North Carolina bans gay marriage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

I don't get all the outrage. I voted against it and lost but that's how democracy works. If we didn't like it we wouldn't live in a democracy, we'd have changed to something else. I'm against gay marrige but I hated how it made civil unions illegal. Civil unions are the real way forward, just get rid of marrige and give everyone a civil union. Sadly I don't think the government knows about that compromise.

GistoftheFist:
image

Could someone find a bigger version of this chart? Second, If you or anyone you know uses religion as the reason they are against gay marriage, read this well-written article here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new

This one is even better than the Foamy rant.

Bigger version of the chart to be found here:

http://www.findfreegraphics.com/image-79/against.htm

lol why are people shocked at this? Dumbasses.

RyoScar:
Well that's total bullshit. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to marry.

Makes old people uncomfortable.

Old people are the folks voting the most, probably because of all the free time they have.

Xan Krieger:
I don't get all the outrage. I voted against it and lost but that's how democracy works. If we didn't like it we wouldn't live in a democracy, we'd have changed to something else. I'm against gay marrige but I hated how it made civil unions illegal. Civil unions are the real way forward, just get rid of marrige and give everyone a civil union. Sadly I don't think the government knows about that compromise.

Being against gay marriage is fascinating to me.

It's like if someone said "I'm against children smiling." Why? "Well, you know, I have my poorly supported reasoning."

Bmagada:
You know when its legalized nationally its going to be hilarious.

That's what happened with interracial marriage.

Basically the folks against gay marriage would have been against interracial marriage in the past. Perhaps further back they'd have been against people of different faiths marrying.

It's basically just bigots having to pick a new group to oppress because the old one is legally protected now.

Mortai Gravesend:
Snip

You know, your one of the most educational people I've found on this website. I enjoy finding your posts in topics just to see how you debate, its rather fascinating how you pull apart arguments so easily. Even when I disagree with you, I still love seeing what you say to things. Hope you stick around even with the amount of stupid that gets hurled at you :)

chickenhound:
All I have to say is watch this video

I take your video and answer the questions: Why would anyone ban gay marriage? What could the possible reasoning be? Who are these people? WHAT are these people?

Kendarik:

EeveeElectro:
I don't know America that well. It NC a "Redneck" state?
This sums it up pretty well. It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

I don't get the message at all, what is the comparison supposed to be? First cousin marriage is a totally different issue than same sex marriage.

Are you suggesting that first cousin marriage is "worse" and yet accepted somehow? If so, that's only old predjudice with no basis in reality. There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Or were you suggesting the US is backward in general so both should be allowed and both still face unreasonable restrictions? If so, I agree with you.

The possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding is higher when the breeding partners are closely related, while most homosexual marriages require an outside source of genetic material, making it much more difficult to introduce genetic errors. I'm not saying that there's a really large chance of genetic errors, but I will suggest that inbreeding has been shown to cause a much higher proportion of them than any other form of breeding.

Just look at how many specialized breeds of dogs suffer from a variety of issues that seriously shorten their lifespans and reduce the quality of their life; those problems are almost exclusively caused by the inbreeding required to PRODUCE that breed of dog.

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

Aerodyamic:

Kendarik:

EeveeElectro:
I don't know America that well. It NC a "Redneck" state?
This sums it up pretty well. It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

I don't get the message at all, what is the comparison supposed to be? First cousin marriage is a totally different issue than same sex marriage.

Are you suggesting that first cousin marriage is "worse" and yet accepted somehow? If so, that's only old predjudice with no basis in reality. There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Or were you suggesting the US is backward in general so both should be allowed and both still face unreasonable restrictions? If so, I agree with you.

The possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding is higher when the breeding partners are closely related, while most homosexual marriages require an outside source of genetic material, making it much more difficult to introduce genetic errors. I'm not saying that there's a really large chance of genetic errors, but I will suggest that inbreeding has been shown to cause a much higher proportion of them than any other form of breeding.

Just look at how many specialized breeds of dogs suffer from a variety of issues that seriously shorten their lifespans and reduce the quality of their life; those problems are almost exclusively caused by the inbreeding required to PRODUCE that breed of dog.

