nc bans gay marriage

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Semantics? You are going to use semantics to justify your point of view? the available evidence is that there is no genetic test for homosexuality and and no known physiological difference between hetero and homosexual so what does that leave? It leaves preference, not orientation. One can argue that they believe homosexuals are born that way and I completely understand that point of view. In any case, the term preference is appropriate in terms of fact. Using your logic one could argue that pedophilia and beastialty quailfy for the same acceptance for the same reasons by the way. There is no test for either, there no physiological differences between 'normal people' and people who engage in these relationships and the relationships are based on sexual preference outside the natural heterosexual/procreation model that allows our species to survive.
If we compare based on the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia that has been used as an argument for same-sex marriage here and elsewhere, the difference is clear. In that case a black woman married a white man in violation of laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. Being black or being white is orientation. Wanting to be with a black or white in a sexual relationship is a preference. That case was decided on the basis of orientation and if there was a preference involved it was neither mentioned nor was it relevant. Ethnicity=orientation, homosexulaity=preference. That's not religion, that's not morality, that's science.
I have a problem with you calling me by inferrence a homophobe. That term denotes a lack of understanding and/or hate of homosexuals. I can assure you neither is the case. I am not advocating for laws against homosexuality or homosexual acts. I just don't want the cultural definition of marriage to be expanded to include same-sex marriage.

Ben Gleck wrote:

<quoted text>Yes of course, the law is grounded in definitions. But, those definitions are subject to change, aren't they? For instance the Supreme Court, unfortunately just changed the definition of a person to include a corporationand the definition of speech to include money. Now if that rediculous change in definitions can occur, then why not the definition of marriage change to include gay marriage?"

courthouse wrote:

<quoted text>
Laws are grounded in definitions. Nothing weak about it. I could argue against a lot of definitions but it would still be the law. And the law defines marriage to be a man/woman relationship. Yeah, it could be defined as two people just living together but then we'd have to extend those benefits to lots more people. So it isn't about "banning" this or that - either you qualify under the defintion or you don't. Since we've used that definition - either implicitly or explicitly - since the beginning of this country, you'll need a really good reason to change it. "Cause we wanna" ain't a reason. And wanting all the advantages of a definition won't cut it, either. If you want to claim a dependent on your tax return, meet the IRS standard or move on. Same with this.

Gay Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Standards change and evolve. Further, why is it okay for individual state legislatures to decide that an embryo is a person, now, and that that person has rights, when in 1972 abortion was legalized? Why is is always okay for the NeoCons to change and alter definitions, but when the progressives try to move forward and actually HELP hard-working, tax-paying citizens of the United States, they are in the wrong? Just because you don't like the idea, doesn't make it inherently wrong. What IS wrong is discriminating against someone for something that had no hand in choosing. You can claim all you want that there is no scientific proof that gays are born that way, but you have to remember how long it takes to establish scientific proof. Lastly, I implore you to actually TALK to a homosexual - you'll learn a lot. None of us chose this; there was no conscious decision-making involved in our homosexuality. The only thing we get to choose is whether or not to come out of the closet, and sometimes we don't even get that.

Ben Gleck wrote:

<quoted text>I just don't want the cultural definition of marriage to be expanded to include same-sex marriage. Those are your words. OK why? I havent heard one single reason that makes any sense on why we should ban gay marriage. I've heard mumbo jumbo from the Bible. But, we're not a theocracy, last time I looked anyway. I see alot of talk about "definitions" that's pretty weak. We used to define people of color as sub humans,.That got changed, thank God. I see nebulous crap about it effectin social security and such. How stupid is that. Gays on average make more than straight people. Oh and then there's the insanity about child molesters. Is there any evidence that gays are more likely to do that than straights? It looks like you anti gay marriage folks are desperate to prove something that's impossible to prove. Once more, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. Other than that it's really none of your bussiness, is it?

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
The part you don't seem to get here is that regardless what my reasons are and what beliefs and experiences that have influnceed me in coming to that conclusion don't matter. What matters is my right to that opinion. Unlike marriage, my freedom in that regard is well documented and guaranteed.
The only references to the bible you got from me were early on in this thread when someone said that the bible doesn't mention homosexuality. When that was proven wrong the same poster said that there must be something wrong with the translation.
You are wrong about it not being anyone's business. The way we define marriage in our society is everyone's business. It is everyone's business how we want our culture to evolve and be defined. Much of it is based on attitudes and beliefs but a lot of the way defining things like this is done is through legislation. You just don't like it because in 40 states society has decided in law to define marriage in a way that is unacceptable to you. You see it as ignorant and hateful. To your mind what other reasons could there be right? I can assure you though that those are not the only reasons people can reasonably come to a conclusion on this that is contrary to yours. Again, it doesn't matter what my (or anyone else's) reasons are whether based in faith, based in science or just based on being uncomfortable with the concept of same-sex marriage on some basic human emotional level.
You want to force your definition of what you see as acceptable down everyone's throat even though all of the evidence shows that when people vote their conscience in the privacy of a voting booth throughout the U.S.(including far left California and among minorities) they are far and away against you point of view. Do you see the irony in that?

Ben Gleck wrote:

<quoted text>I agree, you certainly have a right to your opinion. And I have a right to mine. This country has a long history of trampling on other peoples civil rights. Egs. Slavery, womens rights, etc. And thankfully, we have a history of overcoming those ignorant prejudices. And guaranteeing that those peopl'e rights be protected under the law. You seem to be misinformed into believing that America is ruled by the majority. That has never been the case. We are a Republic. which means we are ruled by the law. This protects minorities from being opressed by wrong thinking majorities. If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is a right, then you can vote otherwise until your eyes pop out and it won't change a thing. Nothing is being thrust down your throat. Except maybe a lesson in tolerance. Which you obviously need. As for how our society is defined and evolves, I would hope that we are defined by our belief in tolerance and respecting the rights of others. And not intolerance and bigotry. It looks like you have completely given up on presenting any intelligent reason for your position. That's because there really isn't any.

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
OK. I think I have to type slower so you might finally get this.
You and others keep talking about rights and about taking them away/denying them. No one is talking about denying the right or taking away the right to participate in a homosexual lifestyle. That is not the conversation. This conversation is about qualifying for marriage. As has been demonstrated with many example, marriage is not a right and there are many who's relationships fall outside the cultural, societal and natural norm that are not allowed to enter into marriage. You seem to be blinded to that fact and your continual diatribe about denying rights proves that.
Let me try again.
Marriage is not a right.
Many relationships are excluded by society at large and our culture from the institution of marriage.
Same sex marriage is one of those.
For the Supreme Court to rule the way you would like they have to demopnstrate and prove a few things first. Number one. Standing. They have to get by the 10th Amendment. "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people". The fact is they would be looking at overturning the will of the people in 40 states as it stands today. If they somehow read between the lines of the Constitution and pronounce that they have standing, they still have another hurdle. Regardless of what you might "feel" is true, there is no conclusive medical evidence that defines one as a homosexual. It is only by sexual preference(lifestyle) that one is defined as homosexual. When sexual preference becomes a factor then the slippery slope arguments about incestuous relationships, beastiality and all of the other sexual preferences outside the societal and cultural norms are in play. There are many who believe that the Supreme Court won't touch this with a ten foot pole.

Ben Gleck wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, you definitely need to type slower. Beacause so far you haven't made any sense at all. It just reads like word salad. Doesn't the 14th amendment guarentee that a persons civil rights be protected, in all states? You like to keep repeating that marriage is not a civil right. But the Supreme Court will most likely find that it is. Again we are not a nation that is ruled by "the will of the people". If we were we would probably still have women prohibited from voting and likely still have slavery. There is mounting evidence that for many people homosexuality does have a genetic basis. And even if it doesn't these same citizens serve in combat, pay taxes, and contribute greatly to society. Eventually they will have the same rights and considerations as every one else. Can't you see the writing on the wall? You can dress your bigotry up in psuedo intellectual mumbo jumbo all you want. But, your argument is even less than weak. You like to repeat that forty states prohibit gay marriage but why not mention the growing number of states that do? Isn't there like a thousand % increase in them?

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
You said:
"Again we are not a nation that is ruled by "the will of the people". "
Since when are we not a nation ruled by the will of the people? We are not a pure democracy but we are certainly a representative republic. The representative part means that the people we elect are hired to represent our collective will. That's a founding principle and a pretty important one.
Something has to be a right before a right can be denied.
The Supreme Court will likely choose to not hear the case at all.
Homosexuality and practicing a homosexual lifestyle may be a right but marriage most certainly is not.
Marriage is not a civil right.
Marriage is not a right at all.
Many are denied marriage based on their sexual preference.
If those three sentences weren't true would there even be a discussion?
Your comparisons with sufferage and slavery are non-starters. Apples and oranges. If you've read anything at all about this issue you know that especially in the minority community those comparisons are unwelcome. Did you know that when you look at the statistics on how people voted in California that it was blacks and hispanics that put the man/woman definition over the top? Does that sound like minorities find kinship with same-sex marrigae advocates? Hardly. It might be a different story if the question was one of discriminating against someone in the workplace or barring people from entering particular places because of their sexual preference. It's not.
In every state where same-sex marriage has been proposed on a ballot where people are allowed to vote their conscience in the privacy of a voting booth away from the fear of being called hateful, bigoted or worse they have with one early exception in Arizona voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. In the Arizona case the second time around put them with the majority. In every state and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriages are performed, it was made legal by a judge or a legislature. There I talked about it. Here in New York the legislation passed by a narrow margin and only after some 11th hour language was added to exempt some from lawsuits. Otherwise it wouldn't have passed here either.
You can go on and on about public opinion and polls but the facts are the facts and everything else is opinion and emotion. I think that the public at large is very complacent when it comes to government. Low voter turnout points to that. I think same-sex marriage is one of those issues that gets people to the polls. Not because they are hateful, not because they are bigoted but because there is a line in our culture that when crossed, spurs a response. This is one of those issues.

Ben Gleck wrote:

<quoted text>If we were to go back in time just a little bit you could be talking about civil rights for blacks or women. What you fail to figure in is change. everything changes. What was not a right at one point becomes one. Otherwise why would we have a judiciary system. or a legislative system. First you chastise me for what you call an opinion. Then in the very next paragraph you prattle on about the public opinion of blacks and Latinos. Since when do they get to dictate the law? they are as prone to bigotry and prejudice as everyone else. marriage. It's funny to me how right wing idealogues always revert to screaming about "facts" when it is no such thing. Too much El Blimpo I'm sure. The right also likes to claim "freedom" as their own private virtue and yet insist on involving themselves with what everyone else does in their bedroom or what they smoke, or who they decide to marry. Did you completely forget about tolerance? OK so you're faith based. Cool! I think Christianity is the biggest crock of bullsh#t ever invented. What if I argued that Christians should not be allowed to marry. After all that is a life style of choice isn't it? Just ask an early Roman.

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not and would not chastise anyone for having an opinion. Everyone has that right. What you and same-sex advocates do not have the right to do is force your opinion on everyone else.
I mentioned blacks and Hispanics because from your an often heard comparison is with the struggles of minorities. I used the way they voted to show that they feel no kinship with those who advocate for same-sex marriage. In fact, they with their votes show that the majority of them that vote are against it. In the case of blacks and Hispanics who voted in California it comes down to this. They had an opinion. They had a right to that opinion. They did not force that opinion on anyone. Legislation was posed in a ballot initiative. They along with like-minded people used their opinion as a basis for how they voted on the legislation. Their opinion alone did not change anything. Their vote, combined with the votes of people who had the same opinion did that. Again though, it doesn't matter why they have the opinion they do whether religious, scientific or maybe it's just that it makes them uncomfortable on some basic human level. For most there is a difference between the struggles of women and ethinc minorities (genetic) and homosexual marriage (a sexual preference. If it was that gays were being denied employment or voting or admission to some venue because of their sexual preference then you might have a valid comparison. Once again, that is not the conversation or debate. This is a question of marriage and as most know, marriage is not a right.
You are entitled to your opinion on this. You are not entitled to force me and people who share my opinion to accept yours without a vote. I have no doubt your opinion would be different regarding this fact if your point of view had the support in the voting booth that mine does. It would then I'm sure be you saying that majority and the will of the people rules and that I would have to accept that without argument. We are a nation of laws and whether you like it or not it is the will of the majority that prevails except when activist judges (as was the case in California) or legislatures (like here in New York) usurp the will of the people or don't even pose the question to the people because they fear the result will be contrary to their agenda. I've said it before. You disagree with the way things are because your opinion, when measured where it really counts at the ballot box, is in the minority.
You keep going back to religion. I haven't used my faith and what I personally believe anywhere in this conversation as a basis for my opinion. Do you get some sense of satisfaction saying the nasty things you do about Christianity? You problem with religion obviously goes much further than this question.

Gay Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the difference - for gay marriage to be accepted, it doesn't affect you at all. For you loudmouth zealots who hijack Christianity to FEEL accepted (not realizing you've been accepted in this country for your entire lives, and you don't even appreciate that simple fact), you want to government to declare homosexuals second class citizens, not worthy of the same rights as other American citizens. Homosexuality is no longer considered a disease, which means that according to the medical and scientific communities (read: those who can PROVE what they are saying), it is perfectly normal to be gay. If it's normal, how can you justify banning marriage for homosexuals? Banning it is discrimination. You don't seem to realize that what you are asking for is to have control over other Americans - all the gays want is control over our own lives. You are harkening back to slavery. Queers are for FREEDOM. We are the REAL Patriots.

FaithBasedGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did not and would not chastise anyone for having an opinion. Everyone has that right. What you and same-sex advocates do not have the right to do is force your opinion on everyone else.
I mentioned blacks and Hispanics because from your an often heard comparison is with the struggles of minorities. I used the way they voted to show that they feel no kinship with those who advocate for same-sex marriage. In fact, they with their votes show that the majority of them that vote are against it. In the case of blacks and Hispanics who voted in California it comes down to this. They had an opinion. They had a right to that opinion. They did not force that opinion on anyone. Legislation was posed in a ballot initiative. They along with like-minded people used their opinion as a basis for how they voted on the legislation. Their opinion alone did not change anything. Their vote, combined with the votes of people who had the same opinion did that. Again though, it doesn't matter why they have the opinion they do whether religious, scientific or maybe it's just that it makes them uncomfortable on some basic human level. For most there is a difference between the struggles of women and ethinc minorities (genetic) and homosexual marriage (a sexual preference. If it was that gays were being denied employment or voting or admission to some venue because of their sexual preference then you might have a valid comparison. Once again, that is not the conversation or debate. This is a question of marriage and as most know, marriage is not a right.
You are entitled to your opinion on this. You are not entitled to force me and people who share my opinion to accept yours without a vote. I have no doubt your opinion would be different regarding this fact if your point of view had the support in the voting booth that mine does. It would then I'm sure be you saying that majority and the will of the people rules and that I would have to accept that without argument. We are a nation of laws and whether you like it or not it is the will of the majority that prevails except when activist judges (as was the case in California) or legislatures (like here in New York) usurp the will of the people or don't even pose the question to the people because they fear the result will be contrary to their agenda. I've said it before. You disagree with the way things are because your opinion, when measured where it really counts at the ballot box, is in the minority.
You keep going back to religion. I haven't used my faith and what I personally believe anywhere in this conversation as a basis for my opinion. Do you get some sense of satisfaction saying the nasty things you do about Christianity? You problem with religion obviously goes much further than this question.

KY WELLER wrote:

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppp! Being gay is normal... What a looney tune!

Gay Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
you want to government to declare homosexuals second class citizens, not worthy of the same rights as other American citizens.