Jump to content

<



Photo
- - - - -

Nc Amendment One


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#16 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 6,464
  • Reputation: 1,250
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:14 AM

I agree that it is dumb....and I support gay marriage.

My comment was just a suggestion on how to get to the desired outcome. Steps may be easiser and better than one big leap.


Sorry dude....
That wasnt directed at you. Just happend to post after you.

#17 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • Joined: 12-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,718
  • Reputation: 35
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

While in theory, I see your point, I disagree. This won't work. People will be denied health benefits. This will effect adopted children as well. End-of-life arrangements/wills can be invalidated DUE to this legislation. It needs to be stopped BEFORE it gets voted on for these reasons.

Most ligitamate companies allow coverage of same sex partners. My daughter lives with her boyfriend and their children. Her company allows same sax partner coverage. She can't cover him under their rules. She got a case? I think so. Every body got to seek their rights. Write a will.

#18 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,331
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:55 AM

Most ligitamate companies allow coverage of same sex partners. My daughter lives with her boyfriend and their children. Her company allows same sax partner coverage. She can't cover him under their rules. She got a case? I think so. Every body got to seek their rights. Write a will.


The point isn't the loss of the material thing, it's about the principle of anybody trying to strip anybody else of their rights. As I said in the video, I'm a secular humanist. I think that people are the single most important thing in this world. So, with that, I think that everybody needs to work together to ensure that everybody is treated fairly and justly. If somebody loses their rights to love who they want or to have the advantages that a marriage or civil union bring, I think it is wrong. It shouldn't be like that and I won't stand idly by while people lose their rights. Sure, there are things people can do to get around this sort of stuff to an extent. However, not everybody knows what that is and people shouldn't have to find alternative methods to live a happy life.

#19 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,498
  • Reputation: 877
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:00 AM

The point isn't the loss of the material thing, it's about the principle of anybody trying to strip anybody else of their rights. As I said in the video, I'm a secular humanist. I think that people are the single most important thing in this world. So, with that, I think that everybody needs to work together to ensure that everybody is treated fairly and justly. If somebody loses their rights to love who they want or to have the advantages that a marriage or civil union bring, I think it is wrong. It shouldn't be like that and I won't stand idly by while people lose their rights. Sure, there are things people can do to get around this sort of stuff to an extent. However, not everybody knows what that is and people shouldn't have to find alternative methods to live a happy life.


this

#20 sharkman

sharkman

    lurker

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 266
  • Reputation: 2
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:16 AM

I realize I am in the minority in this thread, and perhaps I'll get banned from the board. Hope not. First post in the Tinderbox, so what the heck!
I'll be voting FOR the amendment. It goes beyond just the rights of two people to get married, so please don't fool yourself in thinking that is all that will change if you vote against this. Just look at how things have played out in Massachusetts before making your decisions, especially if you have children. There are reasons more states are passing these amendments than not. Even our liberal friends in California voted for a similar type of amendment! Again, it's not just about the right to get married, and it's not just Christians for it.
I'll probably get called all kinds of names, and flamed...so I'm backing out of this thread at this point. You're all grownups, I assume. You can research the issues and dig deeper without me arguing further.

#21 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,907
  • Reputation: 3,417
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:21 AM

What a vague and ambiguous post. So why do you take your stance on this the way you do sharkman?

#22 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,718
  • Reputation: 2,468
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

yes please run away, I was in Massachusetts over the summer and it seemed pretty much the same place to me from the last time I was there.

Although I came home with an odd desire to start making paper doilies

#23 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,331
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:29 AM

I realize I am in the minority in this thread, and perhaps I'll get banned from the board. Hope not. First post in the Tinderbox, so what the heck!
I'll be voting FOR the amendment. It goes beyond just the rights of two people to get married, so please don't fool yourself in thinking that is all that will change if you vote against this. Just look at how things have played out in Massachusetts before making your decisions, especially if you have children. There are reasons more states are passing these amendments than not. Even our liberal friends in California voted for a similar type of amendment! Again, it's not just about the right to get married, and it's not just Christians for it.
I'll probably get called all kinds of names, and flamed...so I'm backing out of this thread at this point. You're all grownups, I assume. You can research the issues and dig deeper without me arguing further.