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

What we can take away from this lengthy (and semi-irrelevant argument) is DON'T SHAG YOUR COUSINS, NO-MATTER HOW HOT THEY ARE.

jizzytissue:
and nothing of value was lost and not a single fuck was given

How interesting, your opinion remarkably shares similar qualities... no one gives a fuck about it and when you don't voice it nothing of value is lost. Your name 'jizzytissue' really suits you, it reflects what kind of a person you are so well.

Back on topic: Marriage should not be restricted to heterosexual couples only, this is ridiculous that something like this would be passed in this day and age. I mean what argument is there against gay marriage? "These two people should not be allowed to express their love for each other in the same way heterosexuals do cause I find it icky." In the words of Louis C.K "no one can be gay at you".

If people are given time they usually come around to see things differently or at least maybe their kids will, trying to use government to forcefully legalize gay marriage before the people are ready for it has done nothing but cause people to recoil and react thus creating more resistance to it by causing "true bigots" to rally people who just weren't quite ready yet into full anti-gay legislation...so whose fault is this?

If you try and shove something down someones throat who is not ready yet be ready to have it slapped from your hand and taken from you so you cant do it again.

I am pro equal gay rights by the way.

TK421:

Mortai Gravesend:

They're immune from criticism because they're the majority? I'm sorry, but I don't think you know how democracy works. Either that or you didn't read what you replied to properly.

I'm not attacking you personally here, but simply by calling others bigots, are we not practicing some form of bigotry ourselves?

No.

They are still entitled to their own opinion, no matter how contrary that may be to others.

Where did anyone try to deny them their opinion? I'm not seeing it anywhere in the thread. Is this just worthless hyperbole you're throwing at me?

You misunderstand what I'm trying to get at here. I'm mostly just tired of all of the complaining that has gone on recently by both sides of this thing.

With the bigotry thing, we are, because we are obstinately against their obstanance, which I get is an endless cycle, but I was just trying to get people to think a little more before they decide that everyone who is steadfast in whatever beliefs they may have is a bigot.

But we are talking about the option to do something vs making it against the law. One is clearly control where the other is not. By allowing gay to marry i force absolutely nothing on any person to ban it outright forces your view on others. That is how one is bigotry and the other is not

RedBird:

Aerodyamic:

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

What we can take away from this lengthy (and semi-irrelevant argument) is DON'T SHAG YOUR COUSINS, NO-MATTER HOW HOT THEY ARE.

It should read:

"Don't bone you hot cousin without using appropriate contraceptive methods, and ideally without realizing they're you cousin."

Aerodyamic:

Kendarik:

EeveeElectro:
I don't know America that well. It NC a "Redneck" state?
This sums it up pretty well. It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

I don't get the message at all, what is the comparison supposed to be? First cousin marriage is a totally different issue than same sex marriage.

Are you suggesting that first cousin marriage is "worse" and yet accepted somehow? If so, that's only old predjudice with no basis in reality. There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Or were you suggesting the US is backward in general so both should be allowed and both still face unreasonable restrictions? If so, I agree with you.

The possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding is higher when the breeding partners are closely related, while most homosexual marriages require an outside source of genetic material, making it much more difficult to introduce genetic errors. I'm not saying that there's a really large chance of genetic errors, but I will suggest that inbreeding has been shown to cause a much higher proportion of them than any other form of breeding.

Just look at how many specialized breeds of dogs suffer from a variety of issues that seriously shorten their lifespans and reduce the quality of their life; those problems are almost exclusively caused by the inbreeding required to PRODUCE that breed of dog.

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

Your understanding of dog breeding and first cousin marriage is poor. Let's start with the dogs. The specialized breeds are bread not to be healthy, not randomly, but in a way designed to encourage certain traits and abnormalities. For example, Dobbies were bread from Rotts and they were going for the thin deformed head and sleaker body to look meaner. When you breed only for looks, including a genetic defect really, downsides come with it. When you successively breed that same group of genetic oddities into each other to make the trait more intense, the chance of problems increases over the generations.

Now lets look at humans. We're talking one generation of intercousin marriage, not generations of efforts to produce an oddity.

Let's look at the science, which has shown an increase in the chance of birth/genetic disorders over random cases. Hmm, hey wait, that makes you case right? Nope, because we allow women over 40 to marry and they have MANY times the risk of having a child with a birth defect as too random cousins.

Yes but what if we know a genetic problem runs in their family? Oh good point, or is it? Do we genetically screen others? For example, we allow two people with Schizophrenia to marry and have kids even though we know that there is a 100% chance that genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia will be passed on and an extremely high chance it will present in them. We also know that there is at least a 50% chance their their grandchild will either have Schizophrenia or be a carrier.

So we should stop all those with known genetic disorders or high likelihood of birth defects from marrying right? I mean if we are going to stop a 4% risk (as compared to the normal 2% risk) surely we stop the older moms with 10%+ risk and those with inheritted disorders (25-100% risk) from breeding right? You know, if we stopped fat people too, we'd probably solve most of the obesidy problem.

The only reason to prevent first cousins from marrying is old primitive misunderstandings of genetics from thousands of years ago (which of course found new fire in middle ages christianity)

Aerodyamic:

RedBird:

Aerodyamic:

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

What we can take away from this lengthy (and semi-irrelevant argument) is DON'T SHAG YOUR COUSINS, NO-MATTER HOW HOT THEY ARE.

It should read:

"Don't bone you hot cousin without using appropriate contraceptive methods, and ideally without realizing they're you cousin."

Or learn science and math so you know not to worry about it and its just ignorance that makes people fear it.

About damn time.

It really pisses me off when two people in love think they have the right to declare their feelings for one another to family and friends, sign a document and be seen as a couple under law, grating them various tax breaks and such. Utter bullshit.

I mean, if we let two people who were born with the same gender get married... Like... bad stuff... will happen... and... stufff...

But seriously, people need to pull their head out of their self-righteous ass and let gay people do whatever the fuck they want.

The end :D

Wolverine18:

Aerodyamic:

Kendarik:

I don't get the message at all, what is the comparison supposed to be? First cousin marriage is a totally different issue than same sex marriage.

Are you suggesting that first cousin marriage is "worse" and yet accepted somehow? If so, that's only old predjudice with no basis in reality. There is really nothing wrong with first cousin marriage in most cases.

Or were you suggesting the US is backward in general so both should be allowed and both still face unreasonable restrictions? If so, I agree with you.

The possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding is higher when the breeding partners are closely related, while most homosexual marriages require an outside source of genetic material, making it much more difficult to introduce genetic errors. I'm not saying that there's a really large chance of genetic errors, but I will suggest that inbreeding has been shown to cause a much higher proportion of them than any other form of breeding.

Just look at how many specialized breeds of dogs suffer from a variety of issues that seriously shorten their lifespans and reduce the quality of their life; those problems are almost exclusively caused by the inbreeding required to PRODUCE that breed of dog.

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

Your understanding of dog breeding and first cousin marriage is poor. Let's start with the dogs. The specialized breeds are bread not to be healthy, not randomly, but in a way designed to encourage certain traits and abnormalities. For example, Dobbies were bread from Rotts and they were going for the thin deformed head and sleaker body to look meaner. When you breed only for looks, including a genetic defect really, downsides come with it. When you successively breed that same group of genetic oddities into each other to make the trait more intense, the chance of problems increases over the generations.

Now lets look at humans. We're talking one generation of intercousin marriage, not generations of efforts to produce an oddity.

Let's look at the science, which has shown an increase in the chance of birth/genetic disorders over random cases. Hmm, hey wait, that makes you case right? Nope, because we allow women over 40 to marry and they have MANY times the risk of having a child with a birth defect as too random cousins.

Yes but what if we know a genetic problem runs in their family? Oh good point, or is it? Do we genetically screen others? For example, we allow two people with Schizophrenia to marry and have kids even though we know that there is a 100% chance that genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia will be passed on and an extremely high chance it will present in them. We also know that there is at least a 50% chance their their grandchild will either have Schizophrenia or be a carrier.

So we should stop all those with known genetic disorders or high likelihood of birth defects from marrying right? I mean if we are going to stop a 4% risk (as compared to the normal 2% risk) surely we stop the older moms with 10%+ risk and those with inheritted disorders (25-100% risk) from breeding right? You know, if we stopped fat people too, we'd probably solve most of the obesidy problem.

