Thread: North Carolina and Gay Marriage

Guys, language.

Originally Posted by Aryajet

Dr. Z
As you know you were the primary reason how I discovered WAB, and so by the authority bestowed to me I hold you in contempt.

That is OK, your supposed to your an Iranian :P

As a fiscal conservative I look up to Dale, and so far his question is far from being answered, and I don't oppose same sex marriage either, it is 1968 all over again and society is ripe for it.

page six, post 89 his question was answered before he asked it, but he is at troll and doesn't bother to read posts except to look for things he can turn into troll bait, guess he spends too much of his time with his perversions. Oh, hes not anymore fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama is.

Originally Posted by zraver

You said marriage is vital to social development and cohesion. I answered that claim.

Looks to me like all you did was restate your legal argument.

If as you claim marriage is vital to social cohesion and development, to the point where the government has a right to say yay or nay on an otherwise individual choice, then the 14th Amendment demands that such scrutiny be evenly applied.

Ok, lets do the 14th...

You cannot only apply it or ban one group based on an otherwise illegal distinction on sex.

You say that banning "one group" (all gay men and women) from same-sex
marriage illegally denies them their 14th Amendment rights, because such a ban is based on a sexual distinction.

I can see where people would be taken in by that reasoning, but there is a subtle flaw in it. You presume the ban only applies to some people (e.g. gays), whereas it would apply to ALL men and ALL women, gays and straights. The 'some' people you refer to would not be victims of sexual discrimination. The 14th Amendment ban on sexual discrimination has to do with favoring persons of one sex over the other. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage apply equally to both sexes and are, therefore, do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex.

Can you find any support for the government regulatign private behavior in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, colonial bills of rights or other documents the Founders created to support that view? Or did the founders intend for the government to stay out of our private lives?

You're barking up the wrong tree. Government has long passed laws uniquely designed for married people: To bestow benefits, keep records, to protect the rights of spouses, to provide for divorce, to ensure child support, and on and on. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment leaves with the states all powers not delegated to the Federal government. I would venture to guess that the forefathers never dreamed that marriage between two people of the same sex would ever become an. If they had, they would have left it to the states to deal with.

If we want the government to stay out of our private life with regard to marriage, then we should forget getting married formally. Go off in the woods with our friends and do it informally. But then we shouldn't expect the government to provide our insurance company, the tax man, and our employers proof of marriage so we can collect benefits, tax breaks and whatnot associated with marriage. The government has always had a role in making marriages, and always will.

If a man has a right to enter into a marriage contract, he or she should enjoy that right with anyone else able to enter into a marriage contract.

Contracts are based on accepted law. If the law says no same-sex marriages, a marriage contract between same-sex partners is void at the outset.

I argue the government has no business telling someone who they can or cannot marry outside of a few very narrow provisions where harm has been proven.

That's merely an opinion, inasmuch as legalizing same-sex marriage from which no children can be born of both parents is no different than legalizing marriage between first cousins from which deformed children may be born. The good of society is the primary consideration. There is no good to be gained from same-sex marriage. Whatever good gay people can do for society can be gained without it.

Try passing a law saying school teachers who teach girls can only be X or Y gender... same principle, its not bias if it applies evenly to everyone of X and Y gender is what your arguing.

No. That's not a good analogy. I am not advocating that members of one sex be allowed to do something while those of the other sex cannot. I am saying that a law against same-sex marriage should apply to all equally and not prohibit anyone from getting married.

providing surrogate parents, buildign the tax base, promoting monogamy, helping fight the spread of STD's, reducing teen suicide are not just good citizenship they are good for society.

I agree gays can contribute good to society, but it begs the question to say that the good they can do entitles them to get married to someone of the same sex.

Neither can couples where the woman or man has been sterilized by nature or man.

This is an argument I found hard to get around at first. My view is that the failure of straight marriages to produce offspring doesn't argue in favor of same-sex marriages. Adding more failure to that which already exists solves nothing.

Only refusing marriage permission to one group based on procreation criteria is bias.

Again, the bias word. Bias connotes unreasonable discrimination. Marriage, in this discussion, being a legal state defined by society and sanctioned by government aims at a purpose, otherwise what is the point of it? If the purpose is the good of society and the continuity of society is good, then society is well within its right to cause the government to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The ability to take in orphans weather blood relations or state wards more than makes up for that reduced ability to procreate since many gays come out after having children so like a couple dealing with post-child bearing sterilization already have kids.

