North Carolina bans gay marriage.

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

Aerodyamic:

Mortai Gravesend:

Aerodyamic:

It's easier, morally and legally, to have laws concerning marriage involving close relations that it would be to even considering any discussion of eugenics.

You do know that your thing about close relations is pretty much eugenics, right? Same reasoning for it, just an acceptable target. How is it at all morally easier? It's the same exact reasoning.

That's a shaky semantic target, my friend; many societies decided at some point in the past that the potential consequences of close relations marrying was something they wanted to avoid.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/04/Inbreeding-&-the-downfall-of-the-Spanish-Hapsburgs/

On the other hand, my other point STILL STANDS: homosexuals can't reproduce without an outside agency, and for some reason, are almost completely unlikely to be close relations.

That's not shaky at all. If it was, why didn't you refute it? I made my argument. You pointed to... what societies have decided? Which says nothing about me being wrong that it is the same as eugenics. Doesn't matter what many societies decided, that has nothing to do with what falls under eugenics. Red herring much?

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 It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.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.

Marrying family members in not considered "normal" in the mainstream culture, just like homosexual marriage. Yet there are more states that allow first cousins to marry. The only objections people have against gay marriage is that their religion says it's immoral.

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 It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

It absolutely is. Where are you from?

FYI NC is like the 30th state to pass something like this into their state consitution.

Numb1lp:

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.

Marrying family members in not considered "normal" in the mainstream culture, just like homosexual marriage. Yet there are more states that allow first cousins to marry. The only objections people have against gay marriage is that their religion says it's immoral.

Actually you have to assume its more than your bigoted assumption that its religion considering the Christian religion (the major religion in the US) also bans first cousin marriages as immoral.

Kendarik:

Numb1lp:

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.

Marrying family members in not considered "normal" in the mainstream culture, just like homosexual marriage. Yet there are more states that allow first cousins to marry. The only objections people have against gay marriage is that their religion says it's immoral.

Actually you have to assume its more than your bigoted assumption that its religion considering the Christian religion (the major religion in the US) also bans first cousin marriages as immoral.

First off, I don't even understand the first half of your comment.
Second, what about banging your daughter? (Genesis 19:30-38)

Aerodyamic:

Wolverine18:

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.

What in the fuck are you smoking, and is it a prescribed course of medicine, or something you get from a guy in a back alley?

At no point have I supported cousins-fucking or cousins marrying; in fact, if you were bothering to read any of what I posted, I've made it clear that I consider homosexual marriage far less squicky than cousin-fucking, because a pair of queers don't have a higher chance of a genetic flaw being introduced into a new generation.

I'm pretty sure that queers can't breed without outside help.

Oh, personal attacks, that will work lol.

Let's try this again. As you state above, you AGREE with the anti-first cousin laws that have their root in the same books and laws from 3000 years ago that you find objectionable for all the other laws you mention. Do you not realize your predjudice against first cousin marriage comes from that same place?

The7Sins:
3. Your misunderstanding me. I'm saying for people who are gay genetics allow you to be more likely to choose that lifestyle assuming that person's upbringing is normal. However if raised by a gay person a kid may become gay not because of any part of genetics being in play but because of slowly over time being brainwashed (unintentionally mind you) by his or her adoptive parents because of there lifestyle.

Considering that most gay kids come from straight parents, and the gay parents I personally know of have raised straight kids...

Okay, here's the thing: barring for traumatic experiences that permanently alter a person's brain chemistry, the people around you won't decide if you end up liking boys or girls. You hit puberty, and you start feeling attraction according to your sexual orientation. Before that there may be childhood crushes that indicate your orientation.

And "gay" is not a lifestyle. Gay people, just like straight, bi-, pan-, or asexual people, can have any number of lifestyles. Sexuality, sexual orientation, is just a matter of who makes your naughty bits tingle, or who you find yourself daydreaming about.

Is it too late to say "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"? Seriously, for crying out loud why can't they let people do what they want as long as others aren't harmed.

