this is how I want to live and if you disagree with me, screw you - you lose your liberty" attitude.

admin comments
I may disagree with homosexuality, but I will not be vulgar or disrespectful of another. I rather prefer open, honest, and civil discourse. I hope that was a lapse on admin's part.

Not to mention it was the contract with Abraham that deemed circumcision necessary! Continued bloodline as long as men are circumcised...wtf?

I am of Jewish descent. We are the object of ridicule constantly. This was a struggle for me, and I now realize that the method of circumcision THEN is not what is advocated now. A rabbi once said that TEARING is essential, so as to prevent hiding the circumcision later.

Just because of a misunderstanding there, and because Abraham had a CONCUBINE (not a second wife as those with straw-man arguments would have you believe) does NOT invalidate marriage.

G-d allowed that practice, but He certainly did not favor it. Look at the result of the descendents of Ishmael. Abraham taking a concubine was evidence of his LACK of faith as he journeyed into Egypt to escape the famine. G-d also allowed divorce, but the Prophet Malachi records that He hates it.

It is because of OUR weakness, and not the institution of marriage, that we are in the situation we are today.

I would continue, but my baby girl needs her sleep.

Respectfully.

[nomorepal]

Religion for me (any, for that matter) has become something I really don't worry about much anymore. For those that do, great. No problem. But when you consider that religion is one major factor we were are all mutilated (and is present in healthcare every day for something you "should" do), I say if you're happy with someone..go for it. Those that live a happier life are beneficial to everyone.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

It seems the tone on here is pretty one-sided. Allow me to add a bit of parity to the discourse.

How in the hell can you call marriage an institution when the divorce rate is over 50%[...?]
Marriage is most certainly an institution as it is well-established universally through all cultures. The fact that it is being treated lightly now is no reason to further dilute its cultural importance and religious implications. The principal function of marriage is to form the foundation of society via the family. It's purpose is not merely to vindicate our sexual urges. Study after study has validated the axiom that a child fares best brought in a home with a mother and father in a committed, loving relationship, viz. marriage.

How would a marriage between a loving couple have any impact on your life?
Two questions here:
1) Why stop at homosexual unions?
Why not allow your father to marry your aunt? Why not marry your first cousin? Why only allow adults to marry? Why NOT allow a 40 year-old man to marry an eight-year-old girl?

By perverting the definition and intent of the institution once, you serve only to weaken it further. Gay people want to get married? I say let them do it. It's a documented fact that homosexual unions (even for women, but especially for men) are MUCH more subject to infidelity, multiple partners, or even serial "monogamy". You can point to isolated cases (which I notice tend to favor homosexuality with tales of committed men or women but DISfavor heterosexuality by noting the Kardashians or Larry King), but the averages say otherwise.

2)The live and let live attitude would be just fine, if homosexuals activists weren't so militant. Have you heard about the photographers in New Mexico being subject to penalties from a Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony even though they found a comparable photographer for the same price? How about the T-shirt company in Kentucky who is ALSO in the same predicament for declining to print T-shirts for a gay pride event even though they found a competitor willing to honor their initial quote?

Well if you haven't then it's obvious that you're missing the point. The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Notice please that Life takes precedence over Liberty, takes precedence over Happiness. In the backward world of homosexual militancy, my Liberty to worship according to the dictates of my conscience are being co-opted by another person's Happiness. Never, I say. And THAT is why homosexual "marriage" is a danger to me, personally. It iss NOT a live and let live attitude - instead it is often (not always) a "this is how I want to live and if you disagree with me, screw you - you lose your liberty" attitude.

admin comments
I may disagree with homosexuality, but I will not be vulgar or disrespectful of another. I rather prefer open, honest, and civil discourse. I hope that was a lapse on admin's part.

Not to mention it was the contract with Abraham that deemed circumcision necessary! Continued bloodline as long as men are circumcised...wtf?

I am of Jewish descent. We are the object of ridicule constantly. This was a struggle for me, and I now realize that the method of circumcision THEN is not what is advocated now. A rabbi once said that TEARING is essential, so as to prevent hiding the circumcision later.

Just because of a misunderstanding there, and because Abraham had a CONCUBINE (not a second wife as those with straw-man arguments would have you believe) does NOT invalidate marriage.

G-d allowed that practice, but He certainly did not favor it. Look at the result of the descendents of Ishmael. Abraham taking a concubine was evidence of his LACK of faith as he journeyed into Egypt to escape the famine. G-d also allowed divorce, but the Prophet Malachi records that He hates it.

It is because of OUR weakness, and not the institution of marriage, that we are in the situation we are today.

I would continue, but my baby girl needs her sleep.

Respectfully.

I will focus on mostly the bold text that I have applied to your post. And I will try my best to keep religion aside (as that may be a whole discussion on its own) and throw in some additional text.

You infer that marriage should not based on just sexual urges and here I agree, but the point you were trying to come off as is that homosexuals are only in favor of marriage due to these sexual urges. You are generalizing an entire minority group. People (doesn't matter if they are straight or gay) will marry for various reason. A dowry for example may be set up for marriage, forced marriages, etc. will all apply under what the term marriage will mean to different people. Personally I see marriage as a more emotional attachment to another individual by two consenting adults. I will let that last sentence linger for a bit and will get back to that later. Point being is that not all homosexual couples will marry due to sexual urges. Gays as well as straights can marry for this if they please, but homosexuals are people who are very much capable of having feelings and emotional attachments to another individual. To say so otherwise and to revoke that and say they solely base "marriage" on sexual urges is very derogatory.

Now you also say that the purpose of a marriage is just to make a family. So how does this apply to heterosexual couples who marry but do not have children? Based on your view, this should not be allowed because they do not qualify to marry because they do not have/want/can't have children to create a family. You also state that a child will fare better off in a family of a heterosexual couple as "study after study" proves that this is so. I say differently due to personal experience and from studies. I will link WebMD as one quick link that proves this point as there is no big effect or impact on a child's upbringing:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/n...-adjusted-kids
Now what do you think is better for a child in a scenario like this. Foster children who go from home to home with no stability vs. a stable couple who can care, love, and provide for that child. Note that I left sexuality aside in this scenario. Or how about single parents? Surely there are heterosexual individuals and widowed couples out there who raise children to be just as happy in the world as any married couple.

Onto the second bold area.

You start off with throwing out questions about why not marry ____ (your cousin, aunt, a young child, etc). Actually, did you know that marrying your first cousin is LEGAL in some states already here in the United States. Onto the main concern though, marriage has been constantly redefined over the years (and by years I am talking about a few decades to a couple hundreds). Interracial marriage was banned and was law in the past. Yet what defined marriage back then was then overturned. Now the big difference in what you are trying to say about marrying a young child for example is that marriage should be between two consenting adults. Let me emphasize that point a little more. A child will not have a fully developed brain compared to an adult and will not be mature to make a commitment of this sort. Now in some cultures marriage amongst children or even young teens is acceptable and practiced (though I do not agree with this).

All of your approaches in saying that allowing homosexual couples to marry will open the doors to all these kinds of marriage is equally applicable to their heterosexual counterparts. If you let people marry people, why not let people marry animals? If we allow two people to get married, why not allow 3 or 4? But we already allow 2 people to marry and surely enough it did not lead to marriage between 3 or 4. The point of this is to show that marriage is between two consenting adults and all arguments made prior to this can be applied to letting two heterosexual couples marry as well.

Next bold.

Can you blame some homosexuals feeling outraged and being "militant" as you say. Homosexuals are a minority group that clearly do not share equal rights under the law in this country and this is not right or fair. Surely I am glad that as time passes by, more doors will open. An example would be that why should a heterosexual couple who is married be granted tax advantages while it is not allowed for any homosexual union? Now I have taken my tax class and this is what I found out. No matter what state that grants or allows homosexual unions or marriage, the tax advantage given to heterosexual couples will never apply because unions/homosexual marriages in states are not recognized under federal law. This is just one of probably many things that homosexual couples will have to face. Hospital visits may be another or even discrimination based on sexuality on job interviews. Sexual preference should play no role in as long a person is qualified to do the job, yet it has no place under Title VII as a protected class. How would it feel knowing that the person you love and care for is ill in the hospital and you have no rights what so ever to make any decision or see him/her in times like this. Now granted few states are opening this up more and more, but again its not every state. In essence, homosexuals have to fight harder for equal rights that heterosexual couples already share and have.

Next bold.

"In the backward world of homosexual militancy, my Liberty to worship according to the dictates of my conscience are being co-opted by another person's Happiness."

Your liberty to worship whatever religion you choose is fine. No one is forcing you to choose to like one particular thing over the other. Now under that clause you stated, EVERYONE in this country should be entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Just because your religion/or your beliefs tell you that marriage should only be between a man and woman is fine. Keep and hold onto that, but why push that onto others? You state that your liberty to worship will be hindered if another homosexual couple marries. I say otherwise. Are you still allowed to worship your beliefs even if a homosexual couple gets married? Of course you are. Your liberty to worship is still intact because you are still free to believe in what you want to believe in. Your view will collide with many other things as well and not just homosexual marriage. How about a person of a different faith or religious background? They will hold a different belief system, yet your argument back to that is that "my liberty to worship will be affected by another person happiness (in this case happiness is their belief system)".