The only reason to prevent first cousins from marrying is old primitive misunderstandings of genetics from thousands of years ago (which of course found new fire in middle ages christianity)

Let's go with that 'thousands of years ago", and take a look at some lessons that would have been prevalent then:


    Slavery?
    Baby-killing?
    Marrying your cousin?
    Girls listening to the voice in their heads that tell them to get their father drunk and attempt to get pregnant with him?

All totally cool.


    Wearing artificial fibres?
    Cutting your hair?
    Eating meat from animals that don't chew their cud AND have cloven hooves, and that were killed in a kosher manner?
    Trying to be happy with someone you love, in a legally recognized but not heterosexual partnership?

Not cool.

I'm way more creeped out by a guy that tells me that he thinks his cousin is hot than a guy that tells me he thinks another guy is hot. Far less squicky.

Wolverine18:

Aerodyamic:

RedBird:

What we can take away from this lengthy (and semi-irrelevant argument) is DON'T SHAG YOUR COUSINS, NO-MATTER HOW HOT THEY ARE.

It should read:

"Don't bone you hot cousin without using appropriate contraceptive methods, and ideally without realizing they're you cousin."

Or learn science and math so you know not to worry about it and its just ignorance that makes people fear it.

Listen, if you want to shag your cousin, you now have my EXPLICIT permission. In fact, I'm sure there's sites for that, and a subculture dedicated to it that would welcome you in, if you have few enough teeth.

For the rest of us, cousin-fucking is a very small step from sister-fucking, and that's been a rule that most supposedly 'progressive" societies have kept around for a while, because it's socially and potentially genetically damaging.

Kendarik:

Rastien:
Well apprently you can/can't do the following in NC.

Be careful about taking girls/hookers to hotels and signing in as married you might be screwed and not in the good way :P

Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.
If a man and a woman who aren't married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.
All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden.
It is illegal to have sex in a churchyard.
A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent.
Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited.
You may not ride a bicycle without having both your hands on the handle bars.
It is against the law to rollerblade on a state highway.

Just for fun, reference?

Some of those look like obvious things that should exist, others look like they might be urban legand. When challenged I find that at least half of these lists are usually urban legand, or they have really good reasons for those laws to exist that aren't evident they way they are shown, but who knows, yours might be real.

In Kendarik's defense, there are some odd laws on the book in every state, most of them would be considered old since the state code tends to include all laws from the inception of the state legislature. Which means that there are laws over a century old that seem odd to us, but are completely normal when they were made. Like Blue Light laws, or laws against hoarding fuel oil, things like that.

Funniest state law in PA is that all liquor is only sold by the State and beer requires a special liscense to be sold, and can't be sold in supermarkets, gas stations and such.

Legal marriage isn't about love. It's about the creation and transmission of estates, and in Americans terms providing financial assistance in terms of tax benefits and so on to ease the burden of having children. Homosexuals can't, as a matter of biology, produce a legitimate heir to an estate. Nor could they produce any children at all without extraordinary measures.

End of the day any restriction on who can marry who is arbitrary. It is arbitrary to declare legally sanctioned marriages involve one man and one woman. It's arbitrary to declare that marriages can only involve two people. Why can't a Muslim or a non-mainstream Mormon engage in polygamy if they so desire? Why can't first cousins marry, or even siblings for that matter? The genetic defect argument is a red herring. If we go with that logic women shouldn't be able to have kids in their 30's either.

Personally, I would like to see legal marriage abolished. Marriage and divorce cost the American tax payer billions of dollars every year. Both in terms of lost tax revenue and costs to the tax payer: family courts, and related programs, are huge drains on public money.
If you want to go to your church, mosque, synagogue, or have some public ceremony that lines up with what you believe then start declaring yourself married you shouldn't need validation from the government to do it. Equally speaking, unmarried people like me shouldn't be on the hook for the costs of litigating your property settlement, or custody battles.

Aerodyamic:

Listen, if you want to shag your cousin, you now have my EXPLICIT permission. In fact, I'm sure there's sites for that, and a subculture dedicated to it that would welcome you in, if you have few enough teeth.