WHO THE HELL IS IT HURTING TO LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY? NO ONE, THAT IS WHO. Not a SINGLE person is harmed emotionally, physically or financially by this occurrence. That is one thing I try to go by, don't hurt yourself or others as you live. That's all, if everyone followed that credo I think we'd have less problems with this bullshit right here.

Aerodyamic:

Wolverine18:

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.

Warning! Warning! Danger, Internet Commentator, Danger!

You just brought up eugenics, not me. Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law, because I won't.

I didn't invoke godwin, I was talking about Eugenics, a subject you did raise when you suggested that cousin marriage were a problem because of close relation genetics. You do understand that the Nazis didn't invent Eugenics right?

The issue of deciding who can marry and breed based on genetics IS EUGENICS.

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

The7Sins:
1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

1. This comment here proves your just trying to troll me. As such I shall not respond to you after this post.
3. Your misunderstanding me. I'm saying for people who are gay genetics allow you to be more likely to choose that lifestyle assuming that person's upbringing is normal. However if raised by a gay person a kid may become gay not because of any part of genetics being in play but because of slowly over time being brainwashed (unintentionally mind you) by his or her adoptive parents because of there lifestyle.

1. Not trying to troll. There's no proof that one can be turned gay from outside influences, nor is there any proof that one can't. There's no proof that unicorns exist, but nor is there any proof that they don't exist. And yet one you wholeheartedly believe, but the other one you seem to find insulting?
3. Okay, let's take another tack. I don't think straight people should adopt, because what if they adopt a gay kid and brainwash him into being straight?

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite". The Government should have never started issuing marriage licenses in the first place as that is clear them putting their hands in to the religious pie. They should have issued Civil Union Licenses from the start as the only purpose for their existence is for the government to get some money in exchange for certain legal rights (not religious ones).

But as I am sure you have noticed all this boils down to is semantics no matter it you call it Marriage or Civil Unions its purely a matter of Law not religion. Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want. This really shouldn't be a matter of debate.

I always wonder if people such as yourself think only their faith should marry. It would only be fitting if marriage is inherently religious any one outside your marriage rejects you religion and thus all it's dogma which by your standards includes marriage.

If this is true do you protest the marriage of heterosexual couples outside your religion? If not you clearly have some issue with homosexuals that extends beyond your religion as they do not have the right to marry even as part of you religion or at least i would assume such, yet you grant a religious rite to any heterosexual couple even if they are not of your religion. If however you do protest such marriages to any one not of your faith than at least the is somewhat reasonable, though likely not correct.

NC didn't ban gay marriage. It was never legal, it's just now even more not legal.

DANEgerous:

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite". The Government should have never started issuing marriage licenses in the first place as that is clear them putting their hands in to the religious pie. They should have issued Civil Union Licenses from the start as the only purpose for their existence is for the government to get some money in exchange for certain legal rights (not religious ones).

But as I am sure you have noticed all this boils down to is semantics no matter it you call it Marriage or Civil Unions its purely a matter of Law not religion. Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want. This really shouldn't be a matter of debate.

I always wonder if people such as yourself think only their faith should marry. It would only be fitting if marriage is inherently religious any one outside your marriage rejects you religion and thus all it's dogma which by your standards includes marriage.

If this is true do you protest the marriage of heterosexual couples outside your religion? If not you clearly have some issue with homosexuals that extends beyond your religion as they do not have the right to marry even as part of you religion or at least i would assume such, yet you grant a religious rite to any heterosexual couple even if they are not of your religion. If however you do protest such marriages to any one not of your faith than at least the is somewhat reasonable, though likely not correct.

I'm sorry, did you not read his second paragraph? Namely, the part where he said "Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want"? Please, master basic reading comprehension before working on personal attacks.

Buretsu:

DANEgerous:

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite". The Government should have never started issuing marriage licenses in the first place as that is clear them putting their hands in to the religious pie. They should have issued Civil Union Licenses from the start as the only purpose for their existence is for the government to get some money in exchange for certain legal rights (not religious ones).

But as I am sure you have noticed all this boils down to is semantics no matter it you call it Marriage or Civil Unions its purely a matter of Law not religion. Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want. This really shouldn't be a matter of debate.

I always wonder if people such as yourself think only their faith should marry. It would only be fitting if marriage is inherently religious any one outside your marriage rejects you religion and thus all it's dogma which by your standards includes marriage.

If this is true do you protest the marriage of heterosexual couples outside your religion? If not you clearly have some issue with homosexuals that extends beyond your religion as they do not have the right to marry even as part of you religion or at least i would assume such, yet you grant a religious rite to any heterosexual couple even if they are not of your religion. If however you do protest such marriages to any one not of your faith than at least the is somewhat reasonable, though likely not correct.

I'm sorry, did you not read his second paragraph? Namely, the part where he said "Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want"? Please, master basic reading comprehension before working on personal attacks.

I'm sorry, did you not read his opening sentence? Namely the part where he states "My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite".?" Please, master basic reading comprehension before working on personal attacks.

He contradicts himself entirely. Marriage is a religious rite the government can not touch it and every one can get married. Mutually exclusive ideas, one requires the governing body to openly allow them to all another demands the governing body not touch it.

DANEgerous:

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite". The Government should have never started issuing marriage licenses in the first place as that is clear them putting their hands in to the religious pie. They should have issued Civil Union Licenses from the start as the only purpose for their existence is for the government to get some money in exchange for certain legal rights (not religious ones).

But as I am sure you have noticed all this boils down to is semantics no matter it you call it Marriage or Civil Unions its purely a matter of Law not religion. Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want. This really shouldn't be a matter of debate.

I always wonder if people such as yourself think only their faith should marry. It would only be fitting if marriage is inherently religious any one outside your marriage rejects you religion and thus all it's dogma which by your standards includes marriage.

If this is true do you protest the marriage of heterosexual couples outside your religion? If not you clearly have some issue with homosexuals that extends beyond your religion as they do not have the right to marry even as part of you religion or at least i would assume such, yet you grant a religious rite to any heterosexual couple even if they are not of your religion. If however you do protest such marriages to any one not of your faith than at least the is somewhat reasonable, though likely not correct.

Ummm I am not religious what so ever. I don't believe there is a Heaven or Hell and I like all people have no clue whither or not there is a "god"

I was commenting on what mainstream Christianity seems to think about the issue. I am sorry if what I wrote was confusing. My main point was, everyone should be able to marry whoever they want Homosexual or Heterosexual.

I personally have no problem with homosexuals or their ability to marry. Everyone is entitled to be happy.

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

The7Sins:
1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

1. This comment here proves your just trying to troll me. As such I shall not respond to you after this post.
3. Your misunderstanding me. I'm saying for people who are gay genetics allow you to be more likely to choose that lifestyle assuming that person's upbringing is normal. However if raised by a gay person a kid may become gay not because of any part of genetics being in play but because of slowly over time being brainwashed (unintentionally mind you) by his or her adoptive parents because of there lifestyle.

1. I believe Buretsu's point wasn't to troll you, but to show you how irrational your claim is. The logic he uses here is the exact same you use to defend your claim. Obviously, there is no way to prove in a '100% science' way that unicorns don't exist, but that doesn't make it true that they exist. Same applies to your theory of 'gays producing gays'. Your reasoning here is as unreasonable as his.
2.

default - an option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified

You're misusing words. Heterosexuality may be the most common sexuality, but that doesn't make it the default. That would be like saying being male is the 'default' gender in a society because most of its population is male. It's simply not true. The majority is x does not make x the default option for everyone.
3. You've restated your view, but you really haven't clarified it. If you admit that genetics define sexuality, then you're contradicting your claim that upbringing can change that. Your explanation as is implies that homosexuals get their sexuality through genetics but straight people don't. (Hence Buretsu's black-white comparison)
4. You initiated a debate with me. If you have a point, please make it. (It's a long thread and judging by this page, you repeat yourself a lot) As it stands now, your main line of argument would seem to suggest that yes, you'd find it preferable that children be left to an unstable home or without a home than be exposed to homosexuality. That's essentially what denying homosexuals the right to adopt amounts to.

