North Carolina approves ban on same-sex marriage by wide margin

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Pup

I pretty much agree with Ethan Thane Athen, but it's not about anal sex. Two men kissing or holding hands is icky. A man and woman having oral sex is icky too, for that matter. I'd rather lick a brussels sprout.

But that has no bearing on the fact that I'm for gay marriage, for including all combinations of parents in books for children as if it were perfectly natural, because it is, and for allowing brussels sprouts in school lunchrooms.

So I don't think there's necessarily a 1:1 correlation between bigotry and ickiness.

All I did was pointing out the false equivocation. It is a false equivocation common in bigots, just look at all the arguments against gay marriage based on arguments against anal sex. But it does not mean every one making that equivocation does that. I have seen gay men make the same false equivocation by saying gay sex or real gay sex being anal sex.

[AvalonXQ]

Personally I think the "ick" factor is a horrible reason for making decisions.

I don't think there's anything particularly icky about anal sex, nor does any particular sexual pairing gross me out. I'm really not bothered by any of that stuff.

I'm sure for some people, though, visceral emotions play a role in this stuff.

[paiute]

Next election's ballot question in North Carolina: Marriage is between one white man and one white woman.

How much does it pass by?

[Silly Green Monkey]

If extramarital sex is what's immoral, let them marry--then it's marital sex and not immoral.

Why should religion be allowed to steal marriage away from the government? Why do you want to tear marriage away from government and give it to religion, which has already misused it?

[NavyPack]

http://www.good.is/post/who-voted-ag...orth-carolina/

This map, in my humble opinion, says everything that needs to be said.

Education is the antidote to entrenched bigotry.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder if the voters will have buyer's remorse given the current news coverage of Obama's words is very positive on both CNN and MSNBC. All Fox News can muster is, "Obama made the statement for purely political gain". The public is beginning to notice how stupid the arguments are for denying civil rights to 10% of the population.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You certainly have a faulty equation between anal sex and gay sex. Many gay men don't like anal sex either, only around 60% regularly have anal sex.

It is not about what sex there is but which is having it that makes it gay or straight. The only exceptions are genital genital sex that varies between groupings.

I understand that, which is why I said 'mostly if it involves...' and went on to comment that I find it icky regardless of gender...

Besides, I don't think that materially affects my point that personally finding an activity 'icky' means you're bigoted. Now if I thought my personal, emotional reaction meant an activity was in any way 'wrong' then that would be bigoted but not the 'Urghh, that's not for me' reaction itself.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Personally I think the "ick" factor is a horrible reason for making decisions.

I don't think there's anything particularly icky about anal sex, nor does any particular sexual pairing gross me out. I'm really not bothered by any of that stuff.

I'm sure for some people, though, visceral emotions play a role in this stuff.

Which is why I don't propose it being a reason for making decisions - except for oneself obviously. You can eat sprouts as much as you like!

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Which is why I don't propose it being a reason for making decisions - except for oneself obviously. You can eat sprouts as much as you like!

How about sprouts and anal sex?

[RhodyDave]

While this amendment in NC is to me sad and hateful, I would hope that all people who find it as reprehensible as I do would choose either to never live in, or move out of, a state that so forcefully hates so many of our family members and friends.

I will not ever vacation there as long as this discrimination is in effect, and I urge everyone opposed to this to boycott NC (and other states with similar laws).

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

All I did was pointing out the false equivocation. It is a false equivocation common in bigots, just look at all the arguments against gay marriage based on arguments against anal sex. But it does not mean every one making that equivocation does that. I have seen gay men make the same false equivocation by saying gay sex or real gay sex being anal sex.

And it was a fair point, though, as I've posted, I think I had it covered with the 'if'.

Mind you, 60% is a majority....

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

How about sprouts and anal sex?

Whatever floats your boat - could be a pretty volatile combination though .

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't mean just call it a domestic partnership for gays -- I mean just call it a domestic partnership for everybody.

As has been pointed out, it's so far away from the cultural expectations and obligations of "marriage" to be laughable. I submit that if we were coming up with a name for what the government allows and requires today, "marriage" would not pop up in the top five.

The cultural expectations of marriage are love, living together, raising children, and sharing property. Each legal heterosexual marriage includes some aspects, often not all aspects. Same-sex marriage would share the same aspects and probably to the same degree. Same-sex marriage fulfills the same cultural expectations.

It's pretty silly to just take the "marriage" ball and go home just to keep it in the hands of heterosexuals. Even sillier to come up with a whole new word when we already have one.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

"I think gays should have equal rights but no one should be allowed to tell my children being gay is ok!"? Seriously Avalon?

That's not something someone who genuinely believes in equal rights says.

