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.
The bill, as proposed in previous sessions, would deny same-sex couples access to marriage and any other form of relationship recognition, including partner benefits from private employers.
. "It harms couples who seek the most basic protections of their families. It hurts LGBT young people who are told they are unworthy of being treated equally with their peers. And it harms our North Carolina businesses who want to operate in a state that attracts and supports a diverse and inclusive workforce."
read more
I do not dislike Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals or Transgendered persons. I'm quite friendly and accepting of them, in fact. However, marriage is not an equal opportunity institution in my playbook; It's between a biological male and a biological female. I'm allowed to have this opinion without being a "gay basher" or a "bigot" or "ignorant" (people love to hurl the I word a lot these days.).
I must say, though, it's refreshing to have someone come out and say it's for the tax and insurance benefits, like we've always known it is, instead of making some overly dramatic moral argument.
People have reason to hurl the "I" word a lot these days.
I rest my case:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattman704
I do not dislike Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals or Transgendered persons. I'm quite friendly and accepting of them, in fact. However, marriage is not an equal opportunity institution in my playbook; It's between a biological male and a biological female. I'm allowed to have this opinion without being a "gay basher" or a "bigot" or "ignorant" (people love to hurl the I word a lot these days.).
I must say, though, it's refreshing to have someone come out and say it's for the tax and insurance benefits, like we've always known it is, instead of making some overly dramatic moral argument.
I do not dislike Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals or Transgendered persons. I'm quite friendly and accepting of them, in fact. However, marriage is not an equal opportunity institution in my playbook; It's between a biological male and a biological female. I'm allowed to have this opinion without being a "gay basher" or a "bigot" or "ignorant" (people love to hurl the I word a lot these days.).
Same-sex marriage is already illegal according to NC Statutes. This particular bill serves only to make it "extra-special super-duper illegal" and in addition, will likely affect private companies' own rights to offer domestic partner insurance benefits as they wish. There can be no reason other than intolerance/bigotry to "go the extra mile" the way this bill does. And Republicans claim they are in favor of smaller government?
How much more "Big Brother-y" can you get than telling private companies they are forbidden to offer such benefits as same-sex partner insurance? How is that the government's business at all?
More importantly, doesn't the Legislature have a few more important things to worry about like now--like JOBS, THE DEFICIT, AND THE ECONOMY--than to spend time and money amending the constitution to take away people's rights?
Quote:
I must say, though, it's refreshing to have someone come out and say it's for the tax and insurance benefits, like we've always known it is, instead of making some overly dramatic moral argument.
Nobody has said that marriage equality is solely for tax benefits, any more than opposite-sex marriage is solely for tax/insurance benefits. However, those who argue "Well, you don't have to get married; just be domestic partners" are often unaware at the numerous benefits available to legally-married couples. If the church has a problem with it, the church doesn't have to marry anyone they don't want to. But it is definitely true that the simple legal contract of "marriage" immediately grants hundreds of economic benefits, which have nothing at all to do with the "religious" arguments in favor of opposite-sex-only marriage. However, a same-sex couple who have lived as a unit for 20 years certainly deserve the same tax/insurance/Social Security survivor benefits as an opposite-sex couple who just got married yesterday. Or maybe you believe there should be no benefits at all to committed couples of any stripe?
The bill, as proposed in previous sessions, would deny same-sex couples access to marriage and any other form of relationship recognition, including partner benefits from private employers.
. "It harms couples who seek the most basic protections of their families. It hurts LGBT young people who are told they are unworthy of being treated equally with their peers. And it harms our North Carolina businesses who want to operate in a state that attracts and supports a diverse and inclusive workforce."
read more
People should not be able to benefit from illegal and/or immoral actions.
Being gay is NOT illegal, anywhere. Marrying someone of your own sex is already illegal in NC--why change the whole Constitution to "outlaw" something that is already outlawed?
As for "morality"--do you not agree that forming bonded, lasting, committed relationships are more "moral" than not doing so? Presumably you believe it is better for heterosexual couples to be married than to "shack up"--are you hypocritical about other couples?
Good for him. The fallacy of the gay rights movement is that it is a civil rights issue.
It is not.
It is a moral issue and needs to be dealt with like any other moral, i.e. criminal, issue.
People should not be able to benefit from illegal and/or immoral actions.
Chris
Ouch! Next, time, be sure to say it like it is and don't hold back.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I'm gonna stay out of this fight. However, I will offer you the best of luck luck in dealing with any heightened responses that your candor might elicit.
What, exactly, is the point of a thread like this? To encourage people to spit at each other? The Senator has every right to try to get his constitutional amendment. It will either pass, or not. Life will go on either way.
Being gay is NOT illegal, anywhere. Marrying someone of your own sex is already illegal in NC--why change the whole Constitution to "outlaw" something that is already outlawed?
Because until it is in the Constitution, it may be made illegal by any judge who decides he/she wants to legislate from the bench.
Quote:
As for "morality"--do you not agree that forming bonded, lasting, committed relationships are more "moral" than not doing so?
As long as it is a man and a woman, certainly so.
Quote:
Presumably you believe it is better for heterosexual couples to be married than to "shack up"--are you hypocritical about other couples?
Why would you assume I would be hypocritical about 'shacking up'?
Marriage is the legal union including one man and one woman. Any other relationship, 'committed' or not, is immoral.
Chris
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.
Next, time, be sure to say it like it is and don't hold back. 