Numb1lp:

It absolutely is. Where are you from?

UK. I have some American friends who say some of the Redneck states consist of Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana... all the ones I hear all the time. Obviously I can only take their word for it.
I never heard them mention NC, so this took me by surprise.

Who.

Fucking.

Cares.

We get it, people don't like gay marriage because it isn't going along with the so-called "sanctity" of marriage. Who the hell cares?

I certainly don't. I could care less whether or not a priest ordains the fact that I am wedded to my boyfriend. I love him, I know I do, and he knows I do. For me, that's enough.

Buretsu:
You cannot cause or force someone to be gay if they're not, whether by intent or 'unintentionally'. Hell, I'm not sure how anyone can think they can accidentally turn someone gay. Do you think that, by being homosexual, you emit some sort of gay-diation, or possible release gay spores into the air?

You should talk to the last 3 girls I slept with; they don't do guys anymore so I challenge your comment about not being able to force someone to turn gay.

Now on a more serious note; I wish our country would fucking act like one. The "U" in "USA" stands for "United," the fact that North Carolina won't even acknowledge a contract from another state is bull-shit. However it's not just with this; many states refuse to accept paperwork from another state for the most asinine reasons. I feel bad for anyone who may have traveled across country to get "LEGALLY MARRIED" and then have your state officials refuse to acknowledge it. We're the Fucking United States of America; we share the same currency, the same military, the same blood-sucking fuckwit politicians, so let's act like it.

EeveeElectro:

Numb1lp:

It absolutely is. Where are you from?

UK. I have some American friends who say some of the Redneck states consist of Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana... all the ones I hear all the time. Obviously I can only take their word for it.
I never heard them mention NC, so this took me by surprise.

Kentucky is about the most northern state you'll find in what's considered "Redneck." Most states in Appalachia all the way to the deep south is considered redneck; head west to Texas and some of Oklahoma.

So roughly; Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma.

Now keep in mind redneck is almost like a different life-form; you have several distinct sub-species of redneck and most of them are regional... practically all of them love shooting guns though.

VonKlaw:

Strazdas:
Organised religion, stopping the humanity progress since the dawn of recorded history

Fixed that for ya. :P

You spelled Organized incorrectly, and what does this even mean? Organized religion is a cornerstone of human civilization. Sure I could stand to see Christianity go extinct, but to say organized religion in it's entirety is a bad thing is just strait up ignorant.

Devoneaux:

VonKlaw:

Strazdas:
Organised religion, stopping the humanity progress since the dawn of recorded history

Fixed that for ya. :P

You spelled Organized incorrectly, and what does this even mean? Organized religion is a cornerstone of human civilization. Sure I could stand to see Christianity go extinct, but to say organized religion in it's entirety is a bad thing is just strait up ignorant.

Not American, either organised or organized is acceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29).

Pendantic arguements aside, I can't think of any other "cornerstones of human civilization" that have created a massive "us and them" mentality (bar capitalism perhaps), led to an almost uncountable number of wars (or been used as a justification for war) or prevented scientific/technological progress at every turn ("The world is round you say? Heresy."). The fact that you seem to think that Christianity is more to blame than any of the other "my boss is better than your boss" followings is pretty laughable to boot.

What exactly -has- organiz(/s)ed relgion actually given us that we wouldn't have anyway?

So throughout this debate people try to use if it

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

The7Sins:
1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

3. Your misunderstanding me. I'm saying for people who are gay genetics allow you to be more likely to choose that lifestyle assuming that person's upbringing is normal. However if raised by a gay person a kid may become gay not because of any part of genetics being in play but because of slowly over time being brainwashed (unintentionally mind you) by his or her adoptive parents because of there lifestyle.

This is the problem though, if gay parents inadvertently brainwash kids to be gay then it should be assumed straight parents inadvertently brainwash their kids to be straight. Then the part with you accepting genetics as a roll is just an increase to confusion. More or less it sort of boils down to this being what people here you say. "I acknowledge genetics as a roll as there appears to be a correlation, but I also think environmental factors use inadvertent Voodoo to change people's sexuality" this being not so much at people (or at least me) not thinking you are wrong or offensive as much as just massively unclear.

This thread reminds me of a scene from Red Dead UN. John goes into a shop and the shop keeper explains that the plague is the catholic british homosexuals fault. John then asks if the guy has seen any catholic british homosexuals, the shop keeper says no.

Escapists I'm against this as much as you guys are, but don't generalize the south, the republicans, and the christians because of some hyper conservative few. Maybe if you guys actually met some of the people in the south then you guys wouldn't be this biased.

OP: I really am sad that America has not legalized gay marriage yet.

Well, fuck you North Carolina.

Wolverine18:
Let's try this again. As you state above, you AGREE with the anti-first cousin laws that have their root in the same books and laws from 3000 years ago that you find objectionable for all the other laws you mention. Do you not realize your predjudice against first cousin marriage comes from that same place?

He said that he was against marrying cousins which the bible says is okay. Under his "things the bible says is cool" heading he has put "marrying your cousin".

The layout is a little messy. I had to read it twice before I understood that the "bible is for" and "bible is against" were below his headings, not above. You've probably made the same mistake?

I feel sorry for these Giraffes...Now they can never go to a Zoo In Carolina =\

(I know it's about a marriage, meant to be a joke before i get a shit storm hitting the fan)

OT: Meh, I'm in England so it doesn't affect me, but damn i feel sorry for any gay/bi People who live in Carolina.

Buretsu:
1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

1. And? If science can neither prove that something exists, nor the opposite, one is free to believe what he wants. What appears more logic to the certain person. He can believe that homosexuals raise homosexual children and that unicorns do not exist at the same time.
I'd better stop arguing about that point. The only outcome is that either one of you ends up like that:
"I have an opinion that's not proven. You have an opinion that's not proven. Your opinion is not mine and therefore you must be dumb and I'm right." (Happens very often that people cannot accept other peoples opinions)

2. Fully agree with you. This, however, has many factors that play a role and not everyone is "the society's fault".

3. I don't think your comparison is a good one. I won't start to argue with you about this, as it'll most likely boil down to the question if homosexuals stay homosexuals forever. The skin color is something physical, while homosexuality is something psychical. Are the psychical properties of a human being "set in stone"? Arguing about this can only end like point 1.

VonKlaw:

Devoneaux:

VonKlaw:

Fixed that for ya. :P

You spelled Organized incorrectly, and what does this even mean? Organized religion is a cornerstone of human civilization. Sure I could stand to see Christianity go extinct, but to say organized religion in it's entirety is a bad thing is just strait up ignorant.

Not American, either organised or organized is acceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize_.28-isation.2C_-ization.29).

Pendantic arguements aside, I can't think of any other "cornerstones of human civilization" that have created a massive "us and them" mentality (bar capitalism perhaps), led to an almost uncountable number of wars (or been used as a justification for war) or prevented scientific/technological progress at every turn ("The world is round you say? Heresy."). The fact that you seem to think that Christianity is more to blame than any of the other "my boss is better than your boss" followings is pretty laughable to boot.

What exactly -has- organiz(/s)ed relgion actually given us that we wouldn't have anyway?

"Them versus Us" is inherent to the human psyche. This isn't something that religion created. That's a pretty ignorant assertion sir. While on the subject, Religion doesn't need to exist for us to find a reason to kill each other (Side note, more people died in both world wars than in the combination of all twelve crusades, which I assume is what you're mostly referring to). Organized religion is not a cause of strife, it's a reinforcement to these problems inherent in humankind.

I am sick and tired of explaining the obvious answer than as human beings we should all be given the right to do as we wish as long as it doesn't harm ourselves or others, but meh I'm bored with that. So here is this:

Why would anyone whose gay want to live in North Carolina anyway?

