CM156:

Lilani:
You are correct that people do tend to lean toward the candidate they think would be best to have a drink with, but it also should be said about the 2008 election that NEVER since the 2-term limit has been instated has one party won the Presidential race for three terms in a row.

Reagan-Bush (the first one, that is)

OT: I question how SCOTUS would decide on this. I have no doubt about the liberal wing of the court, but I could see Thomas favoring equal rights.

Really? Huh, I swear I remember hearing during the 2008 election season nobody had ever done it before. Never mind, then.

Lilani:

CM156:

Lilani:
You are correct that people do tend to lean toward the candidate they think would be best to have a drink with, but it also should be said about the 2008 election that NEVER since the 2-term limit has been instated has one party won the Presidential race for three terms in a row.

Reagan-Bush (the first one, that is)

OT: I question how SCOTUS would decide on this. I have no doubt about the liberal wing of the court, but I could see Thomas favoring equal rights.

Really? Huh, I swear I remember hearing during the 2008 election season nobody had ever done it before. Never mind, then.

To be fair, I heard that very same thing at the time. It was bandied around quite a bit, so I'm not at all shocked.

Well, glad we got that cleared up. Who's up for ice cream?

CM156:
To be fair, I heard that very same thing at the time. It was bandied around quite a bit, so I'm not at all shocked.

Well, glad we got that cleared up. Who's up for ice cream?

God I could use some, as I sit here writing posts in between writing a short paper I'm supposed to turn in with a test tomorrow morning that I haven't studied for (and also get ready to compile and render an animation I need to finish before going to bed).

Lilani:

CM156:
To be fair, I heard that very same thing at the time. It was bandied around quite a bit, so I'm not at all shocked.

Well, glad we got that cleared up. Who's up for ice cream?

God I could use some, as I sit here writing posts in between writing a short paper I'm supposed to turn in with a test tomorrow morning that I haven't studied for (and also get ready to compile and render an animation I need to finish before going to bed).

maybe you should do what JoJo did and request a suspension? just to prevent the distraction.

Zaleznikel:

Not targeting to target you specifically, but I still have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't 1) appeal to a certain group's morality, 2) vague, unfalsifiable fears of society being destroyed, or 3) have any logic/basis in the first place.

Until I hear one, I will not consider "antigay views" as a valid point of view, keyword: valid.

You're welcome to offer me one, by the way. I always ask people, but I never get anything different.

Here is your answer. You may not agree with it. But it is not based on religion, It is not fear of moral destruction, and it is based in logic.

So I have given you what you asked for. Know that it is not my position. It is nothing more than providing you what you asked for. Your going to feel free to refute it, but it is what it is. You will do with this information what you will, just like you will in your own subjective perspective deem if these statements are "valid" or not. So you got what you wanted, now its up to you if you can see clear to accept those as valid reasons or continue dismissing them. I have no control over what you will view as valid or not.

I dont have a horse in this race, so I have no real position on it. As such I am not going to get involved with the topic beyond what I have said. When I encounter this topic this is typically the position I take because I almost always see someone ask for the position that is not based in Religion, Morality, or Ickky. and I have provided it and honestly if I wished I could provide more, but I figure this covers all that needs to be said on it.

Also before anyone snaps to assumption I am NOT a republican, Nor am I a democrat, or libertarian. No one party holds exclusivity good ideas and as such it would be silly for anyone to identify with any party, but ehh, such is the way of modern politics. I simply do not partake outside of registering to vote and then electing not to vote. My abscent percentage is me using my voice to say, I would participate in the government if there was a structure that was not based on lies and corruption.

Seekster:

The government needs a good basis to remove a right it does not need one to not do anything.

A century ago women didn't have the right to vote. By your logic this and the various laws against women voting were just fine and dandy.

And North Carolina was supposed to be the saner of the two.

I do wonder at which generation the religious fervor in the South will fade. Probably not in my lifetime.

These people, uck, these disgusting backwards people.

They'll keep fighting for Shari Amerka, but they-will-fail.

These are the same types of people that tried to perma-ban mixed-race marriages between the 'mud races' and the whites because of their foolish ways.
-Look where it got them.