For the rest of us, cousin-fucking is a very small step from sister-fucking, and that's been a rule that most supposedly 'progressive" societies have kept around for a while, because it's socially and potentially genetically damaging.

If social revulsion to incest is enough to keep such marriages illegal then why isn't the same revulsion most people have towards homosexual behavior enough? Either "this gives me the willies and ought to be illegal" works or it doesn't. If two consenting cousins or siblings wanna go after it, that's their own affair and none of mine. Sure, it grosses me out but so does the thought of two men having sex.

I have three comments to make on this topic.

First, the obvious one: this legislation is bigoted. No contest, no argument. Restricting freedoms based on one's own beliefs (be they religious or not) is always vacuous and bigoted because of the very nature of the argument being unscientific and thus baseless. The question of gay marriage was settled a long time ago. There is no gay marriage, for the same reason that there is no gay lunch or gay retirement. Marriage is a man-made institution and it changes like any other.

It's 2012. Same-sex marriage is just marriage. Being stuck in the past means the world changes all around you, and refusal to accept or acknowledge this means nothing.

Second, democracy has no claim on validity. You can vote on whatever you like, it has absolutely no effect on reality. Consider that at a certain point in human history we would have all voted against the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.

Third, democracy is flawed. In practice, it's unavoidably a kakistocracy, as it gives equal political power to all citizens in spite of the fact that some of them are unqualified. Democracy is a means to overthrow tyranny, and it should've remained as such. We should be instituting a form of meritocracy, inspired by the principles behind scientific peer review.

Rastien:
Well apprently you can/can't do the following in NC.

It is illegal to have sex in a churchyard.
A marriage can be declared void if either of the two persons is physically impotent.

It is against the law to rollerblade on a state highway.

These ones actually make sense, the others don't

Sex in a churchyard would be out in the public, which is illegal everywhere in the US *I think*

A marriage where one of the people cannot have a children is recognized as grounds for divorce, so it makes sense that it can be used to void a marriage.

And people die when they rollerblade on the highway often, so it's obvious why that happened.

As to the others, I can just say, What the fuck?

Aerodyamic:

Wolverine18:

Aerodyamic:

The possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding is higher when the breeding partners are closely related, while most homosexual marriages require an outside source of genetic material, making it much more difficult to introduce genetic errors. I'm not saying that there's a really large chance of genetic errors, but I will suggest that inbreeding has been shown to cause a much higher proportion of them than any other form of breeding.

Just look at how many specialized breeds of dogs suffer from a variety of issues that seriously shorten their lifespans and reduce the quality of their life; those problems are almost exclusively caused by the inbreeding required to PRODUCE that breed of dog.

TL;DR - Potentially incestuous marriages that have a greater chance of creating genetically damage offspring are theoretically more acceptable than homosexual unions, which usually require outside assistance to even CREATE offspring. That`s a little strange, to be honest.

Your understanding of dog breeding and first cousin marriage is poor. Let's start with the dogs. The specialized breeds are bread not to be healthy, not randomly, but in a way designed to encourage certain traits and abnormalities. For example, Dobbies were bread from Rotts and they were going for the thin deformed head and sleaker body to look meaner. When you breed only for looks, including a genetic defect really, downsides come with it. When you successively breed that same group of genetic oddities into each other to make the trait more intense, the chance of problems increases over the generations.

Now lets look at humans. We're talking one generation of intercousin marriage, not generations of efforts to produce an oddity.

Let's look at the science, which has shown an increase in the chance of birth/genetic disorders over random cases. Hmm, hey wait, that makes you case right? Nope, because we allow women over 40 to marry and they have MANY times the risk of having a child with a birth defect as too random cousins.

Yes but what if we know a genetic problem runs in their family? Oh good point, or is it? Do we genetically screen others? For example, we allow two people with Schizophrenia to marry and have kids even though we know that there is a 100% chance that genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia will be passed on and an extremely high chance it will present in them. We also know that there is at least a 50% chance their their grandchild will either have Schizophrenia or be a carrier.

