We've all debated gay marriage and civil unions before, and I don't mean to relaunch that debate. We've debated things like the LGBT student center & I don't mean to relaunch that debate or any questions involving using or increasing student group funds or taxes.

I just want to get a general sense of how our online community would respond to non financial hypothetical ballot referendums. I'm asking people to publicly share how they would act privately so I realize this isn't in anyway scientific, but I do feel that TWW soap boxers aren't afraid of speaking their mind regardless of which way they lean. The questions below are intended only to address our state laws and constitution, and not our nation as a whole.

Copy and paste the questions below placing an X in the sections where you would place your vote.

Quote :

"Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage () Amend Constitution () Do Not Amend Constitution Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage) () Remove () Do not Remove Make Civil Unions Legal () Legalize () Do Not Legalize Make Gay Marriage Legal () Legalize () Do Not Legalize"

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 4:09:21 PM

get government out of marriage, except in the instance of enforcing contract law is not there.

9/15/2008 4:13:23 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize


Government has no business enforcing morality.

9/15/2008 4:14:47 PM

Quote :

"Government has no business enforcing morality."

What does the government have business enforcing? We have laws against theft, murder, embezzlement, vandalism, child abuse. Are these not moral issues? Should the government not enforce them? I'm not saying squat about the definition of marriage, btw.

You made a ridiculous statement, that is unfortunately a pretty popular line nowadays. Lots of my friends pull it out in order to sound cool and open-minded. But all it really does is make you out to be a hypocrite. If you really believed that statement, you wouldn't notify an authority figure when someone infringes upon your personal or property rights.

9/15/2008 4:35:37 PM

Quote :

"Government has no business enforcing morality. "

Unless it comes in the form of handouts.. right right..

9/15/2008 4:36:57 PM

Quote :

"get government out of marriage, except in the instance of enforcing contract law is not there."

9/15/2008 4:39:40 PM

^^^ Those are property and basic right to human life issues. There is no question of morality.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 4:40 PM. Reason : ^]

9/15/2008 4:40:21 PM

Quote :

"You made a ridiculous statement, that is unfortunately a pretty popular line nowadays. Lots of my friends pull it out in order to sound cool and open-minded. But all it really does is make you out to be a hypocrite. If you really believed that statement, you wouldn't notify an authority figure when someone infringes upon your personal or property rights."

personal rights and personal property rights =/= legislated morality.

If anyone is making ridiculous statements here, it would be you.

9/15/2008 4:44:54 PM

Quote :

"Those are property and basic right to human life issues. There is no question of morality."

Human rights issues are not moral? What planet are you from?

How do you define a human life? Is it acceptable to destroy one life to save several others? Are some humans unworthy of life? Do you have a right to destroy the habitat of bald eagles located on your property? Can I dump toxic waste into a stream running through my property? Yeah, you're right none of those are moral issues.

e: We also have bans on polygamy and incest. Whats the harm there? If they're consenting adults, lets lift those bans. Otherwise, it will be unequal.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 4:45:02 PM

Only someone preparing to make an incredibly dumb argument would start off by suggesting that protecting natural rights is the equivalent of "legislating morality."

9/15/2008 4:49:51 PM

Quote :

"Only someone preparing to make an incredibly dumb argument would start off by suggesting that protecting natural rights is the equivalent of "legislating morality.""

Only someone preparing to make an incredibly dumb argument would start off by suggesting that natural rights are not moral.

e: Its quite simple: A good, moral society protects the natural rights of men. An immoral society violates/ disregards those rights. You can play word games all you want, but life and liberty are moral issues.



[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 4:53:48 PM

The government has no right to pass laws based on marriage.

9/15/2008 4:54:58 PM

Quote :

"The government has no right to pass laws based on marriage."

That is an argument I can respect. Out of curiosity, do you include polygamy and incest?

9/15/2008 4:58:21 PM

Alright, then "morality" is anything and everything. Whatever.

Then how about "Government has no business dealing with morality when there's no violation of others' rights involved."

9/15/2008 5:19:00 PM

"Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize"

9/15/2008 5:19:35 PM

Quote :

"Alright, then "morality" is anything and everything. Whatever."

I just assumed the dictionary definition of morality. The belief that certain issues are "natural" or "God-given" is in and of itself, a moral stance.

Quote :

"from wikipedia: In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience."

Quote :

"Then how about "Government has no business dealing with morality when there's no violation of others' rights involved.""

Ok, I can accept that as a far better argument for your position. So how do you feel about legislation on incest and polygamy? Also, what about a bisexual marrying a person of each sex, having 2 spouses? Not trying to flame bait here, I'm just curious about your position.

9/15/2008 5:23:27 PM

a special thanks goes to boone & elgimpy

i can see that debate is going to be unavoidable, but in addition to debate also please fill out the survey in the way you would if you had the chance to vote on the issues as worded

you can then go on to argue what you think an ideal scenario would be, but i'd like to see more of the how people would respond to the questions asked

9/15/2008 5:51:21 PM

Given how he keeps bringing them up, this makes me think that stantheman wants to marry and then sleep with multiple siblings.

9/15/2008 6:14:39 PM

Quote :

"get government out of marriage, except in the instance of enforcing contract law is not there. "

9/15/2008 6:16:39 PM

Since we are Allowing Gays, Amend State Constitution to Allow Murderization of Gays and Hippies Legal, and Let's Also Allow Polygamy to be legal

(X) Amend Constitution
() Do Not Amend Constitution

9/15/2008 6:19:17 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
() Remove
(X) Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize

9/15/2008 6:20:39 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(x) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(x) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(x) Do Not Legalize"

I do not give a fuck about two fudge packers wanting to be life partners. I think this is a state's rights issue and if they want to get married than they can move/vacation to CA or MA to get hitched. Here in NC we choose not to support this; and this is the way our society should run (Fed regulations v States rights) with a LOT more issues. Hypothetically if it were legal I would expect a clause to protect private entities from being sued for discrimination. A church should be able to deny two gays from being wed on their private institution seeing it is against their beliefs.

9/15/2008 6:31:27 PM

Quote :

"I do not give a fuck about two fudge packers wanting to be life partners"

hahahaha

9/15/2008 6:33:30 PM

so if we allow gay marriage, honestly ppl. what is the problem with polygamy? i see absolutely none.

most mammals survive by having multiple women around the dominate male, so why is it rejected harshly by humans?

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 6:35:00 PM

Under current law, can a church refuse to marry a couple of different faith? Let's say, for the sake of argument, Muslims or Jews attempting to get married in a Catholic church?

Quote :

"Here in NC we choose not to support this; and this is the way our society should run (Fed regulations v States rights) with a LOT more issues."

So if a state such as, I don't know, Alabama, has a majority of residents that don't want to, I don't know, allow black people to go to school with white people...that should be allowed?

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 6:39 PM. Reason : a]

9/15/2008 6:36:11 PM

^^

Quote :

"honestly ppl. what is the problem with polygamy?"

Realistically this already occurs. Just that it can never be made official. Married men have had mistresses since the dawn of time. Often the wife even knows about it (even though she might not like it).

I always thought the problem with polygamy was it hurt social stability. If a select percentage of guys (i.e. Micheal Phelps has 8 wives) started hoarding all the woman the resulting social problems
would adversely effect society. For example with several wives with kids the "fatherly" roll would be diluted potentially causing more unruly youth. Even more problematic would be the many single males who would cause social unrest unable to get a mate. True from a social darwin perspective it may be their fault for lacking the money/personality/attractiveness to find a mate. However, I would not want to fend off my woman from sex-deprived single guys who can't find a girl every time i go out.

No offense to Duke by why do you think the marines are always so hot headed at the bars. If i spent 6 months in the desert w/o any ass hanging out w/ a bunch of dudes and shooting people; I probably also would be picking fights with the douchebag i see at the bar that is with the hot girl.

9/15/2008 6:44:48 PM

Quote :

"However, I would not want to fend off my woman from sex-deprived single guys who can't find a girl every time i go out. "

yeh you're right, it's engrained into society anyways. gays just won't shut up about getting some sort of social status

if they don't put polygamy on it, then it's just fuckin wrong, b/c we are giving the 1vs1 gays the upper edge. trust me though. some dude is gonna want to have another fudge packer in the family and call for polygamy soon.


and they'll win it too. give it 10 yrs.

9/15/2008 6:50:34 PM

calling myself on the title typo before anyone else can

9/15/2008 8:30:03 PM

My copy of the Constitution has nothing in it authorizing the federal gov't to define any type of marriage.

9/15/2008 11:00:50 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. I would pick up my gun and defend that, and i expect the government to do the same. in fact, the laws that are on the book already against gay intercourse need to be upheld.

ok not really

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2008 11:07:44 PM

^^ Perhaps you should recheck the 10th amendment since this is a NC Ballot referendum regarding State laws.

This message is approved by HUR in 2008

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM. Reason : l]

9/15/2008 11:14:52 PM

Not counting the gay butt sex part; the only thing that really bothers me about gay marriage is the tax argument. As much as i hate to agree with the right wing family values people, tax incentives for married couples are in place to encourage as well as promote monogomy, procreation, and dual parent rearing of children. The reason being to create a productive future generation, as statistically non-traditional parent households tend to be more dysfunctional.
There is no reason that two gay guys need or should this tax advantage. Otherwise what is to stop me from "marrying" my roommate. We may not be gay but if he was at least "on paper" my husband I could cheat the tax system. I think they even made a movie about this.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 11:27 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : l]

9/15/2008 11:27:11 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(x) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(x) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

9/15/2008 11:38:39 PM

Quote :

"tax incentives for married couples are in place to encourage as well as promote monogomy,"

Well now, of course I'm going to argue here that the gov't shouldn't be using tax collection as a means for social engineering. You take all these "family-values" tax incentives away, and there is no reason for gov't to meddle in marriage except for contract issues.

Quote :

"Perhaps you should recheck the 10th amendment "

Checked. Thanks.

I'm gonna go ahead and state that the definition of marriage is a right that should be left, not to the federal or state gov't -- but to the people.

[Edited on September 15, 2008 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2008 11:54:55 PM

Quote :

"Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage () Amend Constitution (x) Do Not Amend Constitution Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage) (x) Remove () Do not Remove Make Civil Unions Legal - If by civil union you mean equal tax rights then yes. () Legalize () Do Not Legalize Make Gay Marriage Legal (x) Legalize () Do Not Legalize"

Quote :

"the only thing that really bothers me about gay marriage is the tax argument. As much as i hate to agree with the right wing family values people, tax incentives for married couples are in place to encourage as well as promote monogomy, procreation, and dual parent rearing of children."

Except that is what tax witholdings are for and deductions for dependents. You completely neglected to mention male-female couples that get married and don't have children. So that kinda destroys your whole "procreation" things. Unless you trying to suggest they add some sort of incentive for people to have kids....oh that's right they do. See the beginning of this paragraph.

9/15/2008 11:55:36 PM

"Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
(X) Amend Constitution
() Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
() Remove
(X) Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize"

9/16/2008 12:32:56 AM

Quote :

"Otherwise what is to stop me from "marrying" my roommate. We may not be gay but if he was at least "on paper" my husband I could cheat the tax system."

The same thing that stops a guy from marrying his female roommate solely to take advantage of that situation. So you could say it would make that possibility equal. Oh wait, the guys who marry each other would then be called fags and have to face the myriad of social issues that face gay people. The male/female roommates won't

9/16/2008 1:36:36 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(x) Do Not Amend Constitution

It's 2008 for fuck's sake.

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(x) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

9/16/2008 1:41:05 PM

Quote :

"Then how about "Government has no business dealing with morality when there's no violation of others' rights involved." "

But you support universal healthcare and a progressive income tax... dont you see the flaws in your arguement?

Im sure you consider healthcare a right too. Many on here do.

9/16/2008 1:58:51 PM

The gay marriage debate, like many other issues, hits home to a huge portion of the country. It's an issue in which multiple groups are heavily vested, including (of course) gay people, religious groups, civil liberties groups, and politicians and policy makers that are trying vainly to make everyone happy (and thus get re-elected/appointed).

The best thing all of us can do is not to continue talking and arguing, but rather to LISTEN and reflect. Perhaps then a few points here would become more clear:

Quote :

"Government has no business enforcing morality"

False assumption - homosexuality is a moral issue. It isn't. Why? Because calling homosexuality immoral is based solely on religious doctrine. There is no valid secular rationale for this... and if there is then please share it with the rest of us. Basing government policy strictly on religious conviction is the central tenant of a theocracy, and would require re-writing the 1st amendment. Therefore, I assert that the government has no authority to legislate homosexuality in the first place.

Quote :

"We also have bans on polygamy and incest. Whats the harm there? If they're consenting adults, lets lift those bans."

You could definitely make that case, but I'll offer the following:

1) Polygamy - The ban is at least partially due to the legal implications of marrying multiple people. Problems would occur with property rights, guardianship of children, and rights legally granted to spouses. Divorces would become a huge freaking mess too. Suppose a woman marries you, then suddenly you find out she has another husband. The other husband divorces her, and he gets a portion of her assets, which include assets that belonged to YOU.

2) Incest - there are plenty of documented pychological repercussions from this, not to mention the genetic problems that would ensue from any children born from it.

These laws make sense from a practicality standpoint, though your point is nevertheless valid.

Quote :

"The government has no right to pass laws based on marriage."

I disagree. There has to be a legal precedence for handling matters related to married couples, like the property rights, guardianship of children, spousal rights (etc.) mentioned earlier. The government is setup to protect individual rights, which it can't do without establishing a legal definition of marriage and addressing legal matters related to it.

Quote :

"Here in NC we choose not to support this; and this is the way our society should run (Fed regulations v States rights) with a LOT more issues."

