Dissapointed in North Carolina law
Forums › General Discussion › Dissapointed in North Carolina law-
In case you don't know by now, they recently banned same sex marriage. That is ridiculous to continue discriminating even in this day and age. Here's why I don't like banning it.
1. For those who oppose it for religious reasons, stop. The first amendment of the US constitution established a SEPARATION of church and state powers; religions should never touch politics, ever.
2. The 14th amendment (aka the equal protection clause) states all citizens are entitled to = right under the law, including the gay community.
3. Gay marriage does not destroy the sanctity I marriage; divorce and affairs do.
4. Nearly all people are born gay, and to take away their rights for a certain prejudice is simply discrimination.
5. If you don't want the ability to marry who you love taken away, it is unjustifiable to take it from someone else.
So much for land of the free...
I don't mean to rant so much, but if you have a certain opinion on the same sex marriage issue, what is it?? -
I agree with all of your points (especially #3) except #4. What right is being taken away exactly? The definition of marriage that I know is the formal union of a man and a woman. So that means that, as a straight man, I have no right to marry another man, just the same as a homosexual man does not have the right to marry another man. What are your thoughts on that? And I'm not trying to me anti-homosexual I'd just like you to expand on #4 for me a little bit.
-
Really! I didnt know gay marrige was still banned their. Its really annoying because my freinds are really religous and say its just weird and shouldnt be allowed (good reasoning, i know😒). I seem to be the only one that thinks banning gay is a form of discrimination. My freinds think im gay or something now. But my main point is this. I think its weird that there are gay marriges, but they can do what they want. As long as it doesnt harm others (which it doesnt).
-
4. Almost all gays are born that way, just like people are born with certain skin or hair or eye colors. Discrimination is defined as a limitation, unfair treatment, or physical attacks based on a prejudice (race, gender, religion, etc). The gay community falls under this category because the right to marry the one they love is taken from them for the way they are born
-
TurtleJuice447 wrote:
Autocorrect is your friend.Really! I didnt know gay marrige was still banned their. Its really annoying because my freinds are really religous and say its just weird and shouldnt be allowed (good reasoning, i know😒). I seem to be the only one that thinks banning gay is a form of discrimination. My freinds think im gay or something now. But my main point is this. I think its weird that there are gay marriges, but they can do what they want. As long as it doesnt harm others (which it doesnt).
-
In reality, I think homosexuality is in fact both, nature and nurture. Not just a "gene" that makes someone gay. I think most leading studies show that as well. If that were the case not just 50% of identical twins if one were gay the other is, but all. I think that would show its not just nature but possibly nurture as well. There are other psychologists/psychiatrists that have the view that it is a combination as well. Just as other traits too, it's much more complex than just to say its a specific gene and if you have it then youre born that way and gay. I think it's dangerous and naive to think that way...it could give rise to eugenics type thinking that it's just a "defect" in genes. Then the inequality arguments will be even worse than you could imagine and would take an even more drastic turn for the worse. Think about it. I may be wrong, but the possibility could be horrendous.
-
🌹
🎶 What if you were LIVIN YOURS INSTEAD OF HATIN MINE findin truth and spreadin love and searchin deep inside – see me glidin swiftly to that place I need to be 🎶
😊 Love that song 😊
-
"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
Most of us mistake what that phrase actually means in our younger years.
-
What I am basically saying is...yes I understand the implications of there being a gay gene and people being born that way not their choice. I also can look forward and see how someone could use that in a VERY negative bigoted way to say homosexuality is just a genetic defect. There has to be a mixture of nature and nurture for there to be a strong argument for equality. Otherwise I could see how someone could take it into such a negative and drastic measure that it could really hurt people's lives.
-
It's also a very deterministic point of view, people generally like to feel they have control of their lives and have free will. People become uneasy when they don't feel they have control, even if the control is just an illusion.
-
.....I don't even know why I'm wasting a comment on this. You can't do anything about the government's laws without an army to back you up, so there's no point discussing this. By the way...Nice day we're having, right? ☀...Charming. 😺
-
Let me say, first, that I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be legal. With that said, here's the reasoning for opposition.
Marriage is a sacred or religious act. That's just a simple fact. Marriage is a bonding before God.
1. The first amendment does not create a separation of church and state. It says that the government cannot create laws favoring one over another or keep people from practicing theirs.
2. A republic has the ability to vote on laws. Upholding a sacred union between two people is not discriminating against anyone, it is protecting the relationship that has been created through society.
3. It does and it doesn't. If a marriage before God is between a man and a woman and the government forces recognition of alternative marriages then it weakens that bond and therefore by definition destroys it. -
4. There might be some validity to that, but there is no proof many studies have been done without any evidence. There's just as much proof that it is something learned in childhood.
