North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Live and let live.

It's all horseshit, it shouldn't be an issue in the hands of voters. Just another BS hot button issue to distract voters.

Exactly. If my boss were to say "Hey SmootSmack, so listen I'm gay and I want to marry my boyfriend" I'd say "Congratulations" and get back to work. If he says "I'm gay, and my boyfriend dumped me" I'd say "Sorry to hear that" and get back to work. But if he says "Business isn't going well. We're going to have shut things down and let you go"....then we've got problems

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Exactly. If my boss were to say "Hey SmootSmack, so listen I'm gay and I want to marry my boyfriend" I'd say "Congratulations" and get back to work. If he says "I'm gay, and my boyfriend dumped me" I'd say "Sorry to hear that" and get back to work. But if he says "Business isn't going well. We're going to have shut things down and let you go"....then we've got problems

But the way "traditional" marriage and unions are viewed there has to be clear legislation or ammendment (or a mandate) for same sex couples to officially declare their partnership and receive the same benefits hetro couples can.

Those two factors matter quite a bit to heterosexuals county couples so why wouldn't they for homosexuals? The fact that it's gotten politicized is a by product of democracy and a lack of education. If this weren't a political issue, it would have already been legal and we wouldn't be talking about it.

And to be clear, I'm talking about the same sex "debate" at a high level not just North Carolina.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

TO show you that a degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant, I present you this following FB exhange from a girl who just finished her bachelors degree in nursing.


Girl's FB status: Its so scarey to think about what will be the social norm and socially accepted in years to come. Start praying for your children now!


My response: Funny, people said the same thing when the topic of women's rights came about. /shrug

Girl's reply: Well to tell you the truth I would rather have my children growing up then...before we had any "rights" than I would now. Its just scarey to me...thats all I was saying.


If that doesn't make you facepalm, I don't know what will. She's rather undo all of women's rights just to see homosexuals denied the right to be married. If that isn't ignorance, then I'm clueless to what it is then.

I'm not going to get into this any more, but I definitely had a few similar Facebook experiences with stuff like that. Love that people act like homosexuality is the ultimate sin. Had to call one of them out on Facebook for the divorce as well...

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not sure you are referring to me because I've used the term ignorant on a few occasions in here, but it wasn't for their views on homosexuality. It was for their inability to see that all people should have rights as human beings, and that these marriages affect them in absolutely no way whatsoever. So what do you call a guy who's mad at somebody for doing something that doesn't affect him whatsoever?

I could care less if people want to view homosexuality as a sin or what not. That's their choosing just as other religions choose to believe what they want.

However, when your religion interferes with others rights, it then becomes a problem.

The thing is, you're really arguing for the religious to compromise their beliefs by agreeing to vote for something they feel is sin. So then, the shoe is really on the other foot. Their religious beliefs are then interfered with, and I believe that is just as much as problem as you say the opposite way. Either way, someone's beliefs are going to be interfered with. That is why I said before, government should have never got into the "marriage" business to begin with. If those in government truly wanted a separation of church and state, they should have never messed with marriage.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

Right, but you're missing the point I was making. The point is, unmarried, single people are likely to not have children, which means there is no generation of new tax payers. That is what the government was looking at. Also, less population less expenditure = less population, less taxes, (income, sales, personal property, etc) being paid back into the state. The government wanted to encourage what it felt like were stable unions (married couples who could biological procreate) in order to keep a steady flow of generations of tax payers, and to keep the population up. It's possible that by now, there is not a need to have such a high population, and maybe the government should revisit its tax and benefits breaks for married couples with children, but I believe this is where it all comes from. After all, if it was simply a case of the government wanting to side with one religion or another, then what benefit would it be getting from that? That's what people fail to think about.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Very well said. I took out the first part though because its not really state sponsored benefits, at least in my research and opinion.

I tried a while back to see why government, and in particular the federal government, became involved in marriage in the first place. As best as I can tell it deals with basic record keeping by individual states followed by federal law for property/ownership rights relating to women (back when women didn’t have many rights) and for federal taxation of income and property. And finally for welfare entitlements starting in the 30’s.

Im nearly certain initial “dependency” type elections (your spouse is on your employer’s healthcare plan) all initially originated by goodwill from private corporations, much like how some corporations are starting to offer dependency rights for gay couples now-a-days. However, at some point initial goodwill morphed into public policy and became enforceable via federal law.

So now you have certain “rights” but more appropriately these things should be called certain laws/restrictions and penalties governing traditional marriage.

So to me the issue isn’t that gay people cant get married to the person they love, its that in order to be subjected to certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties we have to get married. But on top of that marriage is defined in a way to specifically exclude certain people/groups.

Ive mentioned here before that I think gays being denied the ability to have marriage laws imposed on their relationships is the biggest civil rights issue of our day. However, I think im changing my opinion. We should all have the right to elect “Traditional Marriage” laws be imposed on any type of relationship we are involved in with another competent adult(s). We should also be free to not elect those “rights”

Skinsguy you are so right in the unfairness couples face who choose not to wed which deny them from certain rules imposed on their relationship. Everyone should be able to elect the same set of rules for their relationship. It should be without restriction but otherwise left as it is now; as a purely contractual legal matter.

The only issue with all this is that the certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties all need to be modified. They were created for a specific set of principals and if those principles change you need to change these certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties.

Good point! And good research! I'm all for that!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

But the way "traditional" marriage and unions are viewed there has to be clear legislation or ammendment (or a mandate) for same sex couples to officially declare their partnership and receive the same benefits hetro couples can.

Those two factors matter quite a bit to heterosexuals county couples so why wouldn't they for homosexuals? The fact that it's gotten politicized is a by product of democracy and a lack of education. If this weren't a political issue, it would have already been legal and we wouldn't be talking about it.

And to be clear, I'm talking about the same sex "debate" at a high level not just North Carolina.

Are you disagreeing with me...because if you are MAY MODS HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!!!!!

No but seriously, I couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my post, or neither

[firstdown]

I wonder how big of a deal this would be if there was no money involved? This probably another good example of what happens when the federal gov get to involved in our lives and hands out money to some based on certain status.

BTW This law does not stop gays from getting married its just that the state does not recognize the marriage. See above. Its about the money.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I wonder how big of a deal this would be if there was no money involved? This probably another good example of what happens when the federal gov get to involved in our lives and hands out money to some based on certain status.

BTW This law does not stop gays from getting married its just that the state does not recognize the marriage. See above. Its about the money.

Your first paragraph is a valid argument. If those incentives are not there it becomes a question of what is right and wrong.

If heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the state why can't same-sex couples' if everyone is equal? To me, having certain marriages recognized, based on identity, sexuality, etc., while others aren't is a form of discrimination.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Are you disagreeing with me...because if you are MAY MODS HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!!!!!

No but seriously, I couldn't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my post, or neither

I agree with your post. Perhaps my reply was better suited for Mattyk's post.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts.

Couldnt agree (in principle) more. I am always open to persuasion. I like to think my thoughts are dynamic and evolving (just like Obama's!).

What part of what I said offends basic logic?

I think this is rhetorical, but i think its a good time to point out that there is nothing that offends basic logic more so than tax law. Nothing.

Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples?

But that’s not really true. Sure the Bush tax cuts eliminated a lot of the Marriage Penalty, but a lot of it has come back and a lot of the penalty never went away, espicially for the higher and lower income earners .

Honestly it changes from year to year as to who benefits most from marriage; you or the government. Currently I would say the government would be worse off (less revenues) if everyone was able to file as single (singles pay less), all else equal.

The tax benefits afforded to married peoples doesn’t really have anything to do with income filing, its the ability to re-title things tax free. You cant give your gf all your money without creating a taxable event, but you can give your wife everything tax free. Also upon your death certain benefits exist for IRA elections and of course all assets can be passed to your wife to avoid the estate tax during her remaining lifetime.

Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

I thought you were a liberal? Are you implying theres a negative return on the government creating these programs for people? Elizabeth Warren would be pissed if she heard you!

[quote]Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. [QUOTE]

Kind of like Brain Age? I SUCK at that game!!!

Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

a) If we eliminate the “tax breaks” are we also going to eliminate the marriage penalties? If both are eliminated then I think well see a net decrease in revenues.

b) Youre just plain wild!

You never said anything before about killing off just the most unable persons. I wont answer that, but if I was able to “just kill off 5% of the population”, which was representative of both the most able and productive persons and those infirm, I think we would be worse off. Maybe im just a glass half full type dude.

You saying all these things makes me curious where you stand on illegal immigration? Are you for DREAM act?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Your first paragraph is a valid argument. If those incentives are not there it becomes a question of what is right and wrong.

If heterosexual couples' marriages are recognized by the state why can't same-sex couples' if everyone is equal? To me, having certain marriages recognized, based on identity, sexuality, etc., while others aren't is a form of discrimination.

I agree with First's first point too.

I wonder if we see a Civil Rights Bill type thing at some point if it will cause states to just not recognize marriage, samesex or traditional, at all. Or if without a Civil Rights style bill we will see the Fed govt just back out of marriage completely? Whats sad is that if these types of things happen people will blame the gays for ruining it for everyone.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I was being a smart ass when I said that I guessed I just paid better attention than others in class. My degree is a B.S. in industrial tech: (electronics)...with minor in business. My focus was more into networking...aka cisco routers and switches. I have to say, my funnest moment was making a clock out of LEDs, capacitors, and a circuit board.


If you look at the numbers on the education level and look at the way the voting went, it would show you everything you need to know.

I used to be one those people. I believed that being gay was a choice. I believed homosexuality was wrong. I believe it was against nature. Twenty one years ago and I would have voted for this amendment. Life change the moment I started broadening my mind. I attribute a great deal of my growth to a simple philosophy class.

I just hate it when people imply that those who dont go to college are without sophistication or that those do who go are somehow better. It really grinds my gears.

Wait are you saying 21 years ago you used to be ignorant with regards to homosexuals??? How old are you? I always thought your were a slightly radical 20-25 year old that eventually was gonna grow out of it.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I just hate it when people imply that those who dont go to college are without sophistication or that those do who go are somehow better. It really grinds my gears.

NO degrees don't make you smart, nor do they make you dumb. However, there are very few people that go out of their way to learn, grow, and broaden their horizons outside of college(hell, they don't even do it at college at times). If college degrees weren't a good way to judge ones ability or intelligence, why do many jobs require some sort of formal degree? I know of just a couple of people that are insanely smart and knowledgeable in many areas and they have no formal degrees. They are more libertarian than anything.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Wait are you saying 21 years ago you used to be ignorant with regards to homosexuals??? How old are you? I always thought your were a slightly radical 20-25 year old that eventually was gonna grow out of it.

Yes, I was. I'm 39 and I hate to break it to you, but there is no growing out of my "slightly radical" movement. I'm just bidding my time, sitting here sharping my pitchfork and getting the torches ready for the day we take the country back from corporate America.

[NC_Skins]