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.
I'd understand if we were having an academic discussion on the topic. I am a big fan of "agree to disagree."
When we are talking about taking away people's civil rights because some people would like to make judgements against those people's sexual orientation or marital status (in the case of unmarried heterosexual couples)? I just don't think that is a viable stance. When did voting to take people's civil rights away become okay?
When you agree to disagree, you acknowledge that you are not going to change someone else's mind. I know that I will not change your mind and accept that. You will not change my mind. Simple as that.
I'll start by saying I am not in favor of the amendment. I am a little confused by the domestic abuse commercials, they are concerned about losing their protection order and give the impression that now they will be in danger from their live in boyfriend. Obviously I think any type of abuse is horrible but it gives the impression there will be nothing they can do. Assault is a crime regardless of who is committing it and anyone can get a restraining order with proper proof. What am I missing here? Is the process harder when it is not a spouse? I just don't like the scare tactics on either side of the issue.
Won't this amendment also impact end of life decisions by caregivers (regardless of sexual orientation) and all other issues related to domestic partnerships? Hospital visitations?
I know it's very easy for those supporting the amendment to say, "well, just go get married" - (which of course isn't possible for gay couples anyway) - but that's not always wise financially.
I know of one heterosexual couple with a child who aren't married because her credit/debt is bad/legendary and it would affect him if they got married; they aren't going to break up because they have a child, so they live together in a domestic partnership. They're not in NC, fortunately. Yes she needs to clean up her financial situation but that's besides the point.
This is a very complex issue and this amendment really needs to go.
When you agree to disagree, you acknowledge that you are not going to change someone else's mind. I know that I will not change your mind and accept that. You will not change my mind. Simple as that.
^^ This ^^
Remember that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and shouldn't feel compelled to defend it.
The focus of this thread is Amendment One, so let's please discuss that -- and not each other.
Isn't marriage a religious sacrament? What business does government have to tell the church what it can or cannot do?
Do we really need to change the constitutiion--state or national--to control what the church does?
The argument that marriage is between one man and one woman--unless you're a mormon--is based strictly in religion. Seems the founding fathers were not overly concerned with such issues.
They only wrote the Constitution to restrict governement's meddling with the church and trying to dictate religious policy.
Hasn't the church always been permitted to choose who gets married within its walls?
Isn't marriage a religious sacrament? What business does government have to tell the church what it can or cannot do?
Do we really need to change the constitutiion--state or national--to control what the church does?
The argument that marriage is between one man and one woman--unless you're a mormon--is based strictly in religion. Seems the founding fathers were not overly concerned with such issues.
They only wrote the Constitution to restrict governement's meddling with the church and trying to dictate religious policy.
Hasn't the church always been permitted to choose who gets married within its walls?
There are churches that marry gay couples. And marriages between non-beleiving heathens are sanctioned all the time. There are rights and responsibilities that come from the govts recognition of a marriage that have little to do with the "religious sacrament" of marriage.
Isn't marriage a religious sacrament? What business does government have to tell the church what it can or cannot do?
That is a religious sacrament does not mean it is exclusively so. Marriage has always been both a religious and a civil union in this country.
I don't think this amendment would have any effect on what sacraments a church might choose to offer - any could still continue to marry whomever they choose. But it would limit the ability of the state recognize such unions as "marriage" - the civil union part of it goes (stays) away.
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.
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.