"I believe in equal rights for all races, but I don't want a teacher telling my son it's ok to marry a black"

"I believe in equal rights for men and women, but those teachers better not tell my kids that women can have a career even after having children"

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, seriously.


I genuinely believe in equal rights. I still believe the behavior is immoral.

I believe that people have the right to do all sorts of immoral things that I don't want to become socially acceptable and I don't want the school to endorse.

This doesn't address the rest of MarkCorrigan's post. How is your position any different than a racist who thinks racial integration is immoral and doesn't want the school to endorse it?

- or -

Someone who's religion requires that women be subservient to men, objecting to anything depicting a woman in a position of authority?

Pretty much have to do away with any study of literature or history.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to the government to define what marriage is.
If you allow the government to define it, then you are by definition allowing others to define it. And they might not define it in a way you agree.

They don't need to define it in order to recognize it. It wasn't until gay marriage came up that the government even seemed particularly interested in defining it, and, then, only to define what it isn't.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I genuinely believe in equal rights. I still believe the behavior is immoral.

I believe that people have the right to do all sorts of immoral things that I don't want to become socially acceptable and I don't want the school to endorse.

Really? What rights are those?

Protip: If it's something you don't want your kids to know about, it's not a right you recognize that other people have.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Piscivore

If it's something you don't want your kids to know about, it's not a right you recognize that other people have.

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

[ehcks]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

Two guys being married, owning a house together, and adopting a kid isn't 18+.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

Why should everyone else in the world have to conform to what you want your children to see?

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

Like what?

Originally Posted by tsig

Why should everyone else in the world have to conform to what you want your children to see?

Exactly. You don't like your kids not being ignorant, don't send 'em to school. **** what the teachers tell 'em, my kids (or others just like them) will make sure they learn all the dirty, naughty stuff you don't want their sweet virgin ears to hear... some of it might even be true.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

Not a right unless conscientous exemption is a right. Not sure that it is though. Otherwise, you have no right to nonexposure.

[Scott Haley]

The amendment says:

Quote:

Marriage

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Is parenthood legally a "domestic legal union" between the parent(s) and the child? Technically, does this amendment mean that the state of North Carolina can't recognize parenthood?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Scott Haley

The amendment says:

Is parenthood legally a "domestic legal union" between the parent(s) and the child? Technically, does this amendment mean that the state of North Carolina can't recognize parenthood?

Parenthood is ownership isn't it?

[crimresearch]

No, birth is an 'issue' not a union. Would be interesting to see if same sex adoptions are safe...

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

No, birth is an 'issue' not a union. Would be interesting to see if same sex adoptions are safe...

I want to hear the legalese on why the birth of a child means the father, married or not, is responsible for paying child support then. Union maybe not, but money does a union make.

[Bill Thompson]

They must think you would have to marry a gay person. Just kidding.

[Bill Thompson]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

Firstly; I did notice this being discussed in USA politics, But I wanted to express my sheer disgust at reading the comments located here: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...0559#c65690559

I'm almost awe struck at how (assuming here) these [religious] normal people who are most likely decent in every other aspect of their lives will clutch their bible tightly and turn red and horse over two people simple wanting to share each others lives.

They have been fed hog wash. They don't know that what they believe can be proven wrong by logic.

Liberals can be this way too. Not on this issue, though.

Oh, by the way, the Democratic convention is going to be held in North Carolina. Has anyone else noticed this?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Clearly untrue.

There are a lot of things I want people to be able to do that I don't want my kids to know about -- like just about anything you have to click on an "I'm eighteen" button to see.

Why do you equate your kids knowing that gay people exist with things that require being over 18 to see?

Why do you not want your kids to know that gay people exist or be taught that gay people exist?

If those questions misrepresent your position, then please clarify.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

They have been fed hog wash. They don't know that what they believe can be proven wrong by logic.

I don't believe that. Please lay out the logic.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Not a right unless conscientous exemption is a right. Not sure that it is though. Otherwise, you have no right to nonexposure.

You're missing the point.

He was attempting to argue that if I don't want my kids exposed to it, I don't believe people have the right to do it. That's clearly not true.

Moreover, there are many decisions that adults can make that I don't want authority figures endorsing to my kids. Again, a great example is binge drinking.

The underlying argument here is that I must "really" hate gay people or not believe in giving them equal rights if I think homosexual sex is immoral.

Recognize that I think a lot of behaviors are immoral that should nonetheless be legal. The two simply aren't connected in my paradigm. And engaging in immoral but legal behavior doesn't cause you to forfeit any of your rights.

[AvalonXQ]

Double post.

[Cayvmann]

Originally Posted by madurobob

OK, just to be clear, not all of us are sexual troglodytes and bigoted, hateful fear mongerers. There is still love in the hearts of a great many of us and we will eventually fix this abomination.