Surrogate parenthood is another issue. I don't have a dog in that fight.

The evidence strongly indicates that answer is no it does not harm you or i or the society we are part of.

We are a long way from settling the harm question and way too close to ignoring it.

Originally Posted by zraver

page six, post 89 his question was answered before he asked it, but he is at troll and doesn't bother to read posts except to look for things he can turn into troll bait, guess he spends too much of his time with his perversions. Oh, hes not anymore fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama is.

Z:

These negative personal comments reflect badly on you and the WAB. Please, knock it off.

Originally Posted by zraver

Those fears are by and large false constructs. We see the same arguments used over and over again from anti-abolition arguments before the US civil war, against the suffragettes, civil rights protestors and those who desired mixed race marriages. To date I am not aware of a single case in the US where giving citizens the same rights as ALREADY enjoyed by other citizens has resulted in a single one of the chicken little prophecies coming to pass. Likely because as our founders envisioned; personal liberty is good for the body politic.

I don't really care that Dalem has a hard on for his mother or was it his sister and buggers a goat, so long as he keeps his philias private. So long as all people involved are competent adults they should be at liberty to do what they want. They cannot possibly harm me, mine or the society and nation I am part of by engaging in private activities. However the moral police citing what ever false justification seems to whip up the masses can do incredible damage to me, mine and the society and nation I belong to.

False constructs? I remember when the act of homosexuality was illegal and gays were mostly in the closet or at the very least discreet. Now that homosexuality is no longer illegal it was then pushed as "normal". Now they want to be married. Thats a give an inch-take a mile example so people really do have a valid concern about where will the new line be drawn and how long it will last before some other new "invented right" is being denied.

Rights already enjoyed by other citizens? Straight men can not marry other men either and the same hold for women. Thats universal. We already have the same rights as far as being married: One man and one woman. We are all in the same boat as far as rights.

"as our forefathers envisioned" Here is your wake up call Z.


1) George Washington court martialed homosexuals. He forbid this sin in the military and said:

“…the Commander in Chief… with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes [sodomy]…”


2) Thomas Jefferson authored a bill to castrate rapsits and homosexuals. He wrote:

“Crimes whose punishment goes to LIMB. 1. Rape 2. Sodomy } Dismemberment.”

3) All 13 Colonies & All 50 States outlawed homosexual sin.

Founding Fathers Quotes About Homosexual Sin | USA Christian Ministries: Pastor Steven Andrew - Christian Nation: The Lord is the God of the USA & We are His People

"Marriage is...the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness.... It is the man and woman united that makes the complete human being..... man has not nearly the value he would have in the state of union. He is an incomplete animal; he resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors." Ben Franklin

"Happiness depends more on the inward disposition of mind than on outward circumstances." Ben Franklin

Our great and wise founding fathers only envisioned a marriage that was "one man and one woman". Unhappy homosexuals might do well to take Ben's second quote to heart.

As for you Z, your fixated on the private act. That is not the issue at hand. If homosexuals only kept what they do a private act things would be different no? No "Gay pride" marches no demands for gay marriages and all the PUBLIC connotations associated with the gay lifestyle. No one would even really know who is and who is not a homosexual. On the contrary, The homosexual agenda is most public and that is 100% because of the homosexuals. Therefore your hiding behind the " we are all out to legislate what two adults do in private" is a bunch of horse pucky because in fact the laws that governed the act have been stricken from the books. In your quest to further imagined rights and transforming this countries society in ways you can not even imagine, you have forgotten/not thought about, or in denial that YOU may be the one doing the damage to yourself, society and this nation.

Take your best shot Z for your rebuttal. My work is done here.

Originally Posted by bonehead

False constructs? I remember when the act of homosexuality was illegal and gays were mostly in the closet or at the very least discreet. Now that homosexuality is no longer illegal it was then pushed as "normal". Now they want to be married. Thats a give an inch-take a mile example so people really do have a valid concern about where will the new line be drawn and how long it will last before some other new "invented right" is being denied.