False assumption - the US is a democracy. It isn't. It's a constitutional republic. Just b/c the majority believes something doesn't make it OK to implement. By that logic, as ElGimpy put it, you could have blacks legally denied from public schools in Alabama, or have homosexuality listed as a capital crime, or have the official language of Florida changed to Spanish, and so on and so forth...

Quote :

"I'm going to argue here that the gov't shouldn't be using tax collection as a means for social engineering. You take all these "family-values" tax incentives away, and there is no reason for gov't to meddle in marriage except for contract issues. "

As I argued earlier the government has legal reasons for legislating marriage, but it has practical reasons too:

1) Children are future taxpayers - Just ask Japan what it's like to have too many senior citizens and not enough young adults to take their place. Encouraging people to have kids is crucial in maintaining longterm stability in any society.

2) Financial considerations are very important in deciding whether to have kids - In the past having kids usually meant having more workers. Nowadays kids are more often seen as as "one more mouth to feed." Raising a child in the US from infancy to age 18 is over $300,000. If the numbers are so high that, financially speaking, no one can afford kids... then you have a very big problem on your hands...

*Note* - this is a big issue I have the conservative talking point about "letting the market work itself out." My main retort has always been "Yeah, but what do we do about the problems created in the mean time?" In other words, who's to say the system will figure out a way to recover when we finally realize we can't afford to run the country b/c we don't have enough workers? Sounds much more reasonable to have a sensible policy to avoid the problem altogether.

Example - What do we do when a gas station pollutes the groundwater, thus contaminating wells on nearby private residences, and the gas station owner can't (A) pay to clean it up or (B) bring in municipal water lines? Simple - the government ends up stepping in and fixing it at the expense of taxpayers. I'd say it makes more sense to have sensible regulations to ensure this doesn't happen.

Quote :

"Otherwise what is to stop me from "marrying" my roommate. We may not be gay but if he was at least "on paper" my husband I could cheat the tax system.""

False assumption - this idea is either (A) good, or (B) new. It isn't. Soldiers have done this to get "separation pay" from their "fake spouses." Problem is - what happens when it comes time to get a divorce? There are legal fees, the dividing up of assets, and a considerable amount of paperwork. All that takes time and creates a lot of hastle. Then there's the issue of finding the love of your life while you're "married."

Shit, watch I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and tell me getting married is a piece of cake


Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(x) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(x) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(x) Do Not Legalize - Still pondering this one. Plus I'm a practicing catholic, so there's a conflict of interest here

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 7:54 PM. Reason : conservative rant]

9/16/2008 7:42:56 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
(x) Amend Constitution
() Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
() Remove
(x) Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(x) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(x) Do Not Legalize"

9/16/2008 9:04:49 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

9/16/2008 9:20:01 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

9/16/2008 9:24:45 PM

Erios for president 08

probably the most intelligent and thought out shit i've read all day on TWW

9/16/2008 9:26:34 PM

Quote :

"statistically non-traditional parent households tend to be more dysfunctional"

There's no research that states that gay/lesbian households are more dysfunctional than heterosexual households. Most of the investigation into these issues (research!) has shown the contrary. So I don't know where you're pulling these "statistics" from.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 9:45 PM. Reason : link for example]

9/16/2008 9:40:44 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize


The "marriage ritual" is a cultural/religious act. So, government should not involve itself in that aspect. The "marriage status" should absolutely be regulated to a certain degree. Although, that level of regulation is debatable and complicated.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ?]

9/16/2008 9:41:05 PM

Amend State Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage
() Amend Constitution
(X) Do Not Amend Constitution

Remove the Current Law Making Gay Marriage Illegal (without adding a law legalizing gay marriage)
(X) Remove
() Do not Remove

Make Civil Unions Legal
(X) Legalize
() Do Not Legalize

Make Gay Marriage Legal
() Legalize
(X) Do Not Legalize

9/16/2008 9:44:40 PM

Quote :

"Most of the investigation into these issues (research!) has shown the contrary."

I don't know where you're pulling these "statistics" from please cite your sources please.

No wonder you have such ill will toward me StillFushia you are actually a lesbian and hate me for being a guy.

9/16/2008 9:46:31 PM

Nah, I'm just asking you to prove your statement. Convenient that you'd rather call me names instead.

[Edited on September 16, 2008 at 9:51 PM. Reason : I gave you a link! Start there. There are quite a few studies mentioned in it.]

9/16/2008 9:50:39 PM

Assuming this referendum was on a Tuesday in November, I would see myself with two options for spending my spare time that day:

1 - vote on some gay marraige referendum
2 - adjust my fantasy football team

As I believe option 2 would be more important not just for me, but more than likely also for the state of NC, I would not vote.

9/16/2008 10:46:13 PM