North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My post was poorly worded perhaps the 5th option should be I can't believe this hasn't occured sooner.

To be clear I do not think equal right is "nothing". I support the right to gay marriage.

I would imagine that 99% of the people who voted for option 1 feel exactly the same way.

[Rathji]

I voted for #3, not because I used to be against gay marriage but because I really didn't care enough to form an opinion one way or another since it did not impact me. Seemed like the default position I was in was a bit closer to 'against' than 'for' though, since I recall not objecting when a certain family member was spouting off on an anti-gay tirade.

Now that I understand the issue, it is a no brainier for me, even if it still doesn't impact me directly.

[Thor]

Holy crap, 92%!

FABULOUS

[You Need a Thneed]

Option 3 is the closest option for me.

[Hilch]

A bit of a tough choice between 1 & 3 because when I was younger I thought it was wrong just because of the way I was raised. I was even told by the Grandpa and Dad that they would beat the gay out of me if I was gay. Now being older I see it really isn't that big of a deal and they don't bother me personally so let them be together if that's what they want. I would actually say my friends who are gay are the nicest and funniest of the bunch. I think as you start to see the older generation die this will be looked upon like we do today with blacks not being able to marry whites.

[MarchHare]

[Devils'Advocate]

When I was in high school during the 80s, during the height of the AIDS scare, when homophobia seemed to be peaking, I had a number of friends who were gay. Some in the closet except to their closest friends, some out of the closet. So I was able to relate to them as people rather than as a concept.

So my mother when she found my Playboy collection:
"I guess that's normal for a boy your age. I'd be more concerned if you were looking at naked men."
Or when I supported Svend Robinson for NDP leadership:
"How can you support someone who doesn't give a damn about women?"
Or commenting on the lesbians at work:
"They seem like nice people, but how they think what they are doing is normal is beyond me."

But I paid to take her to see Philadelphia and we talked a lot about it after the movie and about acceptance vs tolerance and how people are born wired a certain way and she started to shift her beliefs.

So when my cousin came out it was no big deal. That Christmas we invited my cousin over with the rest of the family and he said that he actually fully expected to be shunned by the rest of the family. My mother's reply was that I had "brought her up right".

Along with a number of environmental pins and human rights pins that I had in my university backpack, the one I liked the best was my rainbow "I'm straight, but not narrow" pin.

So I think I can firmly put myself in the first group. However, looking at the poll, I must remember the 80s very differently than they actually were because I remember my views being much less popular than they would be today.

[MarchHare]

So I think I can firmly put myself in the first group. However, looking at the poll, I must remember the 80s very differently than they actually were because I remember my views being much less popular than they would be today.

I was an elementary school kid in the 80s and didn't even know what homosexuality was. When I was in high school in the 90s, like a typical teenage boy, I was a bit homophobic and used words like "gay" and "fag" as insults. For as long as I've been a politically-engaged adult, though, I've been a strong supporter of gay marriage -- so I voted for option 1.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Same kind of deal with me, but I wasn't even thought of in the 80s. When I was young and growing up in a small town, I kind of thought it was gross and bad. However, as long as I have been more rational, I haven't cared.

[T@T]

Poll results so far have me thinking"

1) voters under 35
2) voters 45 plus
3) 35 to 44
4) doubt there will be one

I wonder how right I am

For the record I chose #2, personally I don't like it but would never want it outlawed by law and government..It's a peoples choice.

Maybe question #4 should read my bolded part?

[Cube Inmate]

Voted #3. Several years ago, pre-legislation, I argued here against re-definition for a couple of reasons:

1) I used the "slippery slope" type argument, that changing the definition of marriage would lead to all sorts of additional modifications including the legalization of polygamy.
2) I rejected the idea of using our flawed Charter of Rights to invent "group rights" (as opposed to individual rights). Gay people have always had the right to marry...just not each other.

While my overall opinion has changed, the background arguments have not changed. Society (not just religious society, but civil society too) assigned "marriage" a favoured place because it promoted a healthy family model with 2 parents. Expanding that "favoured position" to include couples who fundamentally cannot have children still, I believe, starts us down a slope where marriage is no longer about family and children, but about "love" alone. Even if we accept that these people can adopt children and form a healthy family, this is still an acknowledgement that the "traditional" models of family are open to being questioned, so why not believe that polygamous relationships can't be just as good?

As far as the "rights" arguments, my original problem remains. "Freedom of association" is the only fundamental Charter freedom that really applies to more than 1 person and I never advocated for refusing anybody the right to associate with anyone else. Do whatever, or whoever, you want! That does not mean, though, that your association has to be recognized under the same legal framework as another, fundamentally different association that is recognized for entirely different reasons.

All of the above said, from a pragmatic point of view I was willing to accept civil unions for all...leaving "marriage" as a cultural/religious (not legal) institution and a word free for the using by anyone who wanted to use it. However, in the intervening few years I've realized that the ship has sailed, the horses have left the barn, etc., and "new" marriage is here to stay...as basically an "I love you" contract unrelated to family.

I accept the new reality, and I think the North Carolinan amendment is silly.

[MarchHare]

I rejected the idea of using our flawed Charter of Rights to invent "group rights" (as opposed to individual rights). Gay people have always had the right to marry...just not each other.

Replace the word "gay" with the word "black" in this sentence and ask yourself if you would still feel the same way.

Expanding that "favoured position" to include couples who fundamentally cannot have children still, I believe, starts us down a slope where marriage is no longer about family and children, but about "love" alone.

Marriage has never been legally defined on the basis of family/children. As I've mentioned earlier, my wife and I made a choice not to have children, yet our marriage would still be permitted in North Carolina or anywhere else where gay marriage is explicitly banned. Ditto for heterosexual couples who cannot have children because of medical complications.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

As far as the "rights" arguments, my original problem remains. "Freedom of association" is the only fundamental Charter freedom that really applies to more than 1 person and I never advocated for refusing anybody the right to associate with anyone else. Do whatever, or whoever, you want! That does not mean, though, that your association has to be recognized under the same legal framework as another, fundamentally different association that is recognized for entirely different reasons.

I don't think that you have a very solid underststanding of Charter rights. Firstly, the Charter right engaged by the same sex marriage debate is the right to equality guaranteed by s. 15, not the s. 2(d) right to freedom of association. Secondly, Charter rights are guaranteed to individual persons (some to legal persons, others to just individual human beings), not groups. Thirdly, that said, of all of the Charter rights, one might say that s. 15 is the closest to being a "group right" because the identification of groups who share certain personal characteristics is an essential element of s. 15 analysis.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by T@T

Poll results so far have me thinking"

1) voters under 35
2) voters 45 plus
3) 35 to 44
4) doubt there will be one

I wonder how right I am

For the record I chose #2, personally I don't like it but would never want it outlawed by law and government..It's a peoples choice.

Maybe question #4 should read my bolded part?

So you voted that you are opposed to it....but you're actually ok with it? Whether or not it bothers you personally has nothing to do with whether you think it should be legal. Sounds like while its personally repugnant to you, you aren't opposed to it for others. So then wouldn't that automatically make your answer either 1 or 3?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Doesn't 100% fit on this thread, but I thought it was an interesting read. Not at all the view I would have expected from Huey P Newton in 1970:

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.c...s-endorsement/

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you voted that you are opposed to it....but you're actually ok with it? Whether or not it bothers you personally has nothing to do with whether you think it should be legal. Sounds like while its personally repugnant to you, you aren't opposed to it for others. So then wouldn't that automatically make your answer either 1 or 3?

Lets just say it's a tough one for me,I'm trying to be as honest as I can, It's definitely not #1. lets call it a #3b or re due #4 to what I said earlier.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by T@T

Lets just say it's a tough one for me,I'm trying to be as honest as I can, It's definitely not #1. lets call it a #3b or re due #4 to what I said earlier.

Why is it a tough one for you? You're one of the posters on here frequently criticizing religion, so if it's not a religious angle that bothers you about allowing homosexual marriage, what could it be?

[dissentowner]

Who gives a tin crap who somebody marries? Love is love.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why is it a tough one for you? You're one of the posters on here frequently criticizing religion, so if it's not a religious angle that bothers you about allowing homosexual marriage, what could it be?

Personal, some things are better un-said.

[Dion]

NSFW!