Backwards bigots, the lot of 'em.
I have nothing but hate, contempt, and a desire for better birth control to be invented so it can be used on these people.

And, the weirdest part?
I ain't even gay.

viranimus:

Cramming it down everyone's 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

No. Your logic here is insane. Forcing people to change their nationality or move away because their home is being given to another country is not the same as giving people the right to do something that doesn't affect you. Recognizing marriage between same sex partners is giving everyone more freedoms and rights. If you don't want to get married to another guy/girl you don't and these new rights won't affect you at all. You won't be forced to marry another guy or attend homosexual wedding ceremonies.

viranimus:

Taking what away?PHA+QW5kIHRoYXQgaXMgd2hhdCBpdCBpcy4gU3BlY2lhbCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uLiBCZWNhdXNlIGhvbW9zZXh1YWxzIGFscmVhZHkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBlcXVhbCByaWdodCB0byBtYXJyeSBhcyBhbnkgb25lIGVsc2Ugb24gdHdvIHNlcGFyYXRlIGxldmVscy4gT24gYSBub24gc3RhdGUgcmVjb2duaXplZCBsZXZlbCB0aGVyZSBpcyBub3RoaW5nIHN0b3BwaW5nIHBlb3BsZSBmcm9tIGNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgdG8gYmUgbWFycmllZC4gT24gYSBzdGF0ZSByZWNvZ25pemVkIGxldmVsIGhvbW9zZXh1YWxzIGFyZSBlcXVhbGx5IGVudGl0bGVkIHRvIG1hcnJ5IG9wcG9zaXRlIHNleCBwYXJ0bmVycyBqdXN0IGFzIGhldGVyb3NleHVhbHMgYXJlLiBTbyBhbGxvd2luZyBzYW1lIHNleCBtYXJyaWFnZXMgaXMgY3JlYXRpbmcgYSBuZXcgcHJlY2VkZW50LjwvcD4=

Uh? Right... If we allowed same sex marriage everyone would also have the right to marry someone of the same sex. If you, as a heterosexual person, doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex, you don't. Just like homosexuals today doesn't marry someone of the other sex. What is being denied homosexuals is the right to marry the person they love and want to spend their life with, a right that most heterosexual people take for granted.

viranimus:

GagaismPHA+VGhlbiB0aGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgImJvcm4gdGhpcyB3YXkiIGFyZ3VtZW50LiBXaGljaCBhbHdheXMgZmFsbHMgZmxhdCBiZWNhdXNlIHJlcGVhdGVkbHkgZXZlcnkgY2hpbGQgcHN5Y2hvbG9naXN0IG9mIG5vdGUgc2F5cyB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZywgdGhhdCBjaGlsZHJlbiBkbyBub3Qgc3RhcnQgZGV2ZWxvcGluZyB0aGVpciBzZXh1YWwgaWRlbnRpdHkgdW50aWwgdGhyZWUgeWVhcnMgb2xkIGF0IHRoZSBlYXJsaWVzdC4gU28gd2hpbGUgeW91IG1pZ2h0IGFzIHdlbGwgc2F5IHlvdXIgYm9ybiB0aGlzIHdheSwgeW91ciBzdGlsbCBub3QgYm9ybiBnYXkgYW5kIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIGNvbmNsdXNpdmUgZXZpZGVuY2UgWUVUIG9mIGEgImdheSBnZW5lIiBhcyB5b3VyIG9yaWVudGF0aW9uIGlzIHRoZSBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCBvZiBhIG15cmlhZCBvZiBmYWN0b3JzIGluY2x1ZGluZyBoZXJlZGl0eSwgZW52aXJvbm1lbnQsIGJyYWluIHN0cnVjdHVyZSwgaG9ybW9uZSBsZXZlbHMsIGV0Yy48L3A+

And yet, scientists have performed research indicating there's a genetic part to homosexuality. Even if it ain't the only part, it can't be ignored that people with GLBTQ-orientations might not have had a "choice" anymore then straight people do. Or maybe we ought to deride people with a genetic disposition towards obesity or heart failure for not being pro-active enough if they get fat or suffer a heart attach?

Zaleznikel:

Seekster:

Only it doesnt discriminate against gay people.

