This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Amendment One in the local press.....

Did Jonathan Jordan REALLY say that it was a "discriminatory" ammendment? Or was that adjective provided by the reporter?


 From an article in the HC PRESS about the Amendment 1 rally.....

Jordan countered other “false” arguments that have “been thrown around.” He said that economic performance will not be affected by this discriminatory amendment,............

I have to conclude that since the rest of Jordan's statements are in quotes, that the reference to the amendment as "discriminatory" was the reporter's opinion......

You may agree or disagree with the characterization of the amendment as "discriminatory"...that's not the point. I would just like to see straight forward reporting in our local press - keeping the opinions of the reporters (and editors) on the editorial pages.

94 comments:

NewGuy said...

In contrast, the Democrat seems to have reported it without slanting it....
http://www2.wataugademocrat.com/News/story/Vote-for-Marriage-rally-draws-100-id-007485

Deborah Greene said...

If New Guy and Blogger had been in attendance, they would have known that it wasn't Jonathan Jordan who said it; it was Rev. Mark Creech. Below is what was said (please note that he makes it clear that it is discriminatory in that not all behaviors are equal):


his amendment is discriminatory,” he admits.

“In the same way that the U.S. constitution says 17 year olds can’t vote. It is also discriminatory that a man can’t have two wives; can’t marry his sister; [and] can’t marry a minor,” Creech said. “Let’s be objective my friends. All laws are discriminatory, but it is discrimination against behavior. What legitimate basis could we possibly deny the polygamous, the bigamous, pedophiles or even the incestuous among us? They too could claim discrimination.”


The video is now available online at hcpress.com

Deborah Greene said...

And, if New Guy and Blogger had been in attendance, they would know that the opposition has been using the term "Amendment One" in lieu of the real title "Defense of Marriage Amendment" or "Marriage Amendment" so as to deceive people into thinking that the amendment is an "anti-gay" amendment.

Again, the video is on hcpress.com under Jesse Wood's article about the rally.

Anonymous said...

Deborah, it is an anti-gay amendment. What. You think it's pro-gay?

Anonymous said...

Blogger, the opposition claims that events like this are really sponsored by the Republicans and the Tea Party. If this is true, where was commissioner Blust, candidates Adams, Yates; the other school board candidates, Patrea and Henries, and other party leaders, such as Party Chair Matt Synder, Vice-Chair Tommmy Adams and others?

As Mark Creech said “I respectfully contend that there is no issue … that is of greater gravity than how marriage will ultimately will be defined among us,”

It would seem that since marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman is part of the Republican party platform, you would expect more participation from these leaders as so-called conservatives.

Anonymous said...

If we can't rightfully call it the "anti-gay amendment," and we can't rightfully call it the "Defense of Marriage amendment," I suggest we all get on board with the "Defense of marriage for some people only amendment."

Deborah Greene said...

The amendment is neither "anti-gay" or "pro-gay"; it is pro-traditonal marriage. This amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman also addresses polygamy.

NewGuy said...

And if Mrs Greene had understood the point of my post, she would have realized my issue was with the reporter's characterization of the amendment.

Deborah Greene said...

Dan Soucek said: "When I was Senator Dan Soucek sitting on the floor of the Senate voting on this, I was 1 of 50 people allowed to vote on this bill to put this amendment before the people. Now, citizen Dan Soucek is 1 of over 6 million voters who will decide whether this is an amendment to our State constitution. I like taking the power from Raleigh and placing in the hands of the people."

Deborah Greene said...

Dan Soucek said: "When I was Senator Dan Soucek sitting on the floor of the Senate voting on this, I was 1 of 50 people allowed to vote on this bill to put this amendment before the people. Now, citizen Dan Soucek is 1 of over 6 million voters who will decide whether this is an amendment to our State constitution. I like taking the power from Raleigh and placing in the hands of the people."

Anonymous said...

The amendment is either pro gay, anti gay, or neutral on gay. It is by nature one of the three.

Deborah Greene said...

Dan Soucek also said that in the instances where this vote did not pass, it was due to complacency!