The straights are just protecting the gays from the misery they feel every day being married.

Fine lets ban gays from getting married. Clearly in the eyes of God marriage is between a Man and a Woman. In fact, since marriage is seen in the eyes of God ALL marriages should no longer be recognized by the government as it is a religious ceremony and we can not tread on the first amendment of "separation of church and state".

Fear and ignorance are two of the most dangerous things in the world and the church is filled with them. It is any wonder that the church is having problems bring generations closer to my own age into the religion. Its even sadder when many of these people believe in God and would require very little push to join other than simple acceptance of everyone.

Anyone feel free to add to it. I'm done trying to defend the argument.

otakon17:
Is it too late to say "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"? Seriously, for crying out loud why can't they let people do what they want as long as others aren't harmed.

WHO THE HELL IS IT HURTING TO LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY? NO ONE, THAT IS WHO. Not a SINGLE person is harmed emotionally, physically or financially by this occurrence. That is one thing I try to go by, don't hurt yourself or others as you live. That's all, if everyone followed that credo I think we'd have less problems with this bullshit right here.

Hurrah! Someone I completely agree with here!

Seriously, I think people are blowing this marriage issue completely out of the water. Yeah, it's not ethical. You know what else wasn't ethical?

Slavery
Most Wars
Business Practices in the 1890s
Drug Trafficking
Authoritarian Dictatorships
Racist Bigotry
Child Labor

Guess which one of the above we, as a nation, have either done, supported, or failed to treat.

(I'll give you a hint: ALL OF THEM.)

Unless you're giving me a viable reason why Gay Marriage is going to cause this world to collapse into a black hole by December 21, 2012, let me state, for the record, that I don't care. I've stopped caring about whether or not a new practice we introduce is 'ethical' because, and let's be honest, ethics and morality went sailing off a cliff the minute we learned that gunpowder shoots lead into other people.

Unless it's causing direct harm to someone, somewhere, then I really don't see the problem here.

So, America... You like your declaration of independance right?
The impression that you give the world is that it's like the most important document to all those who consider themselves free...
If you ignore the sexism of the time and assume that by men (gender) we can infer Man (Human race)...
Please tell me roughly what percentage of men are created equal?

Bla bla bla, you see where I'm going. Life, liberty and all that jazz.

zehydra:
It's 1 state out of 50. It's nothing to get worried about (unless you live in North Carolina).

Personally, I'm all for letting people vote how they want. If the people of NC vote to ban gay marriage, so be it. I'm not a resident of NC so it's not my call.

That being said, I still think they made a bad choice here.

Yeah I agree. The gay people should move to where they will be allowed to live as they wish if possible, but that shouldn't be necessary. Thank Gods I never intend to visit the US (no offence to Americans, your country just doesn't interest me that much and costs too much to get to compared to somewhere awesome like Finland)

EDIT: Upon reading the article there are apparently 30 states with similar bans. Also this quote:

"I know that some people may argue that the Bible may not necessarily be applicable, or it should not be applicable, on such policy matters. But even looking at nature itself, procreation is impossible without a man and a woman. And because of those things, I think it is important that the state of North Carolina's laws are compatible with the laws of nature but, more importantly, with the laws of God."

If I am correct a number of different kinds of mollusc a hermaphrodites and reproduce just fine without binary gender.

Also God > nature?

I shall go no further on this matter as my policy is not to argue over the obvious.

Kiju:
Who.

Fucking.

Cares.

We get it, people don't like gay marriage because it isn't going along with the so-called "sanctity" of marriage. Who the hell cares?

I certainly don't. I could care less whether or not a priest ordains the fact that I am wedded to my boyfriend. I love him, I know I do, and he knows I do. For me, that's enough.

And for some people it isn't. Some people like a piece of paper. Some people don't like being discriminated against in any way, and some people don't like to see others being discriminated against. Think of these people, not just yourself.

Hallvard Dovakiin:
Well, fuck you North Carolina.

A blunt response, to be sure.

But apt!

You sir can have 5 internets! :D

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked