North Carolina votes for marriage ammendment.

[Will Carry]

We in North Carolina got to vote on whether marriage is between one man and one woman OR any two adults who want to get married. I truly believe that every American should have the same rights regardless of their sexual preferences and I think that no one should ever have to vote to keep their rights, but I think marriage should be between one man and one woman. My wife was against the amendment, she thinks that same sex couples should be able to wed or she did....

I ask my wife "So you think two men should be able to get married?"

She says "Yes I do."

I asked, "What if the two men were brothers?"

"Oh NO!" she says. "Brothers can't marry each other, that's just wrong."

"Why is two brothers getting married wrong but two men getting married right?" I said.

"I see your point Will. Maybe you are right." I love that woman...I really do.

[TripleDigitRide]

But hey, at least they can still legally marry their first cousins. Makes sense to me.

[Mike.357]

Marrying siblings is taboo i suppose.

Isn't the real purpose of gay marriage to insure chain of property rights, other things like serious illness and hospital issues etc...

Wouldn't being a sibling already be taken care of legally such as heirs to estates and what not? Not sure if i have the proper vocabulary for what i am trying to say.

The gov't should not be involved in marriage period. Consenting adults should be able to marry to insure their loved ones all have the same rights.

[mikegideon]

This explains it. Makes perfect sense...

Edited May 11, 2012 by mikegideon

[TrickyNicky]

Isn't the real purpose of gay marriage to insure chain of property rights, other things like serious illness and hospital issues etc...

The gov't should not be involved in marriage period. Consenting adults should be able to marry to insure their loved ones all have the same rights.

+1 IMO the only people who should worry about gays getting married are gays with commitment problems.

[Guest bkelm18]

The gov't should not be involved in marriage period. Consenting adults should be able to marry to insure their loved ones all have the same rights.

Pretty much. The government really shouldn't have any say in who can marry who. Shameful really.

[mav]

Pretty much. The government really shouldn't have any say in who can marry who. Shameful really.

I agree. I have stated numerous times before during a debate on this topic that the government should have never gotten involved and needs to get out now. I support civil unions for everybody, straight or gay. Marriage needs to be left where it should be, in church. If a church, city, or state wants to ban same sex "marriage" they are free to do so. However, the state shouldn't disallow anyone from entering into a civil union.

The problem I have is there are some who wouldn't be content with a civil union even if civil unions were for everybody, both straight and gay. They want to push the issue forcing states and individuals to accept their "marriage". To those people, I say tough s***, you would be getting the same benefits as everyone else even though the state bans same sex "marriage". I don't want to deny any rights to any individual, but I also don't want an indvidual's sexual proclivities forced upon me either.

[mikegideon]

Forcing one set of religious beliefs on the entire population, is real similar to forcing everyone to belong to the same church. If you recall, that's one of the main reasons we came here and stole this place from the Indians to begin with.

[mav]

Forcing one set of religious beliefs on the entire population, is real similar to forcing everyone to belong to the same church.

That is true, but not accepting gay "marriage" is not necessarily based on any religion. I used the argument of marriage remaining in the church because most marriages are performed in church. I could also have used, and probably should have, the magistrate/justice of the peace, which is secular. Marriage is more tradition than anything, and heterosexual marriage has been solely recognized as a union between a man and woman in many secular societies throughout history.

[Smith]

That is true, but not accepting gay "marriage" is not necessarily based on any religion. I used the argument of marriage remaining in the church because most marriages are performed in church. I could also have used, and probably should have, the magistrate/justice of the peace, which is secular. Marriage is more tradition than anything, and heterosexual marriage has been solely recognized as a union between a man and woman in all secular societies throughout all of history.

Fixed it for you.

[mav]

Fixed it for you.

Yes, you did. Thanks.

[Guest Averhoeven]

Thank you guys for restoring some of my faith in TN. I genuinely expected this to go the other way.

I have a patient who has 2 moms and the difficulties they have even doing things so simple as being able to bring him to routine appointments without the other is ridiculous and its solely because of their inability to have the legal benefits of a marriage.

[R_Bert]

it is possible to disagree with the opposing philosophy while still loving the opposing philosophizer

[Will Carry]

Is there not a way to preserve the sanctity of marriage yet still give gays and lesbians equal rights? I say YES there is a way to do that! Maybe I'm being too simple minded but it does not seem like it would be hard to do. What I am wondering is if this simple fix would be part of the liberal agenda or not. The liberal's want everyone to embrace their lifestyle and denounce the old lifestyles.

The liberals will not be satisfied at legalizing gay marriage. They will always want more and more. "Why should marriage just be between two adults?" Bigamy anyone? That is why God made conservatives. To keep the liberals in check. It's a question of balance.

[Daniel]

What is sanctity? I can not define the word yet I am married. I am an athiest yet a pastor at the courthouse conducted my "wedding." I guess my point is that just because religious people do the same thing, marriage, that doesn't mean that we look at it the same. To you it is some religious ceremony where as to me it was a way for me to pledge to my spouse that I would forsake all others. Plus now we can file taxes jointly and I get all her stuff when she dies. That's really about as far as I see it. We had no epiphany once we said our vows. Everything continued much the same.

I think it is like gays in the military. Everyone said there would be a stampede for the door as soon as they were allowed. Didn't happen. Which also reminds me of certain tennesseans talking about gunfights in restaurants when we could carry in them. Didn't happen. You guys are hating on a non issue. But haters gonna hate.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Daniel

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Forcing one set of religious beliefs on the entire population, is real similar to forcing everyone to belong to the same church. If you recall, that's one of the main reasons we came here and stole this place from the Indians to begin with.

And forcing another set of beliefs on another group

doesn't fix it. Marriage is between God and the couple

and shouldn't get interference from atheists, gays

and politicians unless the churches change doctrine.

This issue has more to do with destroying an

institution than it does allowing a gay couple to

think they are married in the eyes of god, or gaining

a legal status.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

God has no business in government.

[Oh Shoot]

.... Marriage is between God and the couple,,,

And the state. That's the problem. No matter who marries you, without that license you ain't married for legal purposes.

So the question becomes, should folks have the same legal benefits of marriage in all states?

If no, it remains state rights issue.

If yes, it will take federal law.

Also, will take federal law change for ALL married people to get same federal benefits.

- OS

Edited May 13, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And government has no business

in God.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

And forcing another set of beliefs on another group

doesn't fix it. Marriage is between God and the couple

and shouldn't get interference from atheists, gays

and politicians unless the churches change doctrine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.

What does church doctrine have to do with my legal marriage? I see my marriage being between my wife and I. If the church believes that God has a role here does that invalidate our joint filing to the IRS this year? Isn't this why we have a separation between church and state?

If the grounds for the gov not recognizing butt buddy marriage is because of church doctrine we got some real problems that need to be addressed with a well armed militia.

[TMF]

And government has no business

in God.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the state shouldn't be involved in marriage if God is a part of the relationship, right? So all legal marriage that doesn't involve God can be recognized.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And the state. That's the problem. No matter who marries you, without that license you ain't married for legal purposes.

So the question becomes, should folks have the same legal benefits of marriage in all states?

If no, it remains state rights issue.

If yes, it will take federal law.

Also, will take federal law change for ALL married people to get same federal benefits.

- OS

I'll be for the states regulation of this issue, though

the Feds will be in on it. It will involve regulation

of what can and cannot be tolerated for insurance

and other things like it (legal). All this issue will end

up doing is destroying the institution of marriage

and the further breakdown of the family, which is

still integral to society, and I think should remain.

I don't dislike gays, but if this is really what they

wanted, why now, and why not a long time ago?

And not all the gay population, if that can be

realistically measured, cares for it any more than I.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

And government has no business

in God.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo.

[Guest ThePunisher]

And government has no business

in God.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but totalitarian governments can't let that happen. And we're seeing more evidence everyday of America becoming more totalitarian.

[Guest bkelm18]

Yeah, marriage is some great institution. Never mind the inordinate number of them that end in divorce. Letting gays marry would really ruin it for everybody.