I challenge the leaders of the Republican Party to stop being complacent.

Tea Party Steve said...

Some conservatives don't support this amendment. I'm one of them.

Lennie said...

I go with Steve. I don't want the government dictating my behavior in any form! If I want to buy a gun, so be it. If I want my kid to eat chicken mcnuggets all day at school, so be it. And if I want to marry a man, so be it.

It's all my choice and my freedom to do so! Just more pro-intrusive-government pseudo-conservatives. Pathetic.

George said...

Ms. Greene states this amendment is "pro-traditional marriage". This is the common line uttered by proponents of the measure. But it carries no weight.

"Traditional marriage" has only two foundations: religious and/or time-based. The religious-based argument can be immediately discarded since The Bill of Rights explicitly forbids any establishment of religious law. So saying "it's in the Bible" is moot.

We then default to the time-based argument. It's the way it's always been, right? Well, no. Marriage has evolved over time to fit ever-evolving cultures and mores. Women were once the property of their husband. They could be used as financial collateral or used as gifts from one family to another. That was tradition. It changed.

So both arguments fall flat. It's fine if one is uncomfortable with homosexuality for religious or other reasons. But hiding one's reluctance or fear of cultural change under the guise of "tradition" is superficial at best.

Deborah Greene said...

New Guy, You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. You would make a real good career politician; you sure know how to spin it around. No, it will not work with me. I didn't get that out of your post at all. To call it Amendment 1 shows you are not up on the issue; plain and simple. Or, could it be that you are against marriage amendment?

Deborah Greene said...

To Steve and friend,

Government is already defining marriage. The current law doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, polygamy, marriage to a minor, etc. The NC General Statutes are changed by legislators and the constitution is changed by the people. So, are you against the current law or against the amendment protecting the current definition of marriage ?

Deborah Greene said...

I not hiding under tradition; I believe that marriage is God's institution. I believe that Gid is in control of all and I will vote for his law as the supreme law when the opportunity arises.

George said...

Ms. Greene, believe what you'd like, that is your right as an American citizen. I have no issue with that. But it is an invalid argument when viewed through the lens of the US Constitution.

Lennie said...

I'm vehemently against any law that would deprive American citizens of their freedom and autonomy.

Tea Party Steve said...

Hey, Greene. So who gives a rat's rear end what you think? You can believe whatever you please. Just don't try to cram it down the rest of our throats. Get a life, and stay out of mine.

guy faulkes said...

I do think ms. Greene could take some constructive criticism from New Guy. Ms. Greene is one of the best research people with which I have ever been in contact. However, many times it does seem like she looks for a fight when calm discussion would serve her better.

I guess the same can be said about me. In my defense, I am old and my BS tolerance is fast eroding.

Please note I am not saying the information Ms. Greene provides is BS. Quite the contrary.

NewGuy said...

Well I take responsibility for what I write, I can't be accountable for the lack of reading comprehension of one of our readers, I would think this statement would be viewed by most as questioning the bias of the reporter... "I have to conclude that since the rest of Jordan's statements are in quotes, that the reference to the amendment as "discriminatory" was the reporter's opinion......"

I would also think that the closing sentence in my original post would similarly make that same point. Hardly "spin".

Deborah, you are entitled to your opinions and always seem to want to want to go for personal snarkiness instead of factual discussion. A game you are much better at than most, but a game I choose not to play. It seems that even when someone is in agreement with you, you still find something to dislike if they aren't strong enough in their support to suit you.

I wrote my original post as a "dig" against a reporter who characterized the amendment as "discriminatory". I would think you would oppose the use of that adjective in a news piece which is supposed to be objective.

Apparently not. I can't help that.

Anonymous said...

See article now.

To me, if one of the guest speakers who is for the amendment calls it a discriminatory amendment, then it must be discriminatory.

What do you all think? Does that not makes sense?

But I see your point. It did make it seem as if Jordan said it - though he didn't. That was reporters fault for not putting it in quotes and attributing who said what.

Jesse Wood said...

By the way, that was my post above. I was author of the subject of this blog.

Jesse Wood said...

Also...I consider myself to be a ethical journalist and strive for objectivity and accurateness.

As I told another reporter at the rally, "It's not my opinion that matters."

I can be reached via email at jesse@highcountrypress.com and welcome critiques and feedback of my coverage.

Sincerely,

Jesse Wood said...

Also...I consider myself to be a ethical journalist and strive for objectivity and accurateness.

As I told another reporter at the rally, "It's not my opinion that matters."

I can be reached via email at jesse@highcountrypress.com and welcome critiques and feedback of my coverage.

Sincerely,

NewGuy said...

Jesse, thanks for your comments. I have not had any previous complaints about your writings and perhaps you didn't intend to indicate your opinion when you referred to the amendment as discriminatory. However, you were writing in your "reporter" voice and it certainly came across to me as a label that you applied. It may well be that a speaker later referred to the amendment in a similar manner, but that isn't the same (to me) as the reporter offering that label as a descriptive adjective of his own - not as a quote of someone else.

Your recent comment (as anonymous) seems to confirm that you have in fact, reached that conclusion...When you say "if one of the guest speakers who is for the amendment calls it a discriminatory amendment, then it must be discriminatory." it reinforces what I have said. You have concluded in your piece that the amendment is "discriminatory"....a later speaker referring to it this way may have influenced your opinion . but it still came across (to me) as your conclusion.

Your revised article reads much better and , to me, comes across as substantially more objective.

Again, thanks for your comments here.

Deborah Greene said...

I use facts when conveying factual information. And, when I am making an observation, i convey my opinion. I have the right to an opinion. And, my facts are always discernable from my opinion.

Now, you say that you use Amendment 1 in describing the Marriage Amendment to somehow convey that the reporter is bias in his reporting. Where did the reporter use Amendment 1 to describe the Marriage Amendment? The reporter actually called it the Marriage Protection Amendment which best describes the amendment. I believe it was Rev. Mark Creech who pointed out to us that the opposers refused to identify the amendment as the Marriage Amendment and used Amendment 1 to refer to the amendment. Now, I don't know whether you are for or against the amendment. Which one is it?

As, I said before, it is a fact that the reporter was there. It is a fact that the discussion is of "discriminatory" is in the reporter's discussion by Rev. Mark Creech.

Overall, the reporter did an excellent job.

I am of the opinion that you have not taken responsibility for using "Amendment 1" versus "Marriage Amendment" when referring to the subject amendment. Still waiting for you do so. In fact, you have tried to spin to claim pointing out reporter's bias as reason for doing so.

My question to you, is with all that was written in the article, you couldn't find anything to write about what Dan Soucek, Jonathan Jordan, Ed McClearen or Rev. Mark Creech did say duirng the rally to share with the readers of this blog? Could you not find someone who attended that could have posted for you?

You criticized the reporter, calling him bias. I actually can't tell where he stands on the issue from reading his article. I come closer to identifying what you are all about than him.

Again, Rev. Mark Creech said the amendment was discriminatory and explained that all laws are discriminatory. I have heard this before; while all people are created equal; all behaviors are not. That is evident from what I read and what I heard.


[Guy, my tolerance for BS has eroded also; I am 58 years old. BS seems to be the mantra of late and frankly I am tired of it. "Snarkiness" may be the way to put a little humor in the picture.]

You are hiding behind a handle, so whats the problem, do you or do you not support the marriage amendment?

Jesse Wood has always tried to be impartial and objective. That is my opinion.

Patrick Beville said...

Deborah Greene The sad reality is that you probably do not see hate in your words or Lynn Campbell's words. There is probably not even conscious hate behind the words. What happens is by supporting this bill, you are marginalizing a group of people because they are different than you. You are isolating and demeaning someone for who they love. You say "because you are different - you cannot enjoy the same rights as me, because I follow God's word." By marginalizing a group of people and forcing them to stand out as different - you are continuing an attitude of stigma and difference that perpetuates hate. People will see gay people as different and marginalized by the law and, therefore, it is permissible to treat them differently - with hate, with scorn, with violence in some cases. I am not saying you are advocating violence, but your stance perpetuates the difference that allows that leap in some minds. When our laws reflect that we are all just people and that NO ONE should be treated differently , then maybe we can start to shed this concept of shame. Consider why is coming out of the closet such a big deal. Why are gays bullied in this country. All because people view them and treat them as different and to not allow gays to marry perpetuates and emphasizes the concept. You and Lynn might not hate, but you are perpetuating hate and bigotry.