It wasn't too long ago when it was illegal for blacks to ride at the front of the bus, vote or marry a white woman, now one is the President, talk about give an inch take a mile...

Rights already enjoyed by other citizens? Straight men can not marry other men either and the same hold for women. Thats universal. We already have the same rights as far as being married: One man and one woman. We are all in the same boat as far as rights.

Straights can marry any single person they want to marry who also wants to marry them, thier marriages are recognized across the borders of all 50 states.

"as our forefathers envisioned" Here is your wake up call Z.


1) George Washington court martialed homosexuals. He forbid this sin in the military and said:

“…the Commander in Chief… with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes [sodomy]…”

Here is what he really said,

(referring to himself in 3rd person) "His excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes" . . .

He did not convict, merely approved the conviction of the courts martial and notice crimes- PLURAL

He communicated his position by his actions and his words in this General Order for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd [from] the service with infamy.

George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

So was he discharged for being gay, or for lying under oath as an officer?

The evidence seems to indicate it was for bearing false witness as Washington was well known to have sheltered, protected and aided known homosexuals. In fact a gay man likely saved the nation which is incredibly funny.

Washington gave Alexander Hamilton and his lover John Laurens a private cabin at Valley Forge, had no problem with Von Stueban (a known homosexual) who had a french lover by the name of Duponceau- made him a major general in fact. He then put the two gay pairs in touch with one another... Of the two men caught engaging in carnal relations in 1778 at valley forge, only the officer was prosecuted and discharged- for fraternization. he was not executed or even flogged and was only discharged becuase Aaron Burr made an issue of it. The enlisted soldier pvt John Monhart was never charged. He also personally honorably discharged a wounded transgendered lesbian Deborah Sampson.

2) Thomas Jefferson authored a bill to castrate rapsits and homosexuals. He wrote:

“Crimes whose punishment goes to LIMB. 1. Rape 2. Sodomy } Dismemberment.”

Again lets look at what he actually said/wrote...

Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least

what is sodomy as understood in the late 18th century? Non-reproductive sex.... ever got a BJ from a woman, got to play the back nine or had a snack at the Y... you deserve castration you dirty sodomite... LMFAO

3) All 13 Colonies & All 50 States outlawed homosexual sin.

wait what... the colonies outlawed making a concept that did not exist a sin? They outlawed sodomy, male/male, female/female, male/female and human/animal. This sayeth the lord, only intercourse shall be permitted.... Maybe thats why the founders added the separation clause. Because while a master could not rape a slave in most jurisdictions, they could be charged with sodomy.

"Marriage is...the most natural state of man, and therefore the state in which you are most likely to find solid happiness.... It is the man and woman united that makes the complete human being..... man has not nearly the value he would have in the state of union. He is an incomplete animal; he resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors." Ben Franklin

Love Ben Franklin, seems I know a bit more about him that you do. He was famous for being a "naturist who never formally married and had at least 1 recognized illegitimate son, was a member of the infamous hellfire club and besides bringing Von Stueban to the Us also brought over a Frenchman named Mesplat who eventually set up and printed the first book printed in Canada- a gay love story between the Biblical David and a Johnathan.

Our great and wise founding fathers only envisioned a marriage that was "one man and one woman". Unhappy homosexuals might do well to take Ben's second quote to heart.

They only envisioned that if you twist their words and ignore their deeds and cultural context.

As for you Z, your fixated on the private act. That is not the issue at hand. If homosexuals only kept what they do a private act things would be different no? No "Gay pride" marches no demands for gay marriages and all the PUBLIC connotations associated with the gay lifestyle. No one would even really know who is and who is not a homosexual. On the contrary, The homosexual agenda is most public and that is 100% because of the homosexuals. Therefore your hiding behind the " we are all out to legislate what two adults do in private" is a bunch of horse pucky because in fact the laws that governed the act have been stricken from the books. In your quest to further imagined rights and transforming this countries society in ways you can not even imagine, you have forgotten/not thought about, or in denial that YOU may be the one doing the damage to yourself, society and this nation.

So the Irish can have parades, people who race horses, veterans, political protestors.... but not gays....

Take your best shot Z for your rebuttal. My work is done here.

do your homework next time.

Jad,

Looks to me like all you did was restate your legal argument.

Nope, if marriage is vital then divorce not marriage is the poison.

You say that banning "one group" (all gay men and women) from same-sex
marriage illegally denies them their 14th Amendment rights, because such a ban is based on a sexual distinction.

I can see where people would be taken in by that reasoning, but there is a subtle flaw in it. You presume the ban only applies to some people (e.g. gays), whereas it would apply to ALL men and ALL women, gays and straights. The 'some' people you refer to would not be victims of sexual discrimination. The 14th Amendment ban on sexual discrimination has to do with favoring persons of one sex over the other. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage apply equally to both sexes and are, therefore, do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex.

1 group is allowed to marry anyone they can find who will say yes, the other group cannot marry anyone regardless of willingness. Your argument is like the government saying that no one can drive a Ford... as long as its applied equally its fair.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Government has long passed laws uniquely designed for married people: To bestow benefits, keep records, to protect the rights of spouses, to provide for divorce, to ensure child support, and on and on. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment leaves with the states all powers not delegated to the Federal government. I would venture to guess that the forefathers never dreamed that marriage between two people of the same sex would ever become an. If they had, they would have left it to the states to deal with.

If we want the government to stay out of our private life with regard to marriage, then we should forget getting married formally. Go off in the woods with our friends and do it informally. But then we shouldn't expect the government to provide our insurance company, the tax man, and our employers proof of marriage so we can collect benefits, tax breaks and whatnot associated with marriage. The government has always had a role in making marriages, and always will.

You did not answer the question I asked. Bonehead tried and failed, even the laws against sodomy were lighter than what England had been using- Jefferson lightening them up considerably. As for the government having always had a role... marriage licenses were created by the South as a check on black/white unions and were adopted by the federal government in 1923!

Contracts are based on accepted law. If the law says no same-sex marriages, a marriage contract between same-sex partners is void at the outset.

Then why are bigots trying to pass laws...? its the bigots redefining marriage not the gays.

That's merely an opinion, inasmuch as legalizing same-sex marriage from which no children can be born of both parents is no different than legalizing marriage between first cousins from which deformed children may be born. The good of society is the primary consideration. There is no good to be gained from same-sex marriage. Whatever good gay people can do for society can be gained without it.

we allow sterile couples to marry- either by surgery, condition or age they face no bars to marriage. Claiming gays cannot marry becuase they cannot easily procreate (they can just not easily) while we allow couples who cannot procreate at all to marry is base discrimination.

No. That's not a good analogy. I am not advocating that members of one sex be allowed to do something while those of the other sex cannot. I am saying that a law against same-sex marriage should apply to all equally and not prohibit anyone from getting married.

It is a good analogy becuase its the imposition of a construct to bar a selective group from access to what others consider a right.

I agree gays can contribute good to society, but it begs the question to say that the good they can do entitles them to get married to someone of the same sex.

Straight felons can marry and if they are married get visits in prison. So if a gay is a productive member of society but can't marry but we allow felons to marry and remain married regardless of crime....

This is an argument I found hard to get around at first. My view is that the failure of straight marriages to produce offspring doesn't argue in favor of same-sex marriages. Adding more failure to that which already exists solves nothing.

If you ban one type based on procreation, then equal application of the law demands a ban of all types of non-procreating marriages.

Again, the bias word. Bias connotes unreasonable discrimination. Marriage, in this discussion, being a legal state defined by society and sanctioned by government aims at a purpose, otherwise what is the point of it? If the purpose is the good of society and the continuity of society is good, then society is well within its right to cause the government to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The good of society, I think the continuation of society is a bogus argument given the marriage privileges of the sterilized and Roe v wade. Good being the operative word and we've already agreed that any good a heterosexual couple can achieve in marriage gays can as well.

Surrogate parenthood is another issue. I don't have a dog in that fight.

I wasn't talking just surrogate parenthood, may gays have biological children.

We are a long way from settling the harm question and way too close to ignoring it.

what harm? Let me see if I can recall the points you've conceded

gay couples can be
1. good parents
2. good neighbors
3. as willing as anyone to don the uniform
4. honest tax payers
5. investors and builders of wealth
6. a better environment for an abused/unwanted child than an orphanage
7. have a right to all of the same legal protections, obligations and rights minus the word marriage

So I ask again... what harm, especially in light of who is allowed to marry....