• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

You're not going to get anything other than bumpersticker one-liners from keeper. These threads are like ghetto houses and he's riding by with an AK. A few pops and he's gone. He's not ever going to post what he really thinks.

I particularly enjoyed how he pretty much says "as long as it's legal by the law, it's okay." Jim Crow is proud.
 
Why do people respond to keeper on topics like this? He is obviously just trolling and trying to get a rise out of people.
 
As it is very difficult to discuss this topic on a forum such as this I would enjoy attending a forum in a public setting hearing both sides of the issue debated by folks who will refrain from calling folks on the other view names. I know there was such a meeting in Raleigh last week. Does anyone know of anything planned here?
 
RChildress107 said:
I don't believe that it is a fundamental right to have your relationship affirmed by the state.
Click to expand...

When the state uses marriage as a legal condition, access to that institution becomes controlled by the state. To that extent, it's fundamental to your rights as a married person that the state affirm that condition. You'd be correct if the state ignored your marital condition when it comes to taxation or access to rights limited to "spouse." But since they don't these efforts become necessary.

No one has the right to force people to tell them that their lifestyle is ok. Sometimes it feels like that's the main message of the gay rights movement.
Click to expand...

I believe they are looking for equality and validation as people. Most gays I know couldn't give a damn whether others' accept their lifestyle or not. Same with heteosexuals. Do you give a damn if people know you're hetero? Doubt it. But again, when their condition becomes a legal tool of disenfranchising them from access to otherwise public benefits and systems, they have to work for acceptance.
 
but but but. they are DIFFERENT..............
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

cool. i have some fantastic ideas
 
Yeah can we start by not allowing fat people the ability to purchase an airline ticket?
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

here's a small list of benefits that straight couples get that gay couples don't:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

So you want legislate who is allowed to love whom and the state can make laws to create one side being more equal than the other?
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

Couple of problems: the "state" is, as the old mantra goes, of, for, and by the "people." Gays are part of that. They pay taxes and are expected to bear the burdens of citizenship just like anyone else. As long as a person is paying into a system, that system should not, and cannot by ethical validation of law, exclude them. I don't know what you mean by "the state does a horrible job" as my wife and I, along with many other married heterosexuals, certainly see some forms of tax breaks and credits by virtue of our legally recognized marriage. The argument was made that the state had a good reason, other than morality, to preserve slavery. Or to not have minimum wage laws. Or health inspections. A public government, however, should not be in the business of "encouraging behavior," and I'm quite obviously not speaking about issues like murder, theft, and such acts which infringe on the inalienable personal rights of others.

If you feel attacked for disapproving of the gay lifestyle, perhaps you should ask why you disapprove and what you have to gain from expressing disapproval. I realize you're desperate to make this about something other than morality which is a common tactic by those who condemn lifestyles which they themselves don't engage in. I guess the fundamental difference is that I do not feel threatened by gays getting married. It will not devalue my marriage and will not degrade my society. It's really none of my business other than the debate itself over whether it's the government's business in the first place.
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

So it bothers you that people attack you after you attack them?
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

Most people take offense when you disagree with a "lifestyle" (which we obviously disagree greatly on that it is a lifestyle and not something you are born with) that limits the rights of other Americans who are "at fault" for loving somebody and not being allowed to receive full rights under the law because of it. In no way do I think people choose to be gay anymore than I choose to be a heterosexual. At no point in my life did I wake up and say "well today I'm straight". I just have a natural inclination to like women, just like gay people have a natural inclination to like men (and vice versa for women).
 
RChildress107 said:
As to your first argument the state has chosen to encourage marriage by providing certain benefits to married couples. No one has a fundamental right to these benefits. There are good reasons, other than morality, for the state to promote heterosexual marriage. However, the state does a horrible job at it so I think those benefits should no longer exist. They do, however, and the state has every right to encourage behavior by providing benefits to some citizens but not others.

I agree that most gays are just looking for equality and validation as people. However, sometimes I feel that those gays are not the ones at the head of the gay rights movement. I often feel attacked when expressing views disapproving of a certain aspect of their chosen lifestyle.

What public benefits and systems are gay couples excluded from which unmarried heterosexual couples are not.
Click to expand...

Remember, this also does damage to heterosexual unmarried couples as well since this ends the recognition of domestic partnerships. If a couple has been together for 30 years, why should they now be forced to marry to legally have access to certain rights (as have been discussed in this thread)?
 
Deadbolt said:
Remember, this also does damage to heterosexual unmarried couples as well since this ends the recognition of domestic partnerships. If a couple has been together for 30 years, why should they now be forced to marry to legally have access to certain rights (as have been discussed in this thread)?
Click to expand...

Many of those issues were dealt with when a lot of states revised standards on "common law" marriage. Besides, this is about marriage. Regardless of your sexual orientation, if you aren't married, why are you entitled to the benefits of marriage? Living together in a domestic partnership may not entitle any couple, hetero or gay, to the things marriage brings but it also doesn't imperil the individuals the same way a divorce does should the partnership end.
 
You are being totally ridiculous. There is no rational reason why two men or two women can't get married if a man and a woman can.

It's just that simple.
 
RChildress107 said:
Would love to continue the above discussion but also would like to get back to my original purpose for posting on this thread. Why should I vote against this ammendment?

In order to save me from reading through this entire thread and then through several biased articles, can someone tell me the most important right that this ammendment will take away which gay couples in North Carolina currently have. I'm interested in rights directly stripped by the ammendment or rights which have a high probability of being stripped because of this ammendment.
Click to expand...

None
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top