No, I can't. This has no impact on heterosexual marriages. None. They lose nothing in this. This amendment is going to ban gay marriage per the NC state constitution and make the only recognized union be a marriage between one man and one woman. So, that includes heterosexual civil unions.


After doing the research on Massachusetts, what I find is religious propaganda spouting off about idiot 8th grade teachers (it doesn't specify whether it was sex ed or if it was in an english class, so it could be taking it out of context) teaching about sex toys and how lesbians have sex. If you are honestly using the "think of the children" argument, you're an idiot. Do you realize how many closeted gay kids there are in public schools? How about the number of out of the closet gay kids? They receive ridicule and harassment regularly for being gay. You ban gay marriage, and all you are doing is giving bullies more ammo, such as, "you're breaking the law, *****!"

Allowing gay marriage will not negatively impact kids. So what if they read books on gays without any complaints? Huckleberry Finn is something most of us read in high school or middle school at some point. You don't just "become gay" by allowing adults the right to marry who they want. You're not presenting a logical case. You're presenting a case that is a logical fallacy with your appeals to emotion by claiming the "think of the children" excuse. And, in doing that, you're ignoring the children who are gay who receive ridicule and how banning gay marriage (even further than it already is) will effect them. And, as I pointed out in the video, children will lose rights afforded to them due to their parents in civil unions. If one of the parents die, the other parent could lose the kid (even if the kid has been raised since they were a baby and they're now in their teenage years).


There is no just cause for this amendment. No wonder you said you were backing out, because you realize how stupid you sound.

#24 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,331
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:32 AM

What a vague and ambiguous post. So why do you take your stance on this the way you do sharkman?


After considering it, I'm convinced he's a Poe. A bad Poe, but a Poe nonetheless. That would explain his vagueness.


Sharkman, if you are a Poe, you need to try being more radical in how you present your Poe arguments. It makes it a bit more believable. By being vague, all you have done is make it easy to say, "this guy isn't serious". Either that or you really know nothing on the subject and you're voting for this because you're homophobic and buy into the bull that Fox News puts out.

#25 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,331
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2012 - 11:38 AM

To add to that last long rant, I will say that it's a good thing to teach young kids that being gay is a natural occurrence, because it is. It occurs in thousands of species around the planet. We're no different. What teaching kids this will do is stop the bullying early. And since most parents won't do it (or because they're bigots, they'll teach their kids that being gay is bad and gays are therefore immoral), I see no issue in, if incorporated CORRECTLY in the curriculum (reading stories with gay couples and the like), teaching this stuff.

The only threat to Christians or others who hate the gay community is that their kids will grow up being tolerant. And we all know we can't have that! Divisiveness is a huge part of religion and America in general. Gotta make sure the kids carry on the tradition of hate and bigotry.

#26 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • Joined: 24-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,331
HUDDLER

Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:43 PM

Still kinda pissed Sharkman bowed out.

#27 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • Joined: 14-March 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 335
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 31 March 2012 - 05:00 PM

Opposition to gay marriage is irrational, but that doesn't matter to those who oppose it because their opposition is based in fear. They can deny that all they want, but Sharkman's post was full of it. Fear is the enemy of love, unity, peace, and true spirituality.

#28 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,066
  • Reputation: 2,269
HUDDLER

Posted 31 March 2012 - 05:56 PM

I realize I am in the minority in this thread, and perhaps I'll get banned from the board. Hope not. First post in the Tinderbox, so what the heck!
I'll be voting FOR the amendment. It goes beyond just the rights of two people to get married, so please don't fool yourself in thinking that is all that will change if you vote against this. Just look at how things have played out in Massachusetts before making your decisions, especially if you have children. There are reasons more states are passing these amendments than not. Even our liberal friends in California voted for a similar type of amendment! Again, it's not just about the right to get married, and it's not just Christians for it.
I'll probably get called all kinds of names, and flamed...so I'm backing out of this thread at this point. You're all grownups, I assume. You can research the issues and dig deeper without me arguing further.


How have things played out in Massachusetts? I'm curious, really, what the hell you mean because I live there and I have no idea what you think is so bad here because of gay marriage. If you're talking about the occasional "outrage" over school stuff,

Go "do some research", eh? I guess living here isn't research. And yes, I've read the occasional rants of parents who are upset that public schools aren't portraying homosexuality as wrong. It's not, so why should they?