Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest DrakeNathainelSparrowTree

Wow...

Recommended Posts

Guest DrakeNathainelSparrowTree

Okay..for those of you who don't know..amendment one in NC passed -_-

I'm sure theres a few that don't know what that is its a bill that outlaws same sex marriages..not only that but the bill was POORLY writen which means that over 1,500 domestic violence cases can now be overturned due to loop holes...

THANK YOU North Carolina..for proving how much of a backwards hick state I live in..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I support the notion that government should not be in charge of marriage AT ALL...

Instead, government should issue legal "civil union" certificates which allow anyone shared rights as if they were married whether the intention was sexual in nature or not. Say, if there were two elderly women, and they shared a household together, they could apply for this type of joint union of each other's possessions WITHOUT there being anything sexual involved.

Leave actual marriage to the churches, that's what I say. That way, churches can't pitch a fit about "homosexual marriage" and so that couples can still get all the benefits without being "married" persay...If they find a church that allows the marriage, then good for them, but leave "marriage" up to the churches and NOT the government.

XP Back to being silleh XP

And yes, I understand your frustration Drake. I live in the South too.....XP It sux for theris/furries. XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DrakeNathainelSparrowTree

Which is why I support the notion that government should not be in charge of marriage AT ALL...

Instead, government should issue legal "civil union" certificates which allow anyone shared rights as if they were married whether the intention was sexual in nature or not. Say, if there were two elderly women, and they shared a household together, they could apply for this type of joint union of each other's possessions WITHOUT there being anything sexual involved.

Leave actual marriage to the churches, that's what I say. That way, churches can't pitch a fit about "homosexual marriage" and so that couples can still get all the benefits without being "married" persay...If they find a church that allows the marriage, then good for them, but leave "marriage" up to the churches and NOT the government.

XP Back to being silleh XP

And yes, I understand your frustration Drake. I live in the South too.....XP It sux for theris/furries. XP

Well the thing is there are other oints to the bill other than marriage.

Anyone who has been tooken to jail or is in court over domestic violence cases will get off free IF they wern't married. Also if someone tries to take out a restraining order on someone if they aren't married then the restraining order is void. These are only a few changes. I give it two months till people open their eyes and another month to appeal it.

Oh and the biggest arguement I've heard from the churchs is "We are trying to protect religious freedom from the homosexual community"

-.-"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the thing is there are other oints to the bill other than marriage.

Anyone who has been tooken to jail or is in court over domestic violence cases will get off free IF they wern't married. Also if someone tries to take out a restraining order on someone if they aren't married then the restraining order is void. These are only a few changes. I give it two months till people open their eyes and another month to appeal it.

Oh and the biggest arguement I've heard from the churchs is "We are trying to protect religious freedom from the homosexual community"

-.-"

Being quite religious myself, it's often hard for me to argue for either side b/c I truly don't like to lose friends over these kinds of things. I genuinely realize the church's concern, but I also genuinely realize the LGBT pleas. The church is worried about being "forced" to host gay marriages, and as private entities it would go against their freedom and choices. The LGBT's are likely worried about social/legal equality and direct legislation against them. The problem is that government has their foot too far in religion and definition of a "legal marriage" carries the baggage of it also being a "spiritual marriage." If you could separate the legality from the spiritual aspect, we would have no more problems (sorry if I feel like I'm rehashing a bit)

The other points you raised about domestic violence are legitimate concerns. It can be much more easily addressed to, even in a controlled environment like the one that you are in. I'm sure there will be plenteous amounts of people waving sticks at the second portion, and at the very least, an amendment to it will be passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Humanity is ruled by an illogical, close minded, and morally questionable bureaucratic sub-society which only truly caters for itself, and doesn't really care about any long term problems which may occur from their actions, instead looking only to short term outcomes.

In this case, I see it as a short term religious ploy to gain favor in a largely "Christian" and conservative state.

And I say "Christian" because 90%+ of people who claim they follow the Christian faith are hypocritical, go against the decrees of their own religion, and don't even know half of their own mythos.

And on the topic of conservatives, it's a statistical fact that conservatives are more likely to have a lower IQ compared to a liberal. Go figure.

Or to put it into terms that I read once;

"Which group would a guy feel more welcome in? A church, where despite he has barely any money to get by on his own, is prompted to make a donation and the eyes of everyone in the church look at him expectantly, or the same guy in a circle of druggies and they offer him some, while he politely refuses, and they go 'cool man, more for us.' ?"

Also astounding to me, is how in the current political environment, despite that being a moderate should be the most sensible option to follow- that is the path of tolerance and cooperation - is now seen as a negative thing. Which again, is an illogical push it would appear.

On a final note, this kitsune is glad to live in a state that is not NC. Not that it helps being as close to Chicago as I am right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to this, something akin to 80% voted for it, and it was a state that already had a ban, it's not really news that NC doesn't like S/S Marriage. It's just something for the news to sensationalize.

Honestly we need to get away from this idea that local and state politics is a national story. Same with local tragedies. There is no reason to have this kind of Infotainment, except that the people are too stupid to push for journalism that isn't yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I understand state legislature being national headlines, given state law trumps federal law and such. Plus, we're the united states, and largely though general political views vary in demographical regions, the culture for a good part is a single encasing culture nationwide. I've been to 38 of the lower 48 states, and generally there's the same amount of ignorant and intolerant individuals everywhere, im different forms, but much the same.

And too the bits of hopeful individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I understand state legislature being national headlines, given state law trumps federal law and such. Plus, we're the united states, and largely though general political views vary in demographical regions, the culture for a good part is a single encasing culture nationwide. I've been to 38 of the lower 48 states, and generally there's the same amount of ignorant and intolerant individuals everywhere, im different forms, but much the same.

And too the bits of hopeful individuals.

Actually, Federal Law trumps State Law when Federal Law is stricter, and the other way around. Federal enforcement just has to be interstate, not intrastate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually at a tea party meeting recently (I'm of a libertarian persuasion, not social conservative, so on this issue we'd be in agreement) and the first speaker went on this ridiculous tirade about how we shouldn't condone the acts of gay people... a gay friend of mine was also in attendance. I can only imagine what he thought...

Anyway, on the issue of government "marriage," the existence of a "marriage license" was originally to prevent interracial marriages... at this point such a power should be obsolete, but the government never likes to give up power. It just felt extremely ironic at that meeting to hear someone implicitly promote the power of government to prevent a consensual contract between two people, given that at so many other tea party events the focus was limited government...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×