Lennie said...

Greene is as cowardly as any liberal. She is leaning on her own views and opinions and attempting to control the behaviors of others. Wake up people, is this where conservatism is headed!?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Patrick Beville. I can't for the life of me understand why Ms. Greene and others are so determined to argue on the one hand that government needs to stay out of peoples' lives and then argue on the other hand that others must conform to their particular religious beliefs. It is very sad for me, as a conservative, to see this happening and I feel I've been had by the entire conservative movement. We are either for less government or not. Apparently we are for more government when it comes to peoples' personal lives. I am very disappointed in Ms. Greene for taking this stance.

guy faulkes said...

ms. Greene, I have previously stated that I consider this to be a non-issue because anything you can do legally with a marriage, you can do with a contract.

I will probably vote for the amendment just to counter one of the fanatical opposition to this amendment that really means nothing in a practical sense.

Sarkazein said...

It is just the opposite. The Amendment, if passed, protects the law from activist judges and fad-proned legislators. It "takes" no rights from anyone.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- I could register in NC as a Democrat and be allowed as an out of stater to vote. So send me a voter registration card. I will mail it in to offset an illegal alien's vote.

Anonymous said...

The Amendment, if passed, puts the definition of marriage squarely in the hands of activist judges. That's a joke of an argument.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, we cannot do it for three reasons.

1. You and I beleive in the rule of law.

2. Unlike dead people and illegal aliens, we would get caught.

#. Unlike the Black Panthers and ACORN, we would be prosecuted for voter fraud.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- I could join the New Black Panthers to avoid prosecution. The honesty part is too religiousy sounding and the State should not tell us what religiousy things we can or cannot do, and we can claim we accidentally checked the wrong box because the registration card was printed by Republicans and too complicate to fully understand.

Deborah Greene said...

There is no hate iny words. I have friends who have told me that they ate gay. I simply pray for them. I will vote for traditional marriage.

Patrick Beville said...

DG - I explained that you do not see hate in your words. Will you acknowledge my post that the continued marginalization of one group of people will cause more hate. The fact is people hear your words and listen to your words and to recommend laws against a particular group of people lets others know - "they do not have the same rights" "they are less than me". This mental jump happens all the time and leads to mental abuse, violence, and even suicides. I admire your stance to "not deny God". I think you should do that but on a personal level. It is one thing for you to personally "Not deny God" but I do not know anywhere in the Bible where it says Gods word is to be forced on all people. This is where you must ask yourself - "I am honoring God's word in my life. Will God punish me for taking it too far and playing God here on Earth? Did God create homosexuals to be marginalized or should we love and treat all of God's creatures the same? Is it my place to judge homosexuals here on earth or is it God's place in heaven?" To Vote against this amendment is not "Denying God". From your perspective to be homosexual or have a homosexual marriage would be to deny God. Or do you think you are God?

Sarkazein said...

PB describes the real issue. It is not the right for gays to marry, it is the forced acceptance of the gay life style by society.

Anonymous said...

Today Duke Energy CEO compared the Amendment to Jim Crow laws.

Anonymous said...

I have noticed on several occausions that when anyone asks New Guy a serious issue-related question that he doesn't want to answer, or if someone wants to discuss a subject in depth with New Guy, he will try to break off the discussion or will accuse the commenter of being facetious or less than honorable in some way.

Like a previous comment said, you will make an excellent modern day politician--a doubleminded, doublespeak, disingenuous politician.

Again, New Guy, from my observations, you are not a true conservative.

Anonymous said...

He probably just doesn't see any point in exchanging insults with someone who is obviously only posting for that purpose.

:)

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about insults? Discussing the issues is insults? 'Since when?

Mike D. said...

"I believe that marriage is God's institution. I believe that Gid(sic) is in control of all and I will vote for his law as the supreme law when the opportunity arises." - Deborah Greene

Equal protection? Separation of church and state? Constitution be damned, eh Debbie? The ideal you describe is called theocracy. God help us all if you ever gain any real power. Never mind what constitutes conservatism; you are just flat-out anti-American.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

Who the hell do you think you are, Debbie?

guy faulkes said...

I assume she thinks she is someone that has much right to an opinion as do you, MikeD.

She made her points without personally attacking you (although she came close with New Guy). Your attack diminishes your argument.

This non-issue certainly has people stirred up.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- You liberals sure pervert the First Amendment.

Sarkazein said...

I guess somewhere in the proposed NC Amendment, all must belong to a certain church or a new religion is going to be established by the State. In the new Amendment (according to MikeD) if you are gay and want "same-sex marriage", you will have to join the Church of North Carolina or whatever the name of the church or religion is that the Amendment establishes. A religious test will be given to make sure you are a member of the Church of North Carolina Est 2012.

Sarkazein said...

I guess the plural marriage thing is unconstitutional somehow under the First. Not only is it illegal for Mormons to have more than one wife at a time, they are not even allowed to practice their religion anymore.
No extra wives, no religion.

Sarkazein said...

So I guess the Mormons don't get equal protection under the law. Perhaps someday we will have a gay Mormon President that will fix this travesty.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

For much the same reason that I oppose Amendment One, I have no problem with polygamy, provided that coercion and intimidation do not play a role in the union. You see, intimidation and coercion, in my eyes, violate the freedom of the victim, which is why most polygamy cases that are prosecuted involve adults who are married to minors. To me, it is not about one religion being better than another. It is about keeping church and state separate, as Thomas Jefferson advised, and it is about treating free people equally in our society, as our Constitution requires.

If agreeing with the wisdom of our Founding Fathers makes me a liberal in your eyes, I will accept your slander with great honor and pride.

And, as I said, Debbie Greene has openly declared that she does not agree with our Constitutional principle of a separation of church and state, putting her, in my eyes, in the same crowd as the Ayatollah of Iran... a theocrat.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- Jefferson considered his religious beliefs in most of his opinions and decisions-- according to everything I have read about him. He even painstakingly developed his own version of the Bible. Your liberal side translates freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I too would be fine with a couple of extra wives around if all were sporting. BUT the fact it is illegal does not give me a sense of having my civil rights violated. The whole establishment thing was to prevent a repeat of the Church of England in the US. Lawyers have repeatedly attempted to muddy it, but it has nothing to do with anything but keeping the government from having its own church and preventing Congress from making laws to prevent people from practicing their religion.... not from showing their religion. Liberals as usual have it bassakwards. For 200 years everyone knew this.... then we got "smart".

Blogger said...

Sark, You are 100% right on the first amendment.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

How can you possibly have freedom of religion if legislation is being crafted based on the rules of one particular religion? Are you so misguided as to believe that our Framers were ignorant to the existence of other world religions? If you were correct, then the First Amendment would profess freedom of religion, provided that you select one from among an approved list of Protestant religions. But that is not the case.

Our Constitution is timeless. It is short, and it is vague. This is no accident. It is made to continue protecting freedom as times change by outlining general principles.

It is not a document intended only to protect white, Christian slave owners, much to your disappointment, apparently.

Sarkazein said...

So MikeD wrote-"It (the US Constitution) is not a document intended only to protect white, Christian slave owners, much to your disappointment, apparently."

You are such a liberal. No where in the First or in any comment I have made said anything like that.

Sarkazein said...

Go ahead MikeD-- find a comment of mine saying anything like your accusation.
This is one of the problems with you closed minded liberals... you are awash with misconceptions.

Sarkazein said...

MikeD wrote-"Sark,
How can you possibly have freedom of religion if legislation is being crafted based on the rules of one particular religion?"

What "one particular religion"?

Sarkazein said...

MikeD- What you are saying is-- one is not allowed to consider their own religious views when voting for, supporting or drafting a law. That would be the opposite of freedom of religion. Thought police, in other words, would have to interrogate all of those considering legislation.
Not to speak for Deborah Green, but it seems to me, she is doing only that. You in return are policing her thoughts and or beliefs. The Amendment will be up for a vote... be sure and not let any religious thoughts cross your mind while at the voting booth. You are forbidden from thinking any religious thoughts if you are considering any laws. Pay no attention to the Ten Commandments, they are purely coincidental in their relationship to our laws.

ITCM said...

The biblical 10 commandments are outdated. Here are 10 that we should now live by:

http://youtu.be/v-63cTYJDCA

Deborah Greene, it is a modern world now. You can not force your religious views on others through a political platform. Why do so many conservatives feel that they have the right to tell another group of people how to live their lives? Do you feel satisfied knowingly segregating against a group who is different from you? Would you also push for laws to withhold the rights of African Americans if you could go back to the 1960's? How about atheists? Do you have a problem with that minority group as well?

I'm sorry, but this Amendment One saddens me to no end. It is essentially denying equality to tax-paying free citizens of the U.S. How can you support something like that; because your god tells you to? If I told you that a gnome told me to support the Amendment, you would think I was insane. Think about it.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM wrote- " I'm sorry, but this Amendment One saddens me to no end. It is essentially denying equality to tax-paying free citizens of the U.S. "


So I guess you are for EVERYONE paying the same amount of taxes too.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Deborah Greene is not forcing her views on anyone. You will have the right to vote... even if you are gay.
What you are saying is-- Deborah Greene has no rights to her beliefs or the right to express them or the right to consider her religious beliefs while dealing with legislation.

Patrick Beville said...

DG has not answered my comment. Should I be addressing her as God instead in order to get a response? Will support of this amendment continue to marginalize a group of people such that they are treated as second class? Is voting in support of this amendment actually a sin by encouraging hate toward a group of God's creatures. Only God can judge. If you want to truly be free of sin, live your life accordingly and don't vote at all on this issue. It the only way to be safe.

Blogger said...

ITCM on Hutchens. Clever. One can ponder if he has found out by now whether his ideas were on target. Hutchens, dead at the early age of 62 December 15. 2011

ITCM said...

Yes, Christopher Hitchens would have had a lot to say about this debate - I'm sure of that.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Yes, I know I trust the opinion of a socialist who is an atheist and "that his daily intake of alcohol was enough to kill or stun the average mule" (his words).

Sarkazein said...

I wonder what demons in his head he was trying to escape.

ITCM said...

If anyone here had a LGBT child, would you be so ready to vote against their ability to marry and enjoy the same benefits and security as traditional marriages? I think your outlook would change quick, fast & in a hurry.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Maybe one day, LGBT children everywhere will be able to see their parents come out of the shadows and be aloud to vote, sit in front of the bus, have jobs, be aloud to drink from the refrigerated fountains instead of the porcelain fountains, not be knocked down with fire-hoses and attacked with police dogs at their parades, be allowed to buy houses in any neighborhoods they want, and be allowed to attend schools with the heterosexuals. But not get "married", that is between one man and one woman.

ITCM said...

Hard to get through a brick wall, it seems. If the term "marriage" concerns you so much, then make a new term that gives them the same rights and privileges. What's so difficult here?

guy faulkes said...

ITCM, such a term and condition already exists. It is called a contract.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Good point. Why do you insist on the term marriage? Since one man and one woman is already the meaning of marriage, why do you think the LGBTs didn't develop a word to describe a civil contract between LsGsBs and Ts ?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

You are such a smug ass. Society has dictated the term marriage. we are brought up to rejoice in the day we get to marry the one we love. The common reference to the happiest day of one's life happens to be marriage. YOUR definition is man and woman. Get over yourself.

Deborah Greene said...

ICTM

Someday you will surely come to know that it is not "my god"; but, our God.

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- ". we are brought up to rejoice in the day we get to marry the one we love."