The government needs a good basis to remove a right it does not need one to not do anything

In what way? It's clear that we see this in different ways, so I'll explain mine.

Legal definition marriage is man and woman, which means that it is an institution only truly accessible to heterosexuals. It creates a situation where heterosexual relationships are granted more power than homosexual relationships. Therein lies the discrimination.

You may say "gay people can get married, just to a person of the opposite sex." To that, I say that that is the government essentially forcing heterosexuality on gay people who want to attain that same level of power. It takes power away from gay people.

What is "power?" In this case, it can be many things: rights and benefits, social standing, that subjective feeling of well-being that people might get from being married. It's any number of things.

I also don't buy your second line, I don't think it's a one-way street. The government needs a good basis to remove a right, sure. They also need a good basis to continue to deny a right if people petition for it. I guess a case may be dropped for lack of a federal question, in some cases, I'll concede that. But I don't think that an issue this high-profile will just be dropped and expected to be forgotten about. The government is going to have to defend their views, they can't expect "this is the way it's always been, so this is the way it will always be" to fly as a real argument.

Let me address your second point first. They are not denying a right they are simply not extending a right. The fact is there is no inherent human right to have your union recognized as a marriage.

As for the first part, yes it is also discriminatory against polygamist and there are other laws outside of the definition that discriminate against minors. That doesnt mean polygamists or minors are having their rights violated, same deal with homosexuals. You see the important thing to not from a legal aspect is that even though its only in the last half-century marriage has been legally defined in the United States, the reason is because there was never a need to define marriage before because it was clear to everyone that marriage was between a man and a woman. This is based on tradition not on an effort to discriminate against homosexuals. Its not like the inter-racial marriage bans which were clearly cooked up simply to oppress minorities. If you read the Loving v Virginia case you will see this is brought up.

Tanis:
These people, uck, these disgusting backwards people.

They'll keep fighting for Shari Amerka, but they-will-fail.

These are the same types of people that tried to perma-ban mixed-race marriages between the 'mud races' and the whites because of their foolish ways.
-Look where it got them.

Backwards bigots, the lot of 'em.
I have nothing but hate, contempt, and a desire for better birth control to be invented so it can be used on these people.

And, the weirdest part?
I ain't even gay.

Yeah you are just not in the homosexual or happy way.

What on Earth makes you think that these people are bigots? In fact come to think of it didnt North Carolina vote for Obama last time?

evilneko:

Seekster:

The government needs a good basis to remove a right it does not need one to not do anything.

A century ago women didn't have the right to vote. By your logic this and the various laws against women voting were just fine and dandy.

Legally until voting rights were extended to women they were. Now I'm glad we let women vote now but the country is allowed to say who can vote. For example it used to not allow 18 year olds to vote and it still requires you to be at least 18 to vote. Also it requires you to be a citizen of the country you are voting in.

As the news of this amendment's passing comes out, I find myself with very conflicted feelings. I'm a North Carolinian, a conservative and a Christian, but I also voted against this amendment. Why? Because I believe it goes too far.

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of the church and the right of all religious institutes to chose who they're willing to marry and who they aren't. If they say they won't provide marriage services to someone, I believe that's their right, as religious organization that's not beholden to any secular government.

However, I think that homosexuals have the right to equal protection and treatment under the law. I see no reason why they can't be allowed a civil union provided by a justice of the peace; it's society recognizing their commitment to one another and giving them the rights they want each other to have as spouses.

Now that this amendment is passed, I feel bad that this amendment that, if I understand it correctly, denies homosexual couples in my state a civil union has come to pass. But at the same time, I can't help but feel somewhat glad that at least the rights of my church and others in my state are being protected. Even so, I think this amendment took it a step too far.

This issue and this vote has really caused me anxiety. My church supports the amendment, but I can't bring myself to do so as well. I think homosexuals should have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else, so long as the rights and freedoms of religious organizations are also respected. Nobody should have the right to force a church, synagogue or any other institute to marry them. But a government recognizing a pair of consenting adults as a couple and providing them with the rights and privileges that comes with doesn't sound like that much to ask.

In the end, I chose not to support this amendment because I would have preferred to keep hashing it out and leave it open to debate than pass something that essentially forces some people's beliