May 9, 2012
An actual copy of North Carolina’s marriage amendment
Oh, did you think I meant the one from earlier this week? Sorry for the confusion…
(via BuzzFeed)
* * * * *
© 2013 Abuyo. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
May 9, 2012
Oh, did you think I meant the one from earlier this week? Sorry for the confusion…
(via BuzzFeed)
* * * * *
Funny how all those African-Americans in North Carolina who voted overwhelmingly for Amendment 1 missed this connection. What a bunch of bigots.
Unless, of course, there are good and valid reasons for opposing gay marriage and supporting interracial marriage.
But no, it’s easier to call someone a bigot than try to understand their position.
Unless, of course, there are good and valid reasons for opposing gay marriage
Except there aren’t.
Not a single one.
HTH.
Yes name ONE good and valid reason to oppose gay marriage that doesn’t involve religious beliefs. Then maybe we can have a discussion.
I would let him name a good and valid reason that DOES involve religious beliefs, too, but he can’t do that, either.
(“good and valid” are EXTREMELY high bar to hold a religious belief to, when you’re talking about enforcing said religious belief on other people who don’t share it while simultaneously trying to argue that their equally-good-and-equally-valid-using-your-own-reasoning religious beliefs should not be applied to you in return. And, like I said, there are no good and valid reasons, religious or not, to oppose gay marriage. Not one.)
How many states didn’t forbid it in 1875? Geez!
I agree with Micah. The ban on gay marriage is just the same if not worse than this. These people have to get their heads out of their churches asses.
there IS a difference; the Bible forbids what we call “gay” relations. In NO place in the Bible does it say that we should all forbid interracial marriage
America is supposed to have freedom of religion. What that means is that you can’t force your religious beliefs on the rest of us. You are free not to marry someone of the same sex, but you shouldn’t be able to impose your definition of marriage on people who don’t share in your beliefs.
There IS a difference; the Bible, not just churches, condemns homosexuality.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous1 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,2 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Nowhere in the Bible does it condemn interracial marriage or relationships. Now I am not saying that all gay people should be put to death, that verse is from the Old Testament, when Jesus came in the New Testament he paid the price for our sin (including homosexuality, greed, lying, and the sins we ALL commit and deserve death for) so that any who put their faith in Him can be forgiven.
Well-written. Thanks for clarifying, Joy.
Except………
That is neither what the original bible says, nor what the original words meant.
AND………if you read further, the bible also condemns a whole lot of other stuff, that I am sure you should be put to death for.
I find it funny, that in the first section – assuming that it is the direct ancient text and not one of the myriad of “modern” re-wordings, that you have a list of a whole bunch of people who “will not get into heaven” yet there are no CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS forbidding those activities.
You cannot pick and chose the parts of the bible that you want to follow and agree with. Either you believe and follow it all OR you understand that it was a bible written by men and is a product of the time.
Stop quoting the bible as if it justifies your hatred of homosexuality.
It does give justification for hating homosexuality (NOT homosexuals), we should hate all sin. We should NOT hate sinners, the people doing the sin. Unfortunately many christians (as well as those who claim to be, but really are not) get this wrong and do hate those who are called homosexuals, this is wrong; attacks and abuse of gay people is wrong. Calling what they are doing wrong is NOT wrong anymore than saying a man sleeping with his daughter is wrong, or myself committing the many sins that I still commit.
And yes, we all deserve death, but because Jesus has paid the penalty for our sins all who trust in him can have eternal life with Him.
Why is it that all religious people think they are right! I am an atheist. Maybe what I believe is right. Maybe we should allow people to live their lives the way they believe is right. We need laws that are made with common sense and that brings people together not separate or alienates a section.
Amen. I could not have said it better. The bible has been rewritten way too many times to believe a lot of it,especially after King James got ahold of it. I know that some where it says that all men are created equal. I don’t believe that it meant Men exclusively, I feel it was meaning mankind/humanity as a whole. That means that what is good for one group of peoples is good for all groups of people. No one can help who they fall in love with and those that do manage to find true love regardless of sex, religion, race, etc. should have the same rights as everyone else.
What if I’m not Christian? What if I want to get married through the courts and have nothing to do with the church or rules that don’t apply to me. Why should the bible matter then?
The first Scripture you mentioned pretty much bans 100% of the population from the kingdom of God… Just saying.
I’m pretty sure that’s the point, Salina. Paul later goes on later in that verse to say, “And such were some of you.” The point is, Christ redeems sinners.
There are lots of reasons I don’t like the bible … this is one of them. Do you believe and practice everything the bible says? If you do, at least you’re not a hypocrite.
Except there’s a division between church and state, and as marriage is a legal and contractual matter as far as the state is concerned, people shouldn’t have to give a good goddamn about whatever the Bible has to say unless they themselves have that faith.
Christianity is about Love and Grace. Why don’t you leave the judging up to God…
The sad factor is that the Majority should not be able to vote on the minority. Plain and simple not right!!!!!
Perhaps you would like to move to a place where the minority votes on the majority.
First off I will start by saying I am a Christian and a lesbian (crazy right?). You will understand why this is ok by the end.
Other rules in Leviticus:
Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
Do you follow those rules Joy? Well first off you do not have to any more. That was the old covenant and when Jesus came he specifically said that he was creating a NEW covenant. This means the verses I just mentioned and the whole old testament is irrelevant except when used to understand the new testament.
So looking at the new testament what verses shall we look at?
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Let us take a look at the history of this verse. Persons involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. They are condemned because they went against their nature — their heterosexual orientation — and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamentali nature — their homosexual orientation — and engaged in opposite-gender sexual behavior would also be sinning.
I have a consideration for you Joy and it comes from the bible. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2).
Do you still live in all sin consciously? For example do you still lie even though you know it is against God’s will? Or do you just focus on not doing the “BIG” sins such as killing or having sex before your married or if you are married not committing adultery? Just some food for thought before you go around saying something is wrong when you have not had the proper knowledge surrounding an issue.
On a side note (and this is not just for you Joy) please research and understand your position and look at all sides of an issue before taking a stance.
Love and Light
Jessica
There is a big difference between a conscious decision to live a sinful lifestyle and slipping up and making a mistake.
People can pretty much make the Bible say anything they want that will make them feel good about how they choose to live their lives, but God knows the heart.
But all religious beliefs aside, how in the world does homosexuality make any sense? The equipment, so to speak, wasn’t made for like equipment. Male and female are physically designed for each other; not Adam and Steve, nor Eve and Evelyn. Come on… where is common sense? Oh, I forgot, it died a long tortured death long ago.
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency may help answer your question about how it makes sense. Not everyone is born with standard equipment. Many people are born with attributes of both sexes. Others have normal genitals but chromozomal differences. In 1990 a study showed found a common link between mae homosexuals – a high percentage had mothers who suffered some sort of trauma or illness in the second trimester. And there are bound to be factors no one has yet uncovered.
We don’t look at homosexuality as a birth defect, but in many cases, there is no doubt that is the case. It is extremely common for doctors ( or parents) to make a call when a child is born of an indeterminate sex, and raise the child as if it were one sex, when that child may feel very much the other sex inside. An old friend who is a lesbian told me this week about her new girlfriend, who is intersex, and then she confided to me that she thought she might be too, because certain things had happened during her life that just didn’t fit. I didn’t ask her to elaborate, but let’s suppose a ‘girl’ who always felt like a boy failed to develop breasts or start ‘her’ period. Suppose that child were put on medication ‘she’ didn’t quite understand. ‘She’ isnt a lesbian, or a girl at all. Perhaps she is a mislabeled boy.
We’re cruel to people in this predicament. Shame on society. Shame on everyone who jumps to judgement without stoping to think what seriously would make someone attracted to the same sex – or what appears to be the same sex ( but for all we know, may no be). After all, in no one’s imagination is it the easy route through life.
Grow a morsel of compassion
amen brother,lol.i dont know how many “vote yes” placards i saw in front of churches.so much for separation of church and state.its for this reason i find this article to be worth less than the paper its printed on.if churches want a voice in politics,let them pay taxes and help with the deficit.maybe the supreme court should have a look and see if this violates civil rights.
Nowhere in any founding documents does it say that religious institutions are not permitted a voice in politics; other religions are just as free to put “vote no” in front of their places of worship (by the way my church is not one that did this)
What everyone is failing to realize is that the amendment we just voted on doesn’t affect gay relationships in the least. It was already illegal. Now all of the unmarried couples in the state, young and old, black or white, gay or straight are screwed. Our children are also screwed. Everyone was so blinded by their intolerance that they didn’t think about the repercussions. I can only hope that this amendment we are commenting on here is a sign that we one day can overturn the atrocity that has just passed.
Angie, I don’t know if you’ve read this or not, but I think that a lot of the claims that the marriage amendment is going to screw unmarried couples and children is a little misguided. Here’s what Campbell Law School came up with that seems to indicate that many of the fears about the amendment are a little far-fetched: http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/docs/campbelllawwhitepaper.pdf
If you want the full document (with all the legal language):
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf
Also, it DOES impact gay relationships in that it makes it harder for them to be legalized in the future. I assume that you’re against them being illegal, so you might not like that much. Nonetheless, your original comment about the amendment not affecting them was only a half truth.
Trey let me show you how it WILL affect unmarried couples:
http://mcgrathspielberger.com/ncs-constitutional-amendment-one-10-important-points-you-need-to-know
http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Final%20Marriage%20Amendment%20Report%202.pdf
This is an article about how pediatricians feel about the amendment.
http://www.protectncfamilies.org/news/nc-pediatricians-announce-opposition-amendment-one
These are just a few things. Some are arguable circumstances that wont be proven until it happens. Like the POSSIBILITY of the domestic abuse problems. HOWEVER to say that the issues that this amendment can and probably will cause are far fetched is a bit foolish (for lack of a better word). The amendment is poorly written and leaves loopholes all over the place. Just because OTHER states have similar amendments and don’t have severe issues that are being talked about publicly doesn’t mean that there ARE NO issues. I would have a HUGE issue with being told I cant be in the hospital with my fiance because we aren’t married and I’m not family. I would have an issue with losing all I helped work for because my boyfriend/fiance died and we had no will (since we aren’t married his property would go to family or the state). I would have a huge problem with my father not being able to pay his bills because he lives off social security and got married to someone else that does the same. They would lose their social security but to protect the rest of their rights they had to get married. Hypothetical I know but it can happen now that this amendment is passed. You are right, the amendment DOES affect gay couples but only in the same way it affects straight couples. They already couldn’t get married in this state. So the people that voted for amendment one solely to prevent gay marriage in this state voted for the wrong reasons.
There is a huge difference between race and gender. The racist laws prohibiting interracial marriage were wrong.
Damian people thought the same thing back in the time when interracial marriages were prohibited. Who is ANYONE to tell anyone else how or who they should love. I’m straight but if someone else wants to be gay that’s their choice and its no one but GODS place to judge.
I’m of to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz – oh look a straw man, lets knock it down…
If you want to say same sex marriage is a rights issue the same as interracial marriage then you cannot deny anyone who is a citizen the right to marriage – polygamy, marrying animals, cousins, kids, whatever.
This is not a rights issue. By implication as soon as you license someone to do something you are limiting who is able to be involved by any definition. The state has the right to limit who gets married, who gets to be a doctor, who drives a car or whatever they have invested in.
On the other hand what we really have here is a fight over a definition. The definition of marriage existed long before the state, so the state can’t change the definition. For instance, the state can’t say a carrot is now called a blue because one group of citizens like the word blue more than the word carrot. Truth be told same sex marriage is an oxymoron because marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman. That is why most states didn’t define marriage in their law prior to 1996 – because the word was already clearly define outside their jurisdiction.
It is time for the same sex marriage advocates to realize that they started this issue to make same sex marriage universally accepted, but instead, since 1996 (when the federal government defined marriage as between one man and one woman) we now have 30 states that have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Six states allow same sex marriage, but in each of those cases it was a court or legislature acting against the wishes of the general voting public.