True to a point. I can never remember bringing home some buddies to play or having my parents come to a Little League game or a Boy Scout event and them saying "I hope little Sarky picks one of these other nice young boys to marry someday". The male/female thing was assumed. Why you ask? Because this same-sex "marriage" is a fad. AND not supported by all gays. Even with openly gay couples, I have trouble believing, other than wanting your child to be happy in life, that most parents of Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts are longing for the wedding where all the relatives and family friends can gather to celebrate their child's same-sex "marriage". To say otherwise is PCBS.

ITCM said...

Deborah,

If you lived in ancient Greece, you would have believed in Zeus and a hundred other gods. If you were born in the middle east, then you would believe in Mohammad as the prophet of God.

I would rather think that if God exists then he/she/it would not punish someone for being gay. If it is an omnipotent, omniscient creature, then it would have been responsible for the creation of the gay individual and also be aware of the fact that they can't change who they are or what they feel. Or, do you think that it is a choice to be gay? The American Psychological Association states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience". I feel that you are of the mindset that being gay is "sinful". You say that you have homosexual friends, but how can you honestly say that if you are willing to push for an amendment that will hinder their equal rights?

ITCM said...

Sark, I agree with your statement: "Even with openly gay couples, I have trouble believing, other than wanting your child to be happy in life, that most parents of Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts are longing for the wedding where all the relatives and family friends can gather to celebrate their child's same-sex "marriage".

The happiness factor overshadows the parents' longings, though. When you look at it from the viewpoint of needs vs. wants, I would see the LGBT child's feelings as the "need" and the parent's wishes as the "want".

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Think free will. I love your dogmatic atheism. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be religious.

Sarkazein said...

ITCM- Yes, the L or the G or the B or the T "wants" and "needs" society to accept them. Hence the push for same-sex "marriage" as common place. AKA PC because it is a forced acceptance. It is not a true acceptance. I for one, being a "smug ars", know many gay couples. I am in the 4th largest city in the US. I have never, in life or in my comments, said they should not be couples or live as they please in as much happiness as they can muster for themselves. BUT, marriage is between one man and one woman and always will be, and should be. What will make them unhappy is the failure of the attempt to force society to accept "same-sex marriage" as common place.

Happily Married said...

Sark,

The old saying goes "To assume makes an ass out of u and me." "The male/female thing was assumed." You are assuming how parents of a LGBT may feel. You are assuming the gay marriage thing is a fad. Seems like a lot of assuming. What does that make u again?

Sarkazein said...

I don't know HAPPY, you are the name-caller... go ahead. If I am feeling juvenile one day, I'll join you.

Sarkazein said...

Happy-

o·pin·ion   [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

Sarkazein said...

I have not been able to establish an assumption on Bs. How will same-sex "marriage" help bi-sexuals?

Happily Married said...

Sark,

The very reason you are receiving the name is in your approach. You cite the definition of opinion as if to say that is simply what you have been expressing all along. Your previous statements about marriage being between a man and a woman were presented in such a way as to not be opinion - but rather fact. That is what makes you a smug ass. If I ever thought you were simply expressing your opinion and you had any sense that you understood other people might feel differently, you might not get the same reaction. Or were you relating the definition of opinion to make sure I knew that my words were simply my opinion? I did not need the definition - I am not as smug as you. I understand people have a wide variety of views and I respect them all when they are presented in that light - that everyone has different views. I will state again my main problem is this amendment forces those views on everyone - whether they believe them or not. The opposite is not true. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it will not take away the rights for heterosexuals to get married and enjoy the joy and benefits of marriage.

ITCM said...

My point may have been misunderstood earlier, but I was attempting to make the connection that 1) Sexual orientation is a natural occurrence and 2) Religious orientation is a nurtured occurrence. With a separation of church & state, I don't feel that this Amendment vote should be forced from a religious viewpoint. I do not vote based on religion; just morality.

Sarkazein said...

Waaaay too many openings on the last comments by both ITCM and Happy. Is this a set-up?

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "Your previous statements about marriage being between a man and a woman were presented in such a way as to not be opinion - but rather fact."

I'll give you that one Happy. But there is a reason for that.... it is a fact.

Happily Married said...

Like i said - smug ass

Sarkazein said...

Happy- When I am asked on a form or by a person- "Are you married?". The answer is yes. There is never a follow up question- "To a man or a woman?". Why? Because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sarkazein said...

Happily Married said...
"Like i said - smug ass"

I love the open mindedness of the liberal.

smiletoday said...

From Rob Schofield of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church:

The simple truth is that Amendment One is about a lot more than a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. It is, in fact the most extreme and far reaching proposal of its kind in the country. And the reason for this is really a function of four little words.

Amendment One states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in this state. Four words from that statement ‒ only domestic legal union ‒ are the key. Together, they will combine to make this amendment immediately harmful to hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.

Let’s say them together: “only – domestic – legal ‒ union.”
Here’s what this means:
• It means not only will North Carolina’s constitution ban the recognition of same sex marriage; it will also permanently ban the state from recognizing civil unions.
• It means the municipalities in our state that already allow employees to obtain benefits coverage for their unmarried domestic partners (same sex or opposite sex) will now have to stop.
• It means that thousands of people (gay and straight) will see their existing custody and visitation rights thrown into question.
• It means that unmarried victims of domestic violence – both same and opposite sex – who are currently afforded protection under our law, will quite likely no longer be protected. This happened in Ohio when that state adopted a marriage discrimination amendment.
• And it likely means dozens of other things will be jeopardized that we’re only just guessing at – everything from hospital visitation rights to financial decisions to end-of-life decisions to health insurance for kids – you name it.
• And it means lots and lots of expensive court fights.

So ‒ the people you know think they are opposed to (or unsure about) same sex marriage? Well okay. We can agree for now to disagree on that. But are they for causing all of these other changes and permanently writing them into our state constitution? Really?

I don’t think so. That’s why all of the public opinion polls out there show that when voters understand the amendment and its full impact, they’re against it by a wide margin.

The problem, of course, if that most people don’t understand it and don’t understand the impact of those four little words – “only domestic legal union.” They think the amendment is a simple up or down vote on same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

From Rob Schofield of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church:

The simple truth is that Amendment One is about a lot more than a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. It is, in fact the most extreme and far reaching proposal of its kind in the country. And the reason for this is really a function of four little words.

Amendment One states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in this state. Four words from that statement ‒ only domestic legal union ‒ are the key. Together, they will combine to make this amendment immediately harmful to hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.

Let’s say them together: “only – domestic – legal ‒ union.”
Here’s what this means:
• It means not only will North Carolina’s constitution ban the recognition of same sex marriage; it will also permanently ban the state from recognizing civil unions.
• It means the municipalities in our state that already allow employees to obtain benefits coverage for their unmarried domestic partners (same sex or opposite sex) will now have to stop.
• It means that thousands of people (gay and straight) will see their existing custody and visitation rights thrown into question.
• It means that unmarried victims of domestic violence – both same and opposite sex – who are currently afforded protection under our law, will quite likely no longer be protected. This happened in Ohio when that state adopted a marriage discrimination amendment.
• And it likely means dozens of other things will be jeopardized that we’re only just guessing at – everything from hospital visitation rights to financial decisions to end-of-life decisions to health insurance for kids – you name it.
• And it means lots and lots of expensive court fights.

So ‒ the people you know think they are opposed to (or unsure about) same sex marriage? Well okay. We can agree for now to disagree on that. But are they for causing all of these other changes and permanently writing them into our state constitution? Really?

I don’t think so. That’s why all of the public opinion polls out there show that when voters understand the amendment and its full impact, they’re against it by a wide margin.

The problem, of course, if that most people don’t understand it and don’t understand the impact of those four little words – “only domestic legal union.” They think the amendment is a simple up or down vote on same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

It does none of those things except define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Who cares hat Rob Schofield of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church thinks?

Anonymous said...

It does none of those things except define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Who cares hat Rob Schofield of the Pullen Memorial Baptist Church thinks?