5. Again, marriage is a union before God. Not the state. The state does not have the authority to tell society what is and what isn't Godly. -
Here's the real story about marriage and the government. Many years ago the gov saw the weakening of families by the divorce rate starting to increase. So to combat the higher use of social programs by single parents, it began recognizing marriage and giving tax breaks to married couples to incentivize them to stay married. A child raised in a home with the biological mother and father tends to be a more productive citizen through out their life. That means more taxes collected later. So the government created a scenario to try to mold social behavior by influencing people to stay married. Seeing as how the government has failed to stop the increasing divorce rate it's obvious that the social experiment has failed. The government should not be in the marriage business. It's a religious union and if a bond between two people is outside the scope of religion then it is a civil union. All unions between two people that is government recognized should be civil unions. Not marriages.
-
Government isn't forcing the church to recognize gay marriage. They are forcing other government agencies (IRS) and insurance companies to recognize gay marriage to afford them the same benefits as everyone else.
-
ffmedic4143 wrote:
I think the argument people will try to give is the government isn't forcing us "yet." If it becomes a civil rights issue one could argue that any ordained minister is required to marry any couple or else they are discriminating.Government isn't forcing the church to recognize gay marriage. They are forcing other government agencies (IRS) and insurance companies to recognize gay marriage to afford them the same benefits as everyone else.
-
Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
I'm not sure how the government can force a minister to marry two people based on separation of church and state.ffmedic4143 wrote:
I think the argument people will try to give is the government isn't forcing us "yet." If it becomes a civil rights issue one could argue that any ordained minister is required to marry any couple or else they are discriminating.Government isn't forcing the church to recognize gay marriage. They are forcing other government agencies (IRS) and insurance companies to recognize gay marriage to afford them the same benefits as everyone else.
-
The problem with defining a marriage as a bonding before god is that argument is limited to those who believe in God. In the eyes of those who are polytheistic, agnostic, or atheist, you have an invalid argument.
-
Trauger Jogger wrote:
So if a minister marries 2 people who are agnostic or atheist, how is that different? Thereby, rendering the church's argument invalid.The problem with defining a marriage as a bonding before god is that argument is limited to those who believe in God. In the eyes of those who are polytheistic, agnostic, or atheist, you have an invalid argument.
-
Trauger Jogger wrote:
No. Marriage is a unity before God. A civil union is a union without God. So my argument is not invalid.The problem with defining a marriage as a bonding before god is that argument is limited to those who believe in God. In the eyes of those who are polytheistic, agnostic, or atheist, you have an invalid argument.
-
This is actually a good conversation. Not a bunch of yelling. Bravo. Now my 2 cents:
1. "Seperation of Church and State" is nowhere in the constitution.
2. The gay community got it on the ballot to be voted on. If the people say "no" then that should be the end of it. If the courts step in and over throw what the voters said, then this is not a republic anymore.
*i don't really and truly care if u r gay or not. It's none of my business to tell u who to me with. -
ffmedic4143 wrote:
👍👍👍Government isn't forcing the church to recognize gay marriage. They are forcing other government agencies (IRS) and insurance companies to recognize gay marriage to afford them the same benefits as everyone else.
-
I don't see why people feel the need to ban gay marriage if my neighbors are homosexual then it doesn't affect my life at all.
-
A religion may say its wrong, but Constitutionally, it is right ( in my eyes).
1. The declaration of independence's first sentence ends with "all people created equal."
2. The 14th amendment offers equal protection to citizens. So, banning their marriage violates the constitution. -
ffmedic4143 wrote:
Look at it this way, yes the government can get involved in certain issues of religion and church. Example the Mormon church used to practice polygamy the United States Government back then threatened the church with punitive actions if they continued to practice BAM all of a sudden the LDS church's "apostles/prophets" state polygamy is no longer a part of the church. Or the LDS church used to not let people of African descent hold the Melchizedek priesthood because they were "cursed" with the mark of Cain.Sammy Guns🔫🌊🗻 wrote:
I'm not sure how the government can force a minister to marry two people based on separation of church and state.ffmedic4143 wrote:
-
The government got involved because this was discriminatory of civil rights issues, BAM their apostles/prophets made it possible for them to gain the priesthood. There have been cases as I'm giving examples of government getting involved when a church infringes on the civil rights of individuals. Dont think it can't be done again.
-
"Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
-
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due....
-
....If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage." (Skillen, 2004)
-
It's all about money and benefits, Just be happy and stay with one another.
It all comes down to the mighty dollar kids!💒👈💰 -
50% of giraffes are gay- weird but true
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC