North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2012, 02:02 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
Hey, what a hell, this is the second time I have written a reply, and now there is no post of mine here? Is it possible that my post gets deleted by accident?

My post was something like:

I can't believe that Clinton passed DOMA, I always considered him to be a great American president. This is not such a great thing to do.

P.S.
There is the option that I didn't press "Post Reply", or something, but I kinda doubt that, specially that this is not the first time I've seen this...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 10:11 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
(14-06-2012 02:02 AM)Filox Wrote:  I can't believe that Clinton passed DOMA, I always considered him to be a great American president. This is not such a great thing to do.

You're not the only one who can't believe it. I admire Clinton for a lot of things, but at times he was an asshole, and never more so than when he caved on DOMA. But it wasn't just him. You expect Republicans to be jerks, but in 1996 the Dems were almost as bad. As this article by Andrew Sullivan points out, only 14 senators (all Democrats) had the guts to vote against it; all the rest caved as well, including Joe Biden, our current VP.

As Sullivan says,

Quote:Clinton signed into law the most anti-gay agenda of any president in history. Yes, this was initiated, fueled and exploited by the Christianist right. But Clinton not only surrendered; he also tried to gain politically from it. I'm glad he has come around now that it's easy for him to do so.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cufflink's post
14-06-2012, 10:36 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
(14-06-2012 01:15 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I think that the gay issue may enter areas that aren't considered adequately.
In some cases borderline people may well be will be getting conscripted.

Conscripted? CONSCRIPTED??? You mean like a gay draft? Huh

Quote:Quite a lot of folk opt for bisexuality.........things can get complicated.
Its not all completely clear cut.

It's completely clear cut to me. And what does bisexuality have to do with it? If you're bisexual and you don't want to settle down with any particular person, then don't get married.

Quote:Heterosexual marriage does involve a potentially aesthetic alliance.

And same-sex marriage doesn't? Ever consider that other people might have a different aesthetic sense from yours?

Quote:Perhaps genuine legal gay union needs a name other than marriage...................

No it doesn't. If it walks like a duck etc.

I generally like your posts, Woof. But this one has given me a WTF moment.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 04:13 PM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
This will all hit the Supreme Court and it will get slammed. I believe 28 states have gay marriage bans. None will stand constitutional scrutiny.
The Bill of Rights is clear.
- Life
- Liberty
- Pursuit of Happiness
Plus, Equal Protection mandates it legal.
Slam dunk.
I'm just curious why no one have taken it this far yet?
Where is the ACLU?

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thomas's post
15-06-2012, 11:22 PM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
(14-06-2012 10:36 AM)cufflink Wrote:  
(14-06-2012 01:15 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I think that the gay issue may enter areas that aren't considered adequately.
In some cases borderline people may well be will be getting conscripted.

Conscripted? CONSCRIPTED??? You mean like a gay draft? Huh

No, what I mean is that some gays may be prematurely coerced by militants rather than it being their natural volition.
Quote:Quite a lot of folk opt for bisexuality.........things can get complicated.
Its not all completely clear cut.

It's completely clear cut to me. And what does bisexuality have to do with it? If you're bisexual and you don't want to settle down with any particular person, then don't get married.

Not necessarily, some bi- sexuals may opt for multi faceted marriage down the track; I am not sure that all bisexuals would not consider marriage.
Quote:Heterosexual marriage does involve a potentially aesthetic alliance.

And same-sex marriage doesn't? Ever consider that other people might have a different aesthetic sense from yours?

As a general rule of thumb, given the same degree of mutual attraction was available most would opt for heterosexuality IMO.
Quote:Perhaps genuine legal gay union needs a name other than marriage...................

No it doesn't. If it walks like a duck etc.

I generally like your posts, Woof. But this one has given me a WTF moment.
I think many gays would prefer a specific name other than marriage.
Historically and historically marriage has involved the opposite sex, not the same sex.
A different name through actual difference in no way denigrates the participants.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 03:18 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
Disagree.

It is an artificial difference. People should be treated *equally* under the law, at least according to the US constitution? You can view it as an ethical problem or whatever, but at the root of it, legally they are in violation of the constitution, so if they want to continue to not call it marriage but call it something else they must challenge the US constitution and write not


"All men (i.e. humans) are created free and equal" but "All men are created free and equal except in the specific case where they happen to be gay they're not quite equal 'cos when they get married we call it something else"... It may seem trivial, but to have something written into *law* which is in violation of their constitution is in fact a major issue, at least I see it as such, even if it's so simple a thing as two different words for a legal union.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 02:06 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
(16-06-2012 03:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  Disagree.

It is an artificial difference. People should be treated *equally* under the law, at least according to the US constitution? You can view it as an ethical problem or whatever, but at the root of it, legally they are in violation of the constitution, so if they want to continue to not call it marriage but call it something else they must challenge the US constitution and write not


"All men (i.e. humans) are created free and equal" but "All men are created free and equal except in the specific case where they happen to be gay they're not quite equal 'cos when they get married we call it something else"... It may seem trivial, but to have something written into *law* which is in violation of their constitution is in fact a major issue, at least I see it as such, even if it's so simple a thing as two different words for a legal union.
I have simply indicated that opposite sex is quite different from same sex and that marriage has always been indicative of a legally binding relationship between the opposite sex. I have not suggested that same sex legal relationships are in any way essentially inferior in terms of genuine caring etc.
I would imagine that at least some gays would not wish to usurp the traditional ,and would prefer a more adept name for their union.
The other point I raised is that some gays are intent on popularizing that inclination among young straight people, thus adding an artificial and cultish aspect.
Sorry if I have ruffled some feathers, but I feel obliged to speak my mind rather than join popular band wagons.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 02:22 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
My feathers aren't ruffled... except if you accuse me of being on a bandwagon Wink

As I said, (in my view) if it's a constitutional violation it's got to be struck down regardless even of how gay people feel about it. Unless people want to change the constitution... which I haven't heard of anyone suggesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2012, 07:16 AM
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
Woof, I may be mistaken but your posts over the last few pages seem to be based in ignorance. Although I'm sure there are many LGBT folk who don't want to get married and don't want to call what they have a marriage, I personally know LGBT folk who do want to get married and just have society accept that their lifelong faithful commitment is at least somewhat on par with a celebrity 24 hour fling.

When two people commit their lives to each other and live as a committed family unit they're more than a couple. They're married. Whether you call it union, defacto, or simply abomination it's the same damn thing. They're as married as I am to my wife. Many of these couples have kids for ....s sake. They want to be able to raise their children in a stable committed context that their family and friends and government and broader society see for what it is. It's a damn marriage, and if you want to call it something else you may but might as well differentiate between "on road" four wheel drives (SUVs) and "off road" SUVs. You might as well try to call "mixed race" marriages "coloured unions" or somesuch.

The time has passed for this. In every respect in western society homosexual couples are treated in society and under law as being essentially the same thing as heterosexual couples. Where differences exist it is usually dealt with by the courts as discrimination that requires government intervention to resolve.

While some look for compromises like trying to find other names for a thing that already has a name, society is moving on. "Mixed race marriages" are just called "marriages" these days, and so will gay marriages by the time my children have children.

Gee, as if every marriage has been between genetic women and genetic men up until this time. Even when marriage has been something between a man and a woman it almost always has been a "legally male man" and "legally female woman". Those boundaries are not always as clear cut as some would like. Anyway - that's another topic.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
17-06-2012, 11:14 PM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2012 11:58 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: North Carolina, ban on gay marriage.
(17-06-2012 07:16 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Woof, I may be mistaken but your posts over the last few pages seem to be based in ignorance. Although I'm sure there are many LGBT folk who don't want to get married and don't want to call what they have a marriage, I personally know LGBT folk who do want to get married and just have society accept that their lifelong faithful commitment is at least somewhat on par with a celebrity 24 hour fling.

When two people commit their lives to each other and live as a committed family unit they're more than a couple. They're married. Whether you call it union, defacto, or simply abomination it's the same damn thing. They're as married as I am to my wife. Many of these couples have kids for ....s sake. They want to be able to raise their children in a stable committed context that their family and friends and government and broader society see for what it is. It's a damn marriage, and if you want to call it something else you may but might as well differentiate between "on road" four wheel drives (SUVs) and "off road" SUVs. You might as well try to call "mixed race" marriages "coloured unions" or somesuch.

The time has passed for this. In every respect in western society homosexual couples are treated in society and under law as being essentially the same thing as heterosexual couples. Where differences exist it is usually dealt with by the courts as discrimination that requires government intervention to resolve.

While some look for compromises like trying to find other names for a thing that already has a name, society is moving on. "Mixed race marriages" are just called "marriages" these days, and so will gay marriages by the time my children have children.

Gee, as if every marriage has been between genetic women and genetic men up until this time. Even when marriage has been something between a man and a woman it almost always has been a "legally male man" and "legally female woman". Those boundaries are not always as clear cut as some would like. Anyway - that's another topic.
You are really playing around with semantics. Coloured or mixed marriages were, and are, certainly marriages, not unions, in the essential aspects of the word which involves the union of opposite sexes. If we distort commonly used words too much, the limited benefits such provides will become even more obscure.
As for gays having kids, well 'they' don't really do they? not without surrogates (are they responsible in any way?)
who sometimes work full time as incubators. Whether gay marriage will be any more stable than heterosexual marriage will take some generations to resolve with 'gay offspring'rights a questionable issue.
Please feel free to call gay marriage by that name if you wish'(for that matter you can also call your car, your boat) if you feel comfortable about it. It is none of my business,but I still feel free to make, what seems now, in these heady times, 'controversial remarks',
I do not think I am ignorant in calling a spade a spade, and by not over generalizing on some great right thwarted, in those preferring a same sex relationship and demanding the same rights exactly as heterosexuals .
As for stormy love movies, down the track where Wally finally leads Arthur down the aisle, given away by Surrogate Sally, well perhaps my more moderate views wont seem so bad after all
Glad you see society as 'moving on'------could have fooled me.

Quite often many of us show a pseudo righteousness over causes that may be less valid, compared to others, and that may need much more looking into from a generalized perspective than we are prepared to take the trouble to take. It is easy to put down detractors if one simply relies on limited emotive convictions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: