-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
a sad day in NC
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
It's mean and unfortunate, but as long as states have the opportunity to determine the position on same-sex union and marriage, I fear a divide amongst more conservative and liberal states will continue to be the reality.
On one hand, it saddens me too, as I happen to be one who doesn't object to same-sex union and marriage. I don't understand why, religious folks, particularly, make such a stand against it. It conflicts with my personal views on free will and the individual's ability to live according to their own convictions. In love, I think we have an obligation to allow people the ability to live their lives according to their own convictions.
On the other hand...this doesn't surprise me. This is America. Regardless as to reasoning, people have the right to objection. The whole concept of "for the people, by the people", provides room for this type of let down, or in the cases of successful passing of legislation...celebration. Clearly, this wasn't a "close" call of any sort. 61% of voters supported a ban.
The BGLTQ community at this point, I would think, need to ask themselves if North Carolina is worth their tax dollars, time and effort. There are other states that allow legal, same-sex union and marriage.
waitasec
Veteran Member
tensions will rise in order for there to be a release...
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Change doesn't happen overnight. Unless the manner in which these decisions are made changes, this is the reality. What do people expect?
waitasec
Veteran Member
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
But in a constitutional democratic republic -- where the constitution, in theory, protects the minority from tyranny of the majority -- it shouldn't be possible to vote other peoples' rights away.
What if one day Christianity fades, and someone puts it to a vote to outlaw Christian churches, for instance? That shouldn't be allowable. The Constitution should make it such that the majority rules, but can't just vote away the rights of others.
Otherwise it's just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner; and that's not an enlightened or just system at all. It's as despotic as an authoritarian regime.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
I don't disagree with you and acknowledge the unfairness in our democratic system.
I wouldn't object at all to a change in our nation's approach to marriage all together. I think that a uniform approach to civil union for all - without regard to sex or gender would be more feasible with a comparable system for divorce - allowing individual couples to define marriage for themselves and to apply any religious value to it as they see fit.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
We're not a Constitutional democracy, we're a representative republic. And the entire idea behind the federalist nature of our system is that people should have options. In essence, the diversity of our nation is what makes it strong. Not only diversity of personality and culture, but of belief and lifestyle as well. The leeway states are given by the Constitution is specifically for the purpose of giving people options. Don't like the gun laws of a certain state? Move to one that has better ones. Don't like the healthcare system of a state? Move to one that has a system you like.
We seem to think that because we are all equal and all deserve the same things, that we can all agree on what those things are. The fact is that it is impossible to spread a singular blanket of what should be across America. And I don't think that any logical person believes such a blanket should be cast. It is because of this reason that States have the extreme leeway in deciding those things not specified by the Constitution.
The logic is this:
1. Democracy is the fairest form of government.
2. Sometimes majorities take advantage of minorities.
3. So we develop a Constitutional system whereby minorities are protected, but States are given intense leeway to decide how the people therein will conduct themselves because majorities do still have a right (by their nature) to make such decisions.
4. In the case that a large minority arises in such a place where the majority is against it, then people will have the option of going to a State that is more friendly to their ideals. And if such is not possible, then the minority will, by legal means, take action in such a manner so as to sway the majority.
Our system isn't perfect, no system is. But does it get much better than what we've got? I don't believe it does. I don't believe that any system can allow for the level of freedom and diversity that ours allows. The main issue is that our system requires an educated populace (which is an entirely separate issue).
On a separate note, pro-gay marriage advocates really don't frame the issue in a manner that would help us win the fight. Instead we appeal on emotional terms. If religious person X says "The Bible is against gays marrying", the pro-gay marriage advocate is likely to response with any number of responses from "you're a bigot" to "I have a right to love who I want to love."
None of the responses in between those two are legitimate responses to the actual issue. In fact, it only servers to play directly into a game that we cannot win.
The problem (whereby people vote for such things in such a manner) is a communication one. The anti-gay-marriage people see it as a fight for recognition of gay marriages despite their beliefs that they don't hold the same significance. Whereas the pro side sees it as an issue of bigotry and ignorance. The truth is that both are wrong.
The issue is one of equality under the law. We give special protections, rights, and privileges to people because they have decided to enter into a legal agreement affording them those extras, but we limit who can enter that agreement to a man and a woman.
We need to stop playing the marriage and ideology game and simply address the fight for what it is. This isn't a fight for gays to love who they want to love, it isn't a fight against the family, it isn't a fight for recognition. It is a fight for legal equality. Nothing more nothing less. The "marriage" that gays seek and religious people deny is a convolution of privileges and benefits that we as a society give to people based on something that is irrelevant.
Only a few ever talk about the issue that way. I have yet to meet a religious person who believes that being married to a person is a valid reason to be able to file joint taxes while not being married is not. In fact, if you were to ask the majority of people "Do you think that the ability of two people to file taxes jointly should be limited to a man and a woman who are married according to a particular religious ideology?" the answer you'd get is likely to be against such an idea.
Ultimately, both sides are at fault. Because we allow ourselves to get trapped into this game of love, emotions, and religion when it is nothing of the sort. It's a matter of simple logic. If a friend and I live together, why shouldn't we be allowed to file a joint tax return? If a company is willing to give benefits like health insurance to someone I designate, what does it matter if I'm in love with the person, sleeping with the person, or in a relationship with that person?
This is the issue. That we allow legal discrimination in this manner. And the fact is that it shouldn't happen at all. It shouldn't be limited to a man and a woman, but should be available to any two people (or group even) that wants to.
Above is a short list of benefits obtained by marriage. Why should I be able to designate anyone I want to for those benefits? Why can I not so legally bind myself to any person I should desire in such a manner? Would anyone, religious or otherwise, actually say that these things should be limited solely to a grouping of one man and one woman?
I don't think they would. And even if a fringe would, the majority would not.
When religious people vote against gay marriage, they are voting because they believe it is a vote about the significance of gay marriage. The problem with those of us who are pro gay marriage is that we play the game. We act like it's something that needs to be voted on. In reality it is a simple issue of equality under the law, for which there is no need to add new legislation or even an amendment. Current practice allows a company to discriminate against all who aren't one man and one woman in a "marital" relationship.
The pro gay marriage side simply wants to extend that practice to gays as well. The true problem is the practice itself. That any relationship should get you additional benefits is really quite ridiculous. Regardless of the type of relationship or why you're in it.
If we presented the issue in this manner, I'm certain we'd get the success we seek, which is a society more tolerant of others and which believes and fights for the equality of all people under the law.
waitasec
Veteran Member
some more than others
Oh believe me, on bad days I've imagined what a world would be like where socially conservative areas were just allowed to withdraw and become the cesspools I imagine they would soon become and get exactly the backwards hellholes they wish for... but then I remember that no one, not even my ideological enemies, deserve that and that it would be unfair since innocent children would have to grow up dismally in such puritanical places...
I think it's better to fight for civil liberties than to give up and let places slide backwards through the centuries into darkness.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Understood and well put.
Last edited:
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Unfortunately, it appears we're going to be able to witness the flip-side of that by watching a socialist area withdraw in the form of Greece from the EU/Euro Zone.
BBC News - Greeks withdraw money from banks as worries grow
I think there is a Yin-Yang aspect to human endeavors such as Liberalism-Conservatism, Capitalism-Socialism, Spirituality-Secularism, etc. We need a moderate dose of both, but neither should be dominant.
Diversity should be encouraged, celebrated, and protected. :yes:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Democracy only works with a well educated and well informed public.
Clearly that was not the case in NC. :sarcastic
Last edited:
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Agreed with all, but protection has a price and, therefore a limit. Is it your responsibility to pay me money so I can pursue my dream of becoming a watercolor artist?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
This. :clap
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
I would change that to "Democracy works best with a...." but overall I agree with your concept.
Protection doesn't mean funded. You should be protected from people who want to kill you, steal from you, or harm you simply because you are pursuing your dream of becoming a watercolor artist.
Road Warrior
Seeking the middle path..
Good, then we are agreed. While I can see how this fits in with the NC situation, I cannot see how it applies to the Euro/Greek situation....but I may have misunderstood your comment.