- Bob (very-rarely-ashamed-to-call-myself-a-NC-native-but-today-may-be-that-day).

I'm with Bob here. I voted against this travesty. I'd like to say that I am surprised with the outcome, but I'm not.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Why do you equate your kids knowing that gay people exist with things that require being over 18 to see?

I haven't equated them, but I have used them against an argument that translates to "anything you believe is a right, you also want your kids to know about".

Quote:

Why do you not want your kids to know that gay people exist or be taught that gay people exist?

I plan to teach my kids about gay people. I don't want the school to be telling my kids that the gay lifestyle is okay, just like I don't want the school to be telling my kids that getting drunk is okay.

[Cayvmann]

Originally Posted by LarianLeQuella

A couple of things I noticed about this particular vote:

- The vote was during a contested Republican Primary and uncontested Democratic Primary which skewed the results in the right wing’s favor.

- When they broke it down by age, the older population was overwhelmingly for Amendment One/against gay marriage but the younger population was overwhelmingly against Amendment One/for gay marriage. The same sex marriage opponents won a battle, but by the younger generation rejecting their views, they are losing the war.

The only reason I showed up to vote was to vote against this bill. I have a feeling a lot of people, who should have done the same, stayed home.

[Olowkow]

These laws and amendments are very likely going to go the same route of mixed race marriage bans. Note the map provided in Wiki that shows pretty much the same pattern of bible belt foolishness that was overturned by a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

It's just a matter of time. It is difficult to imagine being so proud of a silly tenet promulgated by a bunch of straight guys from the bronze age.

[Agatha]

What is "the gay lifestyle", Avalon? Gay people live all sorts of different lifestyles, depending on where they live, what they do for a living, who their friends are - just exactly the same way as straight people do. Please explain.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

These laws and amendments are very likely going to go the same route of mixed race marriage bans. Note the map provided in Wiki that shows pretty much the same pattern of bible belt foolishness that was overturned by a Supreme Court decision in 1967.

It's just a matter of time. It is difficult to imagine being so proud of a silly tenet promulgated by a bunch of straight guys from the bronze age.

It's only fairly recently I learned that some American states had a prohibition on interracial marriage, I was (and still am) amazed by that, and not in a good way.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I plan to teach my kids about gay people. I don't want the school to be telling my kids that the gay lifestyle is okay, just like I don't want the school to be telling my kids that getting drunk is okay.

What if another child in the class has gay parents? I'm wondering why that child should be prevented from being told in the classroom that his family is okay, if in fact they are a loving supportive family just like heterosexual parents.

What if a child was criticized by other children because of his gay parents? If the child had parents in a wheelchair or interracial parents or deaf parents or another similar situation that shows up occasionally, the teacher could reassure him and all the students that his parents were in fact just as good as anyone's.

But if the teasing was due to the parents being gay, what would you want to allow the teacher to say, so the teacher wouldn't be conveying that "the gay lifestyle was okay"? It seems one could get into a situation where the teacher would need to turn the child against his own parents.

edited to add: Parents who binge drink or are gay are things that may or may not affect the child. An abusive, irresponsible parent who happens to be an alcoholic can be acknowledged, as can a loving, responsible parent who happens to binge drink. But you're not allowing any slack for gay parents: by definition a child with gay parents must have his or her parents treated differently than other children's parents, no matter how loving and supportive they are to the child, and even though it's not the child's fault who his parents are. One might as well brand a child as a bastard or a half-breed.

[Olowkow]

All the wannabe right wing politicians who don't quite understand the right wing's motives are fun to watch. I am reminded of Ralph Kramden on the Honeymooners. "Umma-na...umma-na...uma-na..ahm".

I was curious to see what the governor of North Carolina had to say.

Link

Quote:

Todd also pressed Perdue on her personal position on gay marriage during the interview.
“My personal opinion is reflected in my vote. I am against this amendment. I really am against this amendment. We have a piece of legislation that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Today is not about that, Chuck, it’s about simply trying to not approve an amendment that pushes North Carolina backwards,” she said.


Todd later asked again, “Do you understand the awkwardness of basically saying you’re against banning gay marriage but not for it?”
“It’s very important to me that the folks in North Carolina who have not cast their ballot understand that this constitutional amendment takes away a lot of civil liberties, civil rights. It’s not about gay marriage,” Perdue said. “That is not what this issue is about. We have a statute on the books. So for the voters in North Carolina, don’t be confused. Go in there and vote no.”

For an even better laugh, check out John McCain on the subject. I keep trying to find a conservative politician that I can respect. Not too many around any more.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No two marriages are the same, and it shouldn't be up to the government to define what marriage is.

...snip...

In that case you want something new in society, so why not set-up your own version of "marriage" then?