So we should stop all those with known genetic disorders or high likelihood of birth defects from marrying right? I mean if we are going to stop a 4% risk (as compared to the normal 2% risk) surely we stop the older moms with 10%+ risk and those with inheritted disorders (25-100% risk) from breeding right? You know, if we stopped fat people too, we'd probably solve most of the obesidy problem.

The only reason to prevent first cousins from marrying is old primitive misunderstandings of genetics from thousands of years ago (which of course found new fire in middle ages christianity)

Let's go with that 'thousands of years ago", and take a look at some lessons that would have been prevalent then:


    Slavery?
    Baby-killing?
    Marrying your cousin?
    Girls listening to the voice in their heads that tell them to get their father drunk and attempt to get pregnant with him?

All totally cool.


    Wearing artificial fibres?
    Cutting your hair?
    Eating meat from animals that don't chew their cud AND have cloven hooves, and that were killed in a kosher manner?
    Trying to be happy with someone you love, in a legally recognized but not heterosexual partnership?

Not cool.

I'm way more creeped out by a guy that tells me that he thinks his cousin is hot than a guy that tells me he thinks another guy is hot. Far less squicky.

How can you dislike all those three thousand year old laws and yet seem to agree with the one on cousins marrying? Now your case makes absolutely no sense at all lol. Seems like ancient bigotry is still in you strong in some areas.

Aerodyamic:

Wolverine18:

Aerodyamic:

It should read:

"Don't bone you hot cousin without using appropriate contraceptive methods, and ideally without realizing they're you cousin."

Or learn science and math so you know not to worry about it and its just ignorance that makes people fear it.

Listen, if you want to shag your cousin, you now have my EXPLICIT permission. In fact, I'm sure there's sites for that, and a subculture dedicated to it that would welcome you in, if you have few enough teeth.

For the rest of us, cousin-fucking is a very small step from sister-fucking, and that's been a rule that most supposedly 'progressive" societies have kept around for a while, because it's socially and potentially genetically damaging.

Except its less potentially damaging than letting people with known inheritble conditions marry and have sex, and its also far less damaging than letting women over 40 marry and have kids. Why do you think we have such a large outbreak of autism spectrim disorders over the last 20 years? It's all those old mothers, we should ban them right? I mean if you think a 2% increase in risk is a problem then clearly a 10% increase is a bigger concern? Or the 98% crease for two parents who both have certain genetic disorders that require you to have 2 impacted genes to be vulnerable.

Oh but wait, it was quite sensible when people in places like the US said blacks and whites shouldn't breed because blacks carried sickle cell and almost no white person did meaning a HUGE increase in risk. Hold on, that was dumb too.

Stu35:
*shrugs*
Fuck knows why so many people (all conservatives, all religious, I have yet to meet anybody who is an exception to this and I eagerly await finding the Left-wing/Centrist Atheist/Agnostic who is against it for anything other than they're against all marriage) are determined to stop people who have nothing to do with them being happy.

Agnostic moderate here!

While I don't oppose gay marriage I am hesitant about letting them adopt or bring prior children into the relationship. I don't know how that would affect the child, especially if the child was straight. More study is required.

OT- I lived in NC for 3 years and this does not surprise me in the slightest.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450560158306776&set=a.223098324386295.105971.205344452828349&type=1&theater

When Captain America thinks something is wrong, You know you've fucked up.

OT: NC, you so crazy

Sarge034:

Stu35:
*shrugs*
Fuck knows why so many people (all conservatives, all religious, I have yet to meet anybody who is an exception to this and I eagerly await finding the Left-wing/Centrist Atheist/Agnostic who is against it for anything other than they're against all marriage) are determined to stop people who have nothing to do with them being happy.

Agnostic moderate here!

While I don't oppose gay marriage I am hesitant about letting them adopt or bring prior children into the relationship. I don't know how that would affect the child, especially if the child was straight. More study is required.

OT- I lived in NC for 3 years and this does not surprise me in the slightest.

Well this video gives me complete hope.

We let rednecks and idiots breed. Who will likely raise criminal children who remain ignorant of the world for life. We would never consider implimenting laws to prevent these people from raising children. This video is fantastic.

I dismissed North Carolina the second I heard it's legal to marry your cousin there. o.O

I know there's a big push for it in Australia but our government isn't budging as it is. (Then again, it's not really doing anything productive currently...)

Edit: Speaking of my government, I have a question:
Why is it more acceptable (to some people) for a child to have a single parent (or in more extreme cases go without anyone) than be adopted by a homosexual couple?

Ah, the South. To them, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, science, reason are all things that happened to other people.

Also, rednecks: leave Christianity alone. Nobody who votes republican these days is smart enough to understand Paul, anyway. And you cunts are turning my religion into a bloody cesspool of benightedness, hatred and idiocy.

Danzavare:
I dismissed North Carolina the second I heard it's legal to marry your cousin there. o.O

I know there's a big push for it in Australia but our government isn't budging as it is. (Then again, it's not really doing anything productive currently...)

Edit: Speaking of my government, I have a question:
Why is it more acceptable (to some people) for a child to have a single parent (or in more extreme cases go without anyone) than be adopted by a homosexual couple?

Oh goody a debate. Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well. If the kid would become gay they should become such because on there own not because of adoptive parents both being such.
As someone who is gay I would be quite upset if I had adopted a kid and later found out that they became gay because I somehow made them think that was how they have to be. Until science proves that being gay is 100% caused only by genetics and not through even a part to do with upbringing then I say homosexuals should not ever be allowed to adopt.

I don't know if this has been posted, but the Guardian has a nice chart that overviews rights by state and region.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states

When the people say "It's the South, no surprise," take a look at the chart before you complain about it. There's a very, very, VERY solid reason people are saying it.

Especially us liberal communist yankees in our ivory towers.

The7Sins:
Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well.

Come now. That's on par with not traveling for fear that if you hit the edge of the flat earth you would fall off the edge and be eaten by dragons.

Zachary Amaranth:

The7Sins:
Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well.

Come now. That's on par with not traveling for fear that if you hit the edge of the flat earth you would fall off the edge and be eaten by dragons.

No not really as it has not my fear is an actual thing that could happen. Your example is just you pulling a ridiculous idea out of your ass to try and discredit my argument with troll logic.

omicron1:
Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause. And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.

No they don't. One side is simple common sense. The other is bigoted hatred. One side has ALL the merits, and the other has... what, exactly? There is about as much equivalency here as there is between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Glenn Beck as political thinkers.

To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny.

Not if they're wrong. The same kind of people who discriminate against gays today also wanted to stop black people from riding the bus, going to college, and voting. So the government sent in soldiers to escort black students to the campus and black voters to the booths while your kind hurled insults at them. And yet, that is not considered "tyranny", but a huge step ahead for civil rights. Strange how that works, isn't it.

And let's face it, rednecks were born being wrong.

It does not matter how right you think you are. Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours. We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that. The end. The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people. Any questions?

That is because people are idiots. There are people who believe that the Prophet Muhammad wants them to murder infidels. So since that that is a view held by a great many people, I suppose that that makes it ipso facto "valid". In the 1850s, most of the South, being not very smart or tolerant, believed that slavery was God's will. Last I checked, it took a great big bloody war to convince them otherwise.

Let's face it, Southern republicans are cousins to the taliban. You cannot convince people whose political views are shaped exclusively by hatred, bigotry and ignorance - the mere fact that something is a, well, fact turns them against it (see also: the world is 6,000 years old, Obama is a Martian communazi, trickle down works, Fox News is fair and balanced, climate change is a hoax etc). You would have a better chance at teaching a monkey to analyse Milton's Paradise Lost. All we can hope for is for those ghastly twats to die out.

The7Sins:

Zachary Amaranth:

The7Sins:
Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well.

Come now. That's on par with not traveling for fear that if you hit the edge of the flat earth you would fall off the edge and be eaten by dragons.

No not really as it has not my fear is an actual thing that could happen. Your example is just you pulling a ridiculous idea out of your ass to try and discredit my argument with troll logic.

Much like fear of falling off the edge of the world is born out of an ignorance of how the Earth works, your fear of "gay-washing" is born out of an ignorance of how being gay works.

In one case, it's based on not knowing the Earth is round. In the other, it's based on not knowing that being gay isn't a choice.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked