U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:18 AM
 
3,774 posts, read 6,991,511 times
Reputation: 4402

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
That is not the point. Stop with the silliness. We are talking about religious principles here and indeed, there are churches that will throw you out for adultery; and the Catholic church has its own canonical law, wh/ does not recognize a civil divorce without a canonical annulment.

You are not going to win this argument or change anyone's minds by inferring that religious folks are hypocrites.

The fact that folks are divorced has nothing to do with this issue and how people feel about homosexuality. These kinds of spurious comments are only going to create a bigger wedge.

People who want change, work for change. You get change when people feel the proposition is reasonable.
Silliness and spurious? Please, who is insulting who? What about my post was false? How can my opinion be false? Did I call your opinion silly?

If you're looking to be insulted, you will find a reason, and your post is proof positive. I'm done with this tripe, you can shadow box with the other suckers.

 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:22 AM
 
2,082 posts, read 3,568,277 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
First of all, the word "marriage" should not be applied to anything to do with the State. Marriage is a sacrament and should be under the church. We needed to start there. I have been stating this for about 30 years now. All domestic partnerships b/n a man and a woman, should have been designated as legal civil unions b/c they require a LICENSE from the state b/f they are recognized as legal entities. Couples historically can get married without a religious ceremony.

This is where the problems have been created. Instead of referring to those licenses as indicative of a civil union, and a religious ceremony indicative of a marriage, our legal language is based on 18th Century verbage.

Churches can perform a marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, depending on their beliefs. The State should issue civil union licenses to any couple, same sex or opposite sex, who wish to declare themselves a legal entity.

I kept asking my gay friends to dump the word marriage, as it is a ritual for churches, not the State, and spend their energy on re-defining civil unions. The word "marriage" is what sets folks off, as marriage is a religious concept.

That is where we need to start, to guarantee the civil rights of all people -- at the State level. It needs to be clearly defined that ALL people first get a license, and that license creates a civil union. If they wish to have a religious ceremony, that ritual creates a marriage. We are talking about redefining legal terminology and that is reasonable and I think everyone could come to agreement on that.

But instead, both sides are insistent on redefining a religious concept: marriage. To me, this is wacked. Let churches handle who they will marry. Let the state handle licensing civil unions. We would all then be in a civil union and those who wish to have a religious ceremony would also be "married," in the eyes of the church.

I got married at the county court house by a judge. To me, that was a civil union. Then later, we had a religious ceremony at a church (well, actually, at Notre Dame, Paris, lol -- how is that for romantic?) and that was recognition by the church of the sanctity of our union. I don't get the big deal with clearly separating my civil union (a legal entity) from my marriage ceremony (a church issue). Not everyone is religious so they are not interested in having a religious ceremony that recognizes their union.

If we started on this level, I believe the average man on the street would get it. Religious beliefs are personal and should be separate from State legal issues.
Excellent post Ani, I fully agree!
A poorly worded vote should not be used as a wedge between a person religious believes and his civil rights.
Once a civil union (legal entity) will be treated as separate from a religious marriage, there should be no more controversy.

A more than 2,000 years old christian religious belief has no chance of being changed by a minority. Marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, no if and buts about it, no need/chance to try and change a religious belief on grounds of civil rights. If one keeps trying, invariably the result is more hate.
I suggest same sex supporters replace the word marriage with civil union if they want to stop stirring controversy.
 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:29 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,023,037 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Native_Son View Post
Silliness and spurious? Please, who is insulting who? What about my post was false? How can my opinion be false? Did I call your opinion silly?

If you're looking to be insulted, you will find a reason, and your post is proof positive. I'm done with this tripe, you can shadow box with the other suckers.
i don't think you read what I added to that post. Too bad.

I am not insulted at all. I have simply tried to explain where folks are coming from on both sides of this issue, and that throwing around hateful language is not going to win friends or change minds.

And yes, the comparisons you made are silly and your argument is spurious. We are talking about defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously, if a man and a woman are married, they can get a divorce. That is legal. So why would you be focusing on what is recognized as legal not only in this state, but in all 50 states.

What you need to be addressing is why people felt it was necessary to define marriage in such a way as it prohibits two gay people from entering into the institution.

Religion should not have a thing to do with this issue, except for One Thing: people vote according to their conscience and if they feel homosexuality is an abomination against God the Creator and a morally reprehensible destruction of the family as a unit, then that is that. Until proponents of gay marriage can convince folks that God created them as homosexuals, there simply will be no support from folks who believe otherwise.

Last edited by brokensky; 05-14-2012 at 08:45 AM..
 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:34 AM
 
Location: The 12th State
22,974 posts, read 58,484,987 times
Reputation: 14917
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28173 View Post
Excellent post Ani, I fully agree!
A poorly worded vote should not be used as a wedge between a person religious believes and his civil rights.
Once a civil union (legal entity) will be treated as separate from a religious marriage, there should be no more controversy.

A more than 2,000 years old christian religious belief has no chance of being changed by a minority. Marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, no if and buts about it, no need/chance to try and change a religious belief on grounds of civil rights. If one keeps trying, invariably the result is more hate.
I suggest same sex supporters replace the word marriage with civil union if they want to stop stirring controversy.
See that the problem, gays was not seeking marriage in NC.
Republican legislators decide to add it to a law that already exist and ban civil unions at the same time but didnt put that in the wording on the ballot so only those who was educated on the entire bill would know it was there.

This was hate legislation no way around it, to make straight people feel superior.
They used fear mongering to get people out to vote on a law that already exists.
What burns me it was to go further and deny civil unions so it was hate legislation.
There is nothing in bible about civil unions.
Its bigotry to single out a tiny minority and subject their rights to the vote of the majority.

Adam has a good song on this injustice and inequality.


Adam Lambert Outlaws Of Love lyric - YouTube
 
Old 05-14-2012, 08:37 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,023,037 times
Reputation: 22370
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28173 View Post
Excellent post Ani, I fully agree!
A poorly worded vote should not be used as a wedge between a person religious believes and his civil rights.
Once a civil union (legal entity) will be treated as separate from a religious marriage, there should be no more controversy.

A more than 2,000 years old christian religious belief has no chance of being changed by a minority. Marriage has been defined between a man and a woman, no if and buts about it, no need/chance to try and change a religious belief on grounds of civil rights. If one keeps trying, invariably the result is more hate.
I suggest same sex supporters replace the word marriage with civil union if they want to stop stirring controversy.
Thank you for validating what I have been advocating for nearly three decades. All it would have taken is some legislation in the GA to change terminology to get the ball rolling. Pretty ironic, eh? I don't even think IRS code would need to be changed.
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:19 AM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 67,023,037 times
Reputation: 22370
I believe all the states are voting on some version of this legislation, as state's rights have been challenged by the Family Marriage Act and the DOMA (defense of marriage act). Maybe I have this wrong but That is what I thought the reason was for the votes/referendum in various states. I didn't think it had anything to do with political parties as such, except that historically, people who are very conservative don't register DEM. I thought it was to establish that states determine this issue rather than the federal govt. ???
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:24 AM
 
2,603 posts, read 4,270,803 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Now see, this is more of the same BS that pushes people to take action against the speaker and his cause!!!!

Black folks voted for this amendment just as whites did! Look at the voting summaries by precinct! To Make a blanket statement that anyone who feels homosexuality is a sin also works to deny the civil rights of blacks is not only clearly untrue, it is inflammatory.
Ani. That is not what I am saying. I made no such blanket argument. One of the great tragedies here is the intense homophobia in the black community. Indeed, the blacks breaking with the Dems on this is one of the key reasons it passed in this state and in California.

It is an analogy. Those who disagreed with civil rights for blacks are bigots. Those who disagree with civil rights for gays are also bigots (and that includes many blacks).
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:30 AM
 
335 posts, read 589,520 times
Reputation: 297
Interesting that this referendum vote occurred on a primary election day, when the democrats, because they have an incumbent in the white house, have less of a reason to vote in the primaries. If the referendum happened in November, I doubt it would have gotten 61%.
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:32 AM
 
2,603 posts, read 4,270,803 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
Now, I know that for a fact. To those folks who did prayerfully consider the legislation and vote against it, having others keep pounding us all with this "Christians as hypocrites and bigots" is NOT going to win friends --it is going to lose them. Folks have to stop with the rhetoric. And for congregations that felt the amendment was needed, calling them ignorant haters is just going to reinforce their beliefs.

To many poeople, it is a clear cut situation: homosexuality, they believe, is wrong. Period. So they are not going to support any legislation that they feel supports a lifestyle they believe is damnable. I can respect that! And these comments about waiting for them to die off are ignorant and mean spirited and divisive, b/c it isn't just people over 70 who believe this way.

You cannot legislate morality, folks. That old saying is so true. This goes both ways. But telling one group of folks that their religious beliefs make them ignorant bigots and haters is only going to cause a huge backlash. They see the Bible as the word from a higher source and they should be respected. you are not going to be able to convince folks that the Bible is wrong!!!!
I never said this was an issue of Christians being bigots. There certainly was an element of that if you listened to any of the sermons coming out of many churches. I don't know a single Episcopalian for instance who even entertained voting for this.

No one was asking anyone to support legislation to promote homosexuality. Anti-gays started this bill to strip rights away from a group of people.

Of course you can't legislate morality. A vote FOR this amendment was an attempt to do just that. It doesn't "go both ways" The Bible is not a public policy document.
 
Old 05-14-2012, 09:51 AM
 
2,603 posts, read 4,270,803 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
First of all, the word "marriage" should not be applied to anything to do with the State. Marriage is a sacrament and should be under the church. We needed to start there. I have been stating this for about 30 years now. All domestic partnerships b/n a man and a woman, should have been designated as legal civil unions b/c they require a LICENSE from the state b/f they are recognized as legal entities. Couples historically can get married without a religious ceremony.
But that is not the way it is. Marriage is a civil institution as it is and it confers many rights and privileges. What you say about changing the legal definition of all civil marriages to unions, whether they be gay or straight, makes sense, but it would require a much larger overhaul of many systems than is even being discussed here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
I kept asking my gay friends to dump the word marriage, as it is a ritual for churches, not the State, and spend their energy on re-defining civil unions. The word "marriage" is what sets folks off, as marriage is a religious concept.
But it's not really. My wife and I have a marriage license from the State of North Carolina. We had no mention of God at our ceremony. We're still married. Churches would still be able to decide who they want to recognize as married, but they don't get to tell the state who can be married and who cannot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
hat is where we need to start, to guarantee the civil rights of all people -- at the State level. It needs to be clearly defined that ALL people first get a license, and that license creates a civil union. If they wish to have a religious ceremony, that ritual creates a marriage. We are talking about redefining legal terminology and that is reasonable and I think everyone could come to agreement on that.

But instead, both sides are insistent on redefining a religious concept: marriage. To me, this is wacked. Let churches handle who they will marry. Let the state handle licensing civil unions. We would all then be in a civil union and those who wish to have a religious ceremony would also be "married," in the eyes of the church.
This was not a matter of BOTH sides attempting to redefine anything. It was a power grab by the newly Republican state legislature to fire up their base by promoting socially conservative morality legislation. This is not an issue where you can say that both sides are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
I got married at the county court house by a judge. To me, that was a civil union. Then later, we had a religious ceremony at a church (well, actually, at Notre Dame, Paris, lol -- how is that for romantic?) and that was recognition by the church of the sanctity of our union. I don't get the big deal with clearly separating my civil union (a legal entity) from my marriage ceremony (a church issue). Not everyone is religious so they are not interested in having a religious ceremony that recognizes their union.

If we started on this level, I believe the average man on the street would get it. Religious beliefs are personal and should be separate from State legal issues.
While your view of your courthouse marriage was that it was a civil union. In the eyes of the law, it was a marriage. A marriage that confers all the rights and privileges that go along with marriage in this country. I think what you are proposing makes some intuitive sense but it is vastly more radical than simply allowing gay folks to get marriage license (I realize there would be no effective difference) But do you really think the churches wouldn't be up in arms about "removing God from the public square" or some such other mess? I think there would be a huge fight over that as well.

Ultimately, this will have to be decided by the courts at the federal level under 14th Amendment, equal protection clause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top