NC Marriage Amendment

[SantoSubito]

I find it sadly funny that you can marry your first cousin in more states than you can marry the same sex.

Well first-cousin marriages were common for an extremely long time, and the risk for genetic defects is pretty negligible between first-cousins. Really disliking first cousin marriages is a modern taboo, probably because the need for it vanished.

 

[mori]

If that's not the case then this is beyond pointless.

Which it probably is.

It did, though, accomplish the illegalization(?) of civil unions. It accomplished quite a bit, whatever one feels about it.

 

[AnandaHya]

are civil unions illegal in South Carolina? they have the same type of amendment in their constitution...

now if this version of the amendment was passed then you would see a whole lot more people taking notice...

http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/B...nt.aspx?SessionCode=2011&DocNum=1481&SeqNum=0

its a good thing it failed in the House.

what do you believe this cause means?

"This section does not prohibit a private party from entering
11 into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating
12 the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

anyways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

 

[AnandaHya]

here's a map of the US

Current U.S. state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions, by type
Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons
Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage and civil unions
Constitutional amendment bans same-sex marriage
Constitutional amendment grants legislature authority to ban same-sex marriage
No U.S. state constitutional amendment banning legal recognition of same-sex unions

 

[AnandaHya]

now if you want to see an amendment that would ban civil unions and other contracts then read the one in Virginia

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.[64]"

NC recognizes other contracts, does not mention anything about civil unions. the bann is against legally recognizing marriage of the same sex which is already illegal to do. I think they wanted to make marriage only under the church but that idea was quickly rejected and the motion failed in State congress.

 

[Ugly]

And one giant leap in the wrong direction for a country that is suppose to be built on freedom and justice for all, not freedom and justice for the people who agree with what you believe in.

You say that like its a one sided concept. I'd like to be able to declare that i am against homosexuality without automatically being labeled a homophobe, bigot, hatemonger, etc... where's my freedom of expression and opinion? I don't have it. Where one side gains freedoms, another side looses freedoms.

 

[mori]

The terms "domestic legal union" specifically address this. This is well known - I'm not making it up that the NC amendment rules out domestic partnerships.

 

[SkinnyGuy]

Then I would put to you the classic polygamy argument. If we are supposed to let people do whatever they want, in regards to marriage, how then is it justifiable to approve gay marriage but ban polygamy?

Cause that's two separate idea's, that's like me saying: how is it justifiable to allow traditional marriage, but ban polygamy?

 

[SkinnyGuy]

You say that like its a one sided concept. I'd like to be able to declare that i am against homosexuality without automatically being labeled a homophobe, bigot, hatemonger, etc... where's my freedom of expression and opinion? I don't have it. Where one side gains freedoms, another side looses freedoms.

Because in my opinion we are in a time where this kind of thinking is not necessary. Does two men being able to go get a marriage license down at a courthouse honestly affect you on a personal level?

 

[violakat]

I find it sadly funny that you can marry your first cousin in more states than you can marry the same sex.

Usually, you can only marry your first cousin if one of the two is sterile. And usually that's only if both parties are over 50.

 

[SantoSubito]

Cause that's two separate idea's, that's like me saying: how is it justifiable to allow traditional marriage, but ban polygamy?

Not necessarily, those of us who advocate for traditional marriage oppose the redefinition of marriage and affirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Advocates for same-sex marriage have no such ground to stand on.

Think about it, if one man and three women are all consenting adults and love each other is it really right to ban them from marrying? Is it right to deny them that happiness? Does this group of consenting adults being able to go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license affect you personally?

Does that argument sound familiar?

 

[FrankensteinGirls]

Usually, you can only marry your first cousin if one of the two is sterile. And usually that's only if both parties are over 50.

In Maine all you need is a certificate of genetic counseling from a physician.

 

[violakat]

In Maine all you need is a certificate of genetic counseling from a physician.

That is very scary indeed. Second cousins, okay maybe. First cousins once removed, again, maybe. But First cousins of the same generation, uh, no.

 

[SantoSubito]

That is very scary indeed. Second cousins, okay maybe. First cousins once removed, again, maybe. But First cousins of the same generation, uh, no.

It's not that disturbing. The practice was commonplace the world over until the middle of the 19th century, and the genetic risks in first-cousin marriages are negligible; it only becomes problematic when you have multiple generations marrying their cousins.

 

[SkinnyGuy]

Not necessarily, those of us who advocate for traditional marriage oppose the redefinition of marriage and affirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Advocates for same-sex marriage have no such ground to stand on.

Think about it, if one man and three women are all consenting adults and love each other is it really right to ban them from marrying? Is it right to deny them that happiness? Does this group of consenting adults being able to go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license affect you personally?

Does that argument sound familiar?

I still view marriage as between two people, regardless of their gender.

And no it doesn't affect me, does it affect you? I could careless who someone want's to marry, cause I've got better things to be worrying about. That doesn't mean that I can't express my opinion that two grown consenting adults should be able to get married regardless of their gender.

 

[AnandaHya]

personally I believe marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God.

anything else is just worldly contracts and power games.

Matthew 19
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

 

[FrankensteinGirls]

That is very scary indeed. Second cousins, okay maybe. First cousins once removed, again, maybe. But First cousins of the same generation, uh, no.

I personally find it kind of funny, only because one of the arguments I've heard quite often (surprisingly) is "Gay marriage will lead to incest"

Sorry guys it's already here!

 

[Ritter]

I personally find it kind of funny, only because one of the arguments I've heard quite often (surprisingly) is "Gay marriage will lead to incest"

Sorry guys it's already here!

I really don't think that particular factor of the argument is important. It, more or less, dodges the question at hand. Would a general acceptance of homosexuality increase the likelihood of incest being better accepted by the general population?

Really, that question alone is probably worth another thread, and something I would have to think about before offering an opinion.

 

[djness]

I really don't think that particular factor of the argument is important. It, more or less, dodges the question at hand. Would a general acceptance of homosexuality increase the likelihood of incest being better accepted by the general population?

Really, that question alone is probably worth another thread, and something I would have to think about before offering an opinion.

Don't need another thread to sum it up. Acceptance of sin leads to further acceptance of sin.

 

[Ritter]

It isn't that simple a formula when you take into account cultural norms.