If the government wants to issue a civil union license or something else that is up to the government, but they shouldn’t don’t change the meaning of a word they didn’t create.
Very well spoken.
This.
This is very well said, Shaun! It’s a shame we don’t have any representatives that are as well spoken as you are about our laws and why they are the way they are!
You’re driven ignorance, which, after all, is all bigotry is. Educate yourself, as have all the straights who support gay rights have taken the time to do, and try again.
If ALL marriages were changed to civil unions, I’d agree with you on that and let churches do whatever additional fanfare they like, but until that happens, it’s still sepratism.
For the record Lulu, that is EXACTLY what I am calling for. If we are going to be all ‘seperation of church and state’ then the state should leave marriage to the churches that instituted the sacrament, and stick to civil unions for all the public benfits being fought over.
Except churches didn’t institute the sacrament of marriage. Marriage pre-existed any Christian church and the only commonality among all forms of marriage that exist and have is existed, which can allow it as an institution to be defined, is that it’s a legal/contractual arrangement.
What you’re calling for is a re-write of human history in the sociological interests of your cult of choice.
What if churches left marriage to the state?
Thanks for calling me an ignorant bigot – I appreciate your heart, especially since you didn’t interact with my argument at all.
I would not be opposed to the concept of a civil union by the government if they allowed the various types of religions the ability to define within their practice what constitutes a marriage – maybe a blessing or covenant or whatever they do in each tradition.
So… If this is just a big fight over a definition, then why aren’t we fighting over defining mopeds as vehicles and bushes as tree’s. Let’s face it – denying gay men and women the right to marry is plain and simple: bigotry. Look up that word and you will begin your journey into the real world, where DEFINITIONS are arbitrary things that can be changed. I’m pretty sure protecting the rights of definitions is not what the constitution is about. Fuck a dictionary… Ever wonder why there are so many different kinds?
bigotry – stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Not sure what value it is to look up that definition if it can just be changed arbitrarily.
Nowhere did I say I was intolerant of someone else’s creed (although you seem to be against the current laws and creeds of the land) or belief (although you seem to be) or opinion (although you seem to be).
I never mentioned the constitution – I was making a simple point that when marriage laws were initially written the word “marriage” defined a relationship between a man and a woman. Homosexual groups are now asking we change the definition of marriage.
Also… How can you seriously compare same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. Furthermore – How did you get these ignorant people to stand behind such a claim? Yes, I’m talking about you guys up there…
I agree. The slippery slope argument is one that annoys me the most. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults, just like straight marriage. It is not between kids, or animals who can’t give consent.
What do you call water that is frozen = ice. What do call water that is heated = steam. What do you call a man a women who commit to each other to the exclusion of all others for life = marriage.
What do you call two people who are of the same gender who wish to commit to each other = ?
The problem is they don’t have a name – so they are stealing marriage – marriage does not mean what they want it to just like we don’t call steam ‘ice’ it iis different – so please for everyones sake come up with another word to discribe something that is not marriage.
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship (Wikipedia definition).
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (merriam-webster dictionary definition).
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 similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage (dictionary.com definition).
Now, I get that the older meaning of marriage referrers to an opposite-sex couple…but didn’t ‘gay’ used to mean happy? Weren’t their only four elements to the Greeks?
Really, you’d think that your guardians never taught you to share your stuff with people.
Oh, you mean like Christian stole Christmas and Easter? And like you take eveyr opportunity to steal logos and slogans that are the legal property of companies ( “things go better with Christ”, etc)?
No, this isn’t the same, not that you’d recognize theft if it bit you on your holier than thou butt.
You need to read The First Honest Book About Lies before you go waving your dirty underwear at a demographic that can see through your dishonesty in the blink of an eye.
I did not compare same sex marriage with incest and bestiality, nor did I describe a slippery slope.
I am asking for consistent logic. If your argument is that marriage is a universal right then that right should be applied universally – that would encompass polygamy, incest, bestiality, or sodomy. Nobody I have heard wants that, instead, even homosexuals want to limit who can be married.
No, including bestiality or pedophilia is indeed a stretch. Simply because I say it is a universal human right to eat junk food (or any other food that really does nothing to “nourish” us), does not mean that I advocate our right to eat any old thing that comes to a person’s mind, including other people’s food or cannibalism. Address the singular issue of homosexual marriage without forcing people to fight the straw man of bestiality.
I did not compare same sex marriage with incest and bestiality,
Yes, you did.
So are you bearing false witness against your neighbours by lying about what you said and now DENYING that you equated homosexuals to pedophiles, or are you bearing false witness against your neighbours by still equating homosexuals to pedophiles?
I mean, it has to be one or the other. Either way, you’ve got a problem.
(Hint: Your line now is not “But, who is my neighbour?”. I know that’s your first impulse, but put it out of your head, because that’s wrong)
Homosexuality, pedophilia.
Both are just plain perverse.
If you want to say same sex marriage is a rights issue the same as interracial marriage then you cannot deny anyone who is a citizen the right to marriage – polygamy, marrying animals, cousins, kids, whatever.
Ah, yes, because in your world “the right of a white woman to marry a black man” is EXACTLY the same as “the right of a woman to marry a dog” and “the right of a man to marry a toddler”.
I realise you’re unclear on the concept of “consenting adult”, but the rest of us aren’t. Please at least TRY to catch up, BEFORE falling on your face, next time?
You are missing the point Shaun. Its defining the only LEGALLY recognized relationship in the state to be a marriage between one man and one woman. That also means that the old couples living on social security now have to get married in order to have any rights. The young couples that arent married also have to get married in order to have any rights. Before the amendment gay and straight couples lived as “married” in their own homes and helped each other by adding their significant others to their medical insurance and things like that. They filed married after so many years for tax credits. Now ALL of those things are abolished thanks to the amendment. Children, custody, wills, all will be affected by this amendment UNLESS youre married.
So fix those things that you mention are an issue don’t try and redefine marriage to fix it. In Australia we have laws to cover these different arrangements yet they are still trying to change the definition of marriage here as well.
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
educate yourself and try again
It’s bad that I noticed this was chapter XXX.
I fully support gay marriage (and, alternatively, I support disallowing the state to use the word `marriage’ and renaming it all to ‘civil union’, and then having gay civil union as well as straight civil union). However, I do think that one can’t compare a ban on mixed marriage to a ban on gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage re-defines the meaning of the word ‘marriage’. I do believe this is a good re-definition, but it is not the same as allowing mixed marriage, which does not alter the meaning of the word.
This site should stick to funny things and not try to make political statements. Anyone who thinks that sexual preferences are equivalent to skin color shouldn’t be allowed to use a keyboard. Once again, skin color = morally neutral, sexual behavior is not morally neutral.
And anyone who is pro-”same-sex marriage” but anti-polygamy and bestiality is a major hypocrite. All arguments to push the first apply to the others (born that way, bigotry, hate, etc.).
I disagree. I can believe that a marriage is between two consenting adults and only two consenting adults. Beastiality is just a stupid argument because an animal can’t give consent so it can’t be between two consenting individuals.
It in no way redefines marriage, all it does it changes who is allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage. The base meaning remains whole, the legal participants just increased.
I am not a homosexual, however, I think that I should have the legal right to enter into any-god-damned-legal contract I want with anyone I want, because as an adult in this nation, I have the right to enter into contracts with other adults. This is a fundamental right of Any adult citizen in this nation.
Why two? Seems arbitrary.
I guess so. I really don’t have anything against polygamy either. If someone wants to have more than one wife (or husband) who am I to tell them not to?
Because marriage is traditionally a property contract, wherein a man gains the the property (a woman) of another man (her father) in perpetuity and assumes the rights of an owner over her. Because, for the majority of western history, “women” were not included as a subset of “people”.
Modern marriage turns the ownership contract into a partnership of equals, sharing property and creating a joint legal entity with two authoritative figures. And the reason you can’t have *three* authoritative figures is that there’s about a billion points of law that ASSUME only two, and that break down badly when a third is introduced – which is to say, the main reason to disallow plural or multiple marriage is “paperwork”, not “morality”.
Now, traditional polygamy is demonstrably bad for society. In every case, it has lead to abuse, coercion, expulsion, and all manner of badness – but all those stem from the systematic need for each *man* to have multiple exclusive *women*, and the forces that shape those societies and cause those problems are easy to identify. In a setting where birth rates weren’t 50/50 and instead matched the “desired configuration”, the negative effects would vanish. In a setting where a woman was as likely to have multiple husbands as a man was to have multiple wives, the negative effects would vanish.
Fix the paperwork problems and ensure that plural marriage is available to anyone who wants it and not just men who want multiple wives, and there’s suddenly no practical *or* moral reason to prevent it.
We’re just not at either of those points, yet.
RIGHT marci, that is exactly RIGHT!
It in no way redefines marriage, all it does it changes who is allowed to enter into the legal contract of marriage. The base meaning remains whole, the legal participants just increased.
I am not a homosexual, however, I think that I should have the legal right to enter into any-god-damned-legal contract I want with anyone I want, because as an adult in this nation, I have the right to enter into contracts with other adults. This is a fundamental right of Any adult citizen in this nation.
Not so much. You can’t just enter into ANY contract, especially if it affects others. In the case of marriage, this contract forces others to recognize it (such as with health care, etc).
Question concerning your comment. Would this include marrying your daughter? Your sister?
What people like you can’t explain, Joy, is how allowing same-sex marriage would have any impact on incest law. By allowing a “precedent”? In that case, why can’t people marry their daughters or sisters in the 20 or so states where they’re allowed to marry their first cousins? That’s a much clearer precedent of incest than allowing to unrelated people of the same gender to get married.
You’re pretending your moral and religious perspective on homosexuality is as natural and part of human nature as the the universal taboo on immediate-family incest. It isn’t. If you want to be a preachy, prostletyzing bigot, fine. It’s a free country. Be a preachy, prostletyzing bigot. Just don’t pretend you’re anything better or more rational than that.
And if you’re so dead-set obsessed with marrying your daughter or your sister – because, Joy, you’re the only type of person going on about that sort of thing – then I suggest you write to your congressional representative and ask them to do something about it. See how far you get.
paperchaser – look up in the comments and you will see marci advocating polygamy. look back in history 50 years and you will see that if somebody brought the idea of same sex marriage to their congressman it would not have gotten very far. Be consistent in your own argument.
Shaun, now it’s you who’s bringing up the feasibility of polygamy. You, BTW,and also a series of religious groups in the US. You’d do well to bear in mind that in the international jursidictions where polygamy is allowed, the rationale for it is generally religious or traditional – which seems to be the only coherent argument on this board AGAINST gay marriage. You’d think you people would be more amenable to the idea of polygamy when the arguments for it are so far up your own dead-end rhetorical alley.
My comment was about incest and the incest taboo. People who are against gay marriage are literally perverts if they imagine an equivalency between the extreme genetic dangers/pscyhological devastation involved in immediate-family incestuous relationships and the right of two unrelated people of the same gender to conclude a binding marriage contract.
Homosexuality isn’t a universal taboo. Polygamy isn’t a universal taboo. Immediate-family incestuous relationships are. Claiming homosexual marriage is a slippery slope towards immediate-family incestuous marriage is like claiming a chess hobby is a slippery slope toward serial rape.
What is it with you people and comparing oranges to elephants? Just fall back on the one argument you have that makes sense, even though the rest of us and a secular government should be absolutely free to ignore it: the Bible says you can’t, so people who believe in the Bible shouldn’t do it.
2 point Joy. SteveSH kind of missed what king of contracts people can enter in to. In the case of incest the reason we do not allow it is because of the genetic disposition to birth defects when reproducing. So in this case the contact could end in harm to a child. We of course can not have contacts that lead to harming someone especially a person who is out side of the contract who happens to be a minor as well.
Now do you have a good reason to ban same sex marriage? And I don’t want to hear God because as far as I am concerned he/she/it does not exist. You have to show me where harm is being done to people.
For all the people who said this would lead us to marrying dogs and children you need to learn what consent means. The incest is the only half decent argument as far a slippery slope goes because there is an obvious ledge laid down at consent.
Note: I said the birth-defects is why we don’t allow inner-family marriage, I don’t actually know why we don’t allow them but I think that would be a good reason to keep the laws stating we don’t.
Steve it doesnt change who can enter the legal contract of marriage. Gay marriage was already illegal in NC. It changes the legal definition of a recognized relationship. Now unless you are married you are single. Period. With that comes all the repercussions of being single financially and legally. Its not right.
Steve – I was wondering how it does not change the definition – i think you mean – it does not change it ‘much’. But let not kid ourselves the problem is a change in what for a long time people have accepted as the general definition of marriage. So just like ice, steam and liquid all describe the different states of water – so two should a different word be used to describe the joining of two men, two dogs, three women etc these are different things – call it something different.
To be fair, it doesn’t ban ALL mixed marriages: it seems as though a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation can marry without any problems. It seems safe to assume that all black people can trace their lineage back four generations to a negro, thus it could (perhaps) be argued that this amendment was not banning anything.
Yes, they just passed the amendment for shits and giggles, not because it actually banned interracial marriage like it sounded like. Joke was on the whites & blacks who thought they couldn’t get married.
I read this week that North Carolina has the highest use of psychotropic meciaction in children of any US State. MMM. I’m sure there is a connection. Like we can’t tolerate anyone who won’t conform to our notion of Normal.
I would love to see that article jezza, but I can’t find it anywhere online. However, even if it is true that in no way correlates to this law – your argument is more sarcasm I would think.
Actually, it is a sure sign teachers are illegally pushing parents to get their kids drugged so they will be more compliant in class. The same thing happened in the 1990′s in Cobb county Georgia, until the American Pediatric Academy outed the local pediatricians by publicly announcing that Cobb Co. had the highest Ritilin use in the country, and needed to stop. So they did. They sitched to Adderall and other pharmaceuticals.
What the public has never been told is that the symptoms for ADD/ADHD are IDENTICAL to the symptoms for childhood depression. That is why kids on drugs for ADD?ADHD eventually graduate to anti-depressants.
I recently read in my genetics class that improper use of ADD/ADHD drugs on children who are misdiagnosed leads to a high risk of adult depression.
The fact is that same sex marriage doesn’t adversely affect anyone, yet it gives legal protection to a loving consensual relationship. Why anyone would be against that is beyond me.
And don’t bring the Bible into it, especially Leviticus, which is full of “rules” that no one follows (including allowing possession of slaves).
How can anyone tell another who to love?
Those are my thoughts exactly. If it doesn’t hurt you why should you have the right to tell anyone what to do? It does not hurt the children (look into countless psychological articles if you don’t believe me) and how can a family hurt the moral fabric of the community? I feel like anyone against it just wants to be a tattle tale and we all need to get out of 5th grade and let people live their lives as equal citizens.
Same sex marriage does hurt someone – it hurts ‘heterosexuals’ who want gays available for bathroom trysts and threesomes. What will they do if gays become less available?
Remember this next time somoene claims they are hurt by the idea of gay marriage.
At the end of the day, this whole argument boils down to whether homosexuality is morally right or morally wrong.
Except for one thing: We do legislate *all* morality (not to be confused with those who foolishly say we cannot legislate morality as all laws have a basis in morality).
The question is whether this is a battle that can truly be fought and won by those who do not support gay marriage. I say it cannot. Either both sides lose, or gay marriage is legalized (supposing there is not a mandate upon religious institutions to perform the ceremony which would fly directly in the face of the freedom of religion).
Simply put, this has turned into a flame war (no pun intended, but duly noted) on both sides. Not only that, it is now one of those great distracting points mentioned in politics that take away from other issues on which our representatives could be (and should be) spending much more time.
Will putting a ban on gay marriage (or if you prefer “protecting the traditional definition of marriage) stop the practice which is what is being called out as immoral? No. What it would support is the idea that we cannot tolerate people being open about their lives, that they must continue living sheltered and alone. Without marriage the individuals do not have any rights regarding each other and the life they have chosen to live together.
Does the opposition have to applaud their lives? Not in the least, no more than I would expect them to applaud anyone else doing something that they believe is wrong. However, we are called to live amongst those who we feel are involved in immoral actions (which is everyone, for what it’s worth).
There are some things in this world worth people getting hurt over, some true moral situations that people of faith must stand up to prevent the truly damaging and irreparable events in life from occurring. Gay marriage is not that fight. This fight only thickens the divide, creates animosity, and pushes many people apart for a purpose that has no impact on anyone other than the two people involved. It does not shut off the action only the intended betterment of those who are going to continue doing what you find immoral.
You want to fight something truly important? Fight for the ability of the next generation to be civil, learn, create, and push for a better world without all this petty nonsense. For the Christian out there, Jesus did not harp on every sin He saw. He noticed it for sure, but without his acceptance of those who lived in sin, the kings, prophets, and disciples could never have been chosen. None of Scripture would have been written. Indeed, the pleas of Noah would have never swayed God in his destruction of the entire Earth. Disagree with the act all you want, but realize this is about people trying to obtain a better, more stable life. Be graceful and merciful.
And to the people who harp on Christians mentioning that it is a sin, stop saying that Christianity is all love and grace. Sure that’s a large portion, but it does not sum it up. And the verses dealing with judgement are speaking about a person’s ability (or even right) to determine the amount of love due to another or their eternal fate, not the ability to point out what is plainly stated as sin.
Wow, this is long, which is exactly why I try to stay away from these types of comment threads.
Well, crap. I should have proofread, first line should say “We do NOT legislate *all* morality.” Sheesh.
I think smoking is morally wrong. Plus it has a HUGE impact on taxpayers. So does obesity. Let’s make obesity and smoking illegal. While we are at it, I think that imposing religious beliefs on others is immoral and hurtful. Let’s make organized religion illegal. Okay, so I don’t really think those things should be illegal, even organized religion, because psychologically there are advantages to belonging to a group such as a church, despite the fact that many of these churches preach bigotry, hypocrisy, and hate. Sorry for the run on sentence there. Grammar pisses me off, let’s make bad grammar illegal. OR we can spend more money on education and stop spending money trying to fight something that the only argument against seems to be religious, something that is obviously going to be made legal eventually (you know you aren’t going to win). So why should the argument come down to what YOU think is morally right or wrong? It comes down to whether or not it is constitutional to discriminate against a large group of people based on our legal system, not your religion.
Aside from the name-calling and random use of Biblical verses, (which are in the minority), I am actually rather impressed with this debate. It’s too bad the rest of the county can not be as succinct and civil as the readers of twentytwowords.com.
To be honest, marriage is already a sick creature. When we changed no-fault divorce laws so that we can get rid of an unwanted spouse easier than an unwanted employee, we started down that “slippery slope.” In most cases it’s not even a contract, because a contract has consequences. I can’t blame those that live together without being married, because there is no percieved importance to the marriage partnership anymore.
With that being said, I regard my marriage as the most important thing in my life next to my relationship with God. When two people are legally married, society:
1. Sanctions their sexual relationship (hence adultery being grounds for divorce). With parental consent, someone under the age of legal consent can get married. Without this marriage, sexual relationships can end up with someone in jail.
2. Recognizes them as legally bound to each other and
3. Legally bound to their biological children.
Point 1 is why Christians are so against legalizing gay marriage, because as part of society we would be approving those relationships. Point 3 is a moot (unless one or both in a lesbian couple were to undergo AI) which leaves us with point 2. As far as I know, civil unions take care of this.
I am not against civil unions, but I am against gay marriage because of points 1 and 3.
But again. What gives you the right to sanction anyones sexual relationship? If you don’t agree with it then that’s fine but why should you or the government have a say in something private like someones sexual relationship? And as far as children, not all marriages result in children whether that’s from personal choice or from infertility. Just because gay couples can’t conceive shouldn’t make them ineligible for marriage because of it. Or else we’ll have to force infertile couples to divorce as well because their marriages won’t result in children.
Society takes it on itself to sanction sexual relationships. There are limits on what is appropriate, and with whom, therefore anything that falls within that limit can be sanctioned. That is why we have such things as “marriage licenses.” We get licenses for driving, but do not consider it a right. It is a privilege.
And I am not saying that childless marriages should be condemned (although I see them as selfish if by choice, and infertility as a tragedy). I am saying that marriage provides legal and binding benefits to biological children, therefore it is a moot point when a biological child of the couple is an impossibility.
But there are plenty of things that society has not stepped to prevent within sexual relationships. Many Christians believe that masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex are all against moral codes but nothing is done to prevent that. Why does homosexuality take president over other moral issues? As long as it is between two consenting adults, society has not stepped in to prevent ANY other kind of sexual relationship that I can think of. Can you provide an example?
it’s “precedent,” not “president.”
But why should society get to choose either? If it is not hurting anyone then why should anyone get to tell me what I’m allowed to do in my bedroom?
My point is, and this is a subject that no one that is against gay marriage can answer, is why should someone else get to tell me what to do if it is not hurting anyone? Why does the bible or your moral code apply to me? Because it shouldn’t.
“My point is, and this is a subject that no one that is against gay marriage can answer, is why should someone else get to tell me what to do if it is not hurting anyone?”
What do you define as “hurting” anyone? It hurts me to see immoral behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual, lauded by society as right, noble, and even essential.
When you believe something is right when I believe it is wrong, then yes, there is no acceptable answer. How about this: why should any child be deprived of having both a mother and a father? What do you have against making this a reality?
Jonathan, your comment about childless marriages being selfish, even though said as an aside, tells me mountains about you. You’re the morals police, and you think that YOUR morals are the only ones that count. Bah.
Marriage is a LEGAL contract that gives benefits to the couple. This is the UNITED STATES and it is unconstitutional to deny rights to a group of people.
“You’re the morals police, and you think that YOUR morals are the only ones that count.”
Which tells me that you don’t see my morals as counting at all. Which is perfectly fine with me, since morals are not to be compromised. I would not expect you to, and you should not expect me to.
Marriage is a LICENSED legal contract, as such it has restrictions.
WHAT? You said:
” With Parental consent, someone under the age of legal consent can get married. Without this marriage, sexual relationships can end up with someone in jail.”
“Recognizes them as legally bound to each other ”
So you’re a pedophile, but a Christian pedophile, who has a deep interest in keeping it legal.
You’re one sick individual. But yeah, now I can see how marriage YOUR way is working out for you. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I don’t think he was referring to an adult having legal sex with a minor after marriage. I believe he was talking about situations like when my sister got married at the age of 16 to her boyfriend of 18 — not that I think that is a great idea at all, but still less creepy — but then again I think you just love that blazing gun of yours taking shots at Christianity as if you stand on some morally superior ground yourself (based on several comments I’ve seen you make).
Carr,
You’re right. Jonathon wasn’t promoting the things he listed, but pointing out that these things are how marriage has been viewed historically, and is still viewed by some extremists. I worded my comment poorly – I did not intend to direct it at the writer, but at the person who thinks in the way he portrayed to make his point ( which I agree with).
I don’t find it at all acceptable for a 16 yo to get married. That law is only on the books to spare the rest of the family embarrassment, at the expense of the wellbeing of the juvenile.
I’d take a same sex marriage between two mature consenting adults any day over the marriage of juveniles, who lack the wisdom and experience to know what they want out of life.
I hardly think it’s “blazing guns at Christianity” to object to hypocrits, unless. of course, you consider hypocrisy to be part and partial of Christianity. in which case, consider me guilty as charged. And yeah, I am morally superior to hypocrits. Aren’t you? But what you misread as a superior attitude was my disgust at bullies. And people who try to use their religion (or, more often, pretense at religion) as a wedge to disrupt a faction of society who are minding their own business are just that – bullies.
No, I am not morally superior to hypocrites. I do not consider myself one in general, but I certainly am not superior to any. Where they fail, I succeed, and where I may collapse, they may triumph. We all have weaknesses, dark places of failure that we never can seem to overcome. In no way should we ever take a stance of superiority over another person.
Johnathan- It won’t let me click reply to you,
Don’t you see that that’s the juxtaposition that Abraham was making? You see this as immoral behavior just like people 100 years ago saw marriage between a black and a white person as immoral. Just because some people see it as immoral doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The same can be said for the second half of your argument. Why should any child be deprived of having both a mother an father would have been “Why should any child be deprived of having both a white mother and a white father” or vise versa. The truth is that not every child even of straight parents has a mother and a father, and the ones that do don’t guarantee that they’re good ones. Children of gay parents are usually adopted (unless they’re through surrogacy or IF) so really I’m asking you why should any child be deprived of having ANY parents, even if they don’t meet your cookie cutter definition of “right”?
Unfortunately, yes, there is no way to guarantee that the parents of a child are good. But I see it as important that a child has both a mother and a father. Society should seek to strengthen the family, not tear it down and redefine it.
And I do see the juxtaposition that Abraham was making, which is why I decided to throw in my opinion. But as everyone is pointing out, Gay is not equal to Child Molestation which is not equal to Bestiality. Therefore, Gay is not equal to Black.
I hope one day you see the error in your thinking. Because there is no convincing a bigot that thinks he is the moral police. Sorry I can’t transport you back to Mayberry but you might be surprised to find out that children do just fine in gay homes, much better than they do in foster care or with abusive straight parents.
Why resort to name calling? Do you think that by labeling someone a “bigot” you can then simply dismiss their arguments? It’s no better than children on a playground.
Not to mention the false dilemma of gay parents vs abusive straight ones.
Maybe if you took the time to read more than just my last comment you’d understand.
Maybe if you took the time to read more than just my last comment you’d understand. Anyone that is hateful to someone else only based on morals is a bigot but I can look it up for you if you want.
I’m a happily married (21 years) heterosexual, but here is the fact of the matter: Anyone who views marriage as some automatically sanctimonious thing is beligerantly ignorant. It is not now, and never was, a holy thing. It was initially soley for convenience – had nothing to do with faith or love, and everything to do with finances. For the most part that has not changed.
You married to get a cheap cook and maid and child bearer and child raiser, if you were male. You married eihter for security or because your family forced it, if you were female. This is still true in much of the world, and it is partially true today in the US.
Fact: the majority of widowed men would like to remarry The majority of widowed women wouldn’t remarry for anything in the world.
Fact: people do not marry today thinking it is forever, or for better or worse. They marry for NOW.
Fact: The so called ‘definition’ of marriage was never an accurate definition and as everyone who knows anything about etymology (the study of the origins and evolution of words) knows, words, like humans, EVOLVE. The evolve so much that most of us can’t comprehend a book written 100 years ago.
Fact: Christians carry on about how important it is to be commited to a partner, yet want to deny that commitment to gays. What could be more hipocritical? I think they want gays to be sneaking around in the shadows, making themselves available in men’s rooms of male and for illicit threesomes, if female. Otherwise why would they view gay marriage as a personal affront? I certainly don’t – not in my wildest imagination.
Fact: there are serious problems in the world. what kind of blithering idiot would want to create more? Because that is all bigotry is creating problems where there is no cause or place for them.
Wow. That’s a lot of “facts.” I don’t think even Wikipedia would allow those without sources.
A lot of people in this discussion are completely ignoring reality. THIS is reality:
I’m a teacher who works with classes on field trips. I see about 250 new children every week. Anyone who thinks children benefit greatly from having a mother and a father is delusional. Sure they WOULD if that was their reality. It’s not. Most kids today rarely see their parents, and close to half in some schools have much, if any contact with their fathers, if indeed, they know who he is.
Children are commonly dropped at daycare from as early as 6 weeks of age, and many arrive in pajamas at dawn, and aren’t picked up until bedtime. By high school many have virtually no relationhip with their parents. In my daughter’s school, when she told her conselor she wanted to see if I had time to come to a meeting about her schedule, he asked “what for? This doesn’t have anything to do with your mother.” Oh, yes it does, until she is 18. But apparently Im the only one in the school who thinks so, and she’s the only student who wants their parent’s input – or more accurately – thinks they are entitled to desire it.
My son had an abusive kindergarten teacher. The undeniable prrof of this was that every child was incontinent (deficating, not just wetting) by March of that year. Not ONE other parent admitted concern. Not ONE other parent complained, let alone took action.
Please don’t tell me about parents and what is ideal. Ideal is nothing as shallow as both of the same race or gender ( and studies consistantly prove this). Oh no. It’s much deeper, and much more essential. It’s having at least one individual who cares and loves that child, and who will fight for their well being. How many kids really get that? Fewer than you want to admit.
Lulu –
Bravo for demanding to be a part of you daughters life!
Thankyou, but I don’t want accolades – I want accountability. Why? I want my kids to be able to find partners who’ve benefited from good parenting and who’ve learned how to be good parents themselves. I care FAR more about that, than that they marry within their own race or to the opposite sex. I would think that any good loving parent, when push comes to shove, would want the same.
I want to ask objectors: Given the choice between a son or daughter in law whose gender or race makes you uncomfortable, and a son or daughter in law whose habits are dangerous (IE violent, drug addicted or mentally ill,) would you choose a toxic inlaw or one that comes with challenges but is a loving mate and parent to your grandchildren? A high percentage of today’s kids will face one or another of these challenges – which one could you accept? Which ones could you support your child through? Can you recoginze the difference between that which makes you uncomfortable and that which is geninely threatening to the wellbeing of your child?
The vast majority of objections to same sex marriages are religious objections, so here’s a question for you: What do you think Solomon would think of a parent who would prefer to have their child deal with a violent or addicted mate than marry someone of the same sex? I’m betting he’d take a dim view.
I’m not trying to mix apples and oranges here – I’m trying to get people to recognize that we’re knit picking something that doesn’t significantly impact our lives or our society, when what we need to be doing is addressing the very real problems that are overwhelming youngmarriages, and that do significantly impact society.
So, do you mean to say that all same-sex partners are good parents? I suppose none of them are ever abusive, or drug users? Wow! They must be perfect!
Helen, no one but you said ALL, and you went off in a direction that didn’t relate to what I said in order to manipulate my post.
Why not just address what I said instead of making it up?
If you look at this thread and edit some of the personal attacks and emotionalism out you will see that the gay marriage issue divides nicely into four separate discussions:
#1 – This is this an equal rights issue.
—If so, where do those rights come from and how far do those rights extend.
#2 – This is simply semantics or an issue of definitions.
—If so, when and how should word definitions change?
—What effect does that have on previous legislation?
—Who gets to decide when those definitions change?
#3 – This a moral issue.
—If so, who in our society gets to decide what is morally acceptable? What is that decision based on? When and how should those morals be changed? If something is deemed immoral does that necessarily mean it is harmful?
#4 – The government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage issues?
—If so, what reasons was the government initially involved in them? If the government removes itself from the marriage business what does that do to current laws – particularly inheritance, healthcare, etc.
I may have missed some of the issues, but I am just trying to refine the discussion so I can think it through logically. I realize that I am not perfect in my logic and I am willing to work on it – I hope that is true for everyone.
I would hope we can move past the phase in our discussion of name calling and actually engage the issues. It is not helpful for Christians to define the other side as perverts or for homosexuals to call religious people bigots. Those names enflame the emotions and do nothing to settle the argument. I am sure this blog post is not the place to solve the issue of gay marriage, but how we interact with each other here can help us interact better elsewhere in society and hopefully change the tone.
This.
I’d love to be able to move past it but I feel like arguing with people against gay marriage about as pointless as talking to a wall. Don’t know why I even bother.
And just FYI I’m not gay, just a past Christian that is tired of what the “religion” inflicts on so many people.
You seem to have much more hate welled up in you than most of the people here. Calm down. Grab a beer. Everything will be A-OK.
it shows.
Shaun, I think what you may be missing in this debate aren’t just aspects of the rational or logical discussion, but the emotional side as well.
I can appreciate that people have very strong moral codes, and very clear ideas about is wrong or right behaviour – even evil and virtuous behaviour. I can appreciate that there can be a healthy debate over whether societal norms drive these moral codes for some questions, or over whether societal norms drive morals codes. I can appreciate disagreements over etymology, state’s rights, majority rule, etc. I can appreciate what you’ve written above.
But here is what you may not appreciate, and this may be why you will find it very hard, coming from your perspective, to have civil conversations with people in favour of gay marriage: if strong statutes against gay marriage ae passed, you may sleep a little better at night. If you’re straight and all the people who you love are straight, your life isn’t likely to be affected in any other way, besides a sensation that justice or morality has been served. If you’re religious, maybe you can have the sensation that you’ve helped make God happy.
But gay couples who love each other at least as sincerely as you’ve ever loved anybody – real men and women, many of whom have been together and committed to each other for longer than I suspect you’ve been alive – will understand that they live in a society so full of people like you, with your perspective, that they’re being forever and purposefully refused the legal and social approval and protection for their love that, say, Kim Kardashian got for a televised three-month union with a telegenic basketball player.
Shaun – this makes you look like a douche. There isn’t a less emotional or more rational way to say it. This makes you look like a bigot. This makes you look like, if you have the choice, you would choose to enforce the universalization of your own very arguable moral beliefs about the acceptability of the choices and emotional committment of consenting adults who you’ve never even met – even though that means interfering with the happiness and well-being of thousands and thousands of strangers who love each other, want to spend the rest of their lives loving and taking care of each other, and who have never done a damn thing to you.
If you’d like to have a polite conversation about that during a time when when states are taking stands on this in response to majority opinion, real or perceived, I suggest you try doing so with people who think your opinions are more valuable than other people’s happiness.
Thank you. I admit I get emotional as Haufniensis so patronizingly put but only because I have a reason to involve emotion. It’s so easy for people who are straight with all their straight friends and family members to look down but seeing how my brother is gay and 3 of my dearest friends are gay. And no they are not perverts sleeping with whoever whenever. They are all in or have been in long term committed relationships. ALL of them want nothing more than the ability to get married and have ALL the same privileges as a straight couple including having children. It hurts me too see people so easy to push them to the side like second class citizens knowing the only reason they’re being held back is because other people believe they’re better than them. All I can do is wait and hope and be thankful for people like you that understand. One day we will look back on this and be ashamed at how we treated people. Until that day I will continue to hurt and fight for the people I love.
Aw, you’re breaking my heart, Marci. How are you going to call people out on being hateful when you are admittedly so? A bit hypocritical, no?
I’m all for gay rights. It’s people like you I can’t stand.
Why don’t you pick on someone you’re own size and leave me alone. Calling me hypocritical and hateful when I didn’t even reply to your comment. Get over it and f* ck off.
I’m not missing it Paperchaser – I am just pointing out two things:
1. There is some good debate going on here that makes me and others consider the question more clearly.
2. Name calling does not serve either side.
If you feel better for calling me a douche or a bigot good for you – those are not arguments that will sway my opinion, or that of anyone else. You have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is normal and the same as marriage – as a result you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
Marci – I know and love people who are homosexuals too (both relatives and friends). That does not mean I agree with everything they do. That does not mean I have to change my view on what is right or wrong. Friendship and love do not require conformity of views.
well said, shaun.
If Abraham created this post for the purpose of drawing out responses from his readers, I think he succeeded.
Notice how Abraham has said absolutely nothing – very wise if you ask me.
abraham is probably sitting back laughing at everyone.