The constitution is here to protect people rights no matter what the majority may agree with or not. Rights should not be taken away from a certain group and not be applied to the whole. So if the majority thinks that it is okay to harass ___ (you can fill in the blank with anything) this group of people it is okay then it should be a law. Everyone is entitled to have basic rights and this is a side note but this will also extend to my MGM views as well as I see it as taking the child's bodily integrity away.

The great thing about this country is that we have a separation of church and state... or we are suppose to anyway.That means your religious beliefs should be sincere and true to yourself, but should not dictate the beliefs or laws of this nation.

Respectfully.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

Study after study has validated the axiom that a child fares best brought in a home with a mother and father in a committed, loving relationship, viz. marriage.

Actually plenty of studies have shown that kids of gay couples tend toward high acheivement and emotional stability.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

1) Why stop at homosexual unions?
Why not allow your father to marry your aunt? Why not marry your first cousin? Why only allow adults to

marry? Why NOT allow a 40 year-old man to marry an eight-year-old girl?

Frankly, I think I SHOULD be allowed to choose any entity I wish to wed and claim the same legal/financial/risk sharing/etc benefits that straight couples claim.

I would, for example, consider marrying my best same-gender buddy even though we're both straight. We could buy property together, choose which of our two employer health plans to make as primary for both of us, take out life insurance on each other; be life partners with a stake in each others' success, without it being any of the government's business whether or how we were romantically involved. Why not? We each pay taxes like any straight married couple and it is not fair or just to deny us a benefit afforded other citizens.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

It's a documented fact that homosexual unions (even for women, but especially for men) are MUCH more subject to infidelity, multiple partners, or even serial "monogamy".

Doubtful. But if so how are we to punish straight married folk who are "guilty" of those things? If there's a victim, let's have a law that puinishes all offenders fairly.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

Have you heard about the photographers in New Mexico being subject to penalties from a Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony even though they found a comparable photographer for the same price?

I have a feeling careful reading of the story would reveal some malign act by the defendants. Nobody in the USA is compelled to do business on a day/time/place they aren't making themselves available. But if you say you're a public accomodation and you're open for business and I walk in with money, then yes I'm fine with you getting sued for not doing business with me based on bigotry because for example I'm opposed to infant circumcision.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

How about the T-shirt company in Kentucky who is ALSO in the same predicament for declining to print T-shirts for a gay pride event even though they found a competitor willing to honor their initial quote?

That doesn't even make sense. All they had to do was say yes and then drop-ship the finished shirts from the other vendor's plant.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

I agree there's a line that can be shifted by politics, between ensuring the right of a merchant's liberty, and the rights of consumer's liberty. Once you set up shop some place, you affect market conditions and my access to services like yours, so a liberal reading of "pursuit of happiness" has held up the consumer's right to be treated fairly.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

my Liberty to worship according to the dictates of my conscience are being co-opted by another person's Happiness.

But you DO have a right to feel however you want to feel. You just don't have a right to freeze someone else out of the market. Says me. Issues of competing liberties are settled by politics, often with the result that bullying by the majority loses. I think that's for the good.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

re: admin comments
I may disagree with homosexuality, but I will not be vulgar or disrespectful of another. I rather prefer open, honest, and civil discourse. I hope that was a lapse on admin's part.

This is the Bistro where we come to express our opinions. It is my opinion that there is no reasonable basis for unequal treatment under the law. That comes out as digs at the unreasonable side sometimes.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

I now realize that the method of circumcision THEN is not what is advocated now.

I too am persuaded that indeed the form of a circumcision result changed in the Hellenic period. But the previous less-radical version was still barbaric. Returning to the form would not make me support forced circumcision.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

Abraham had a CONCUBINE (not a second wife)

Well split hairs, but plenty of pentateuchal characters were polygamous. And men boned angels to give offspring to giants, too.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

G-d allowed that practice, but He certainly did not favor it.

I don't think we should be basing law of the land on specific groups' views of G-d's will.

Originally Posted by Sephardi8Dad

It is because of OUR weakness, and not the institution of marriage, that we are in the situation we are today.

The situation we are in is that some people are denied fair treatment under the law despite paying the same fair share of taxes. And some genders are denied equal protection under the law. I just assumed people here were all for fairness and equality, and never dreamed I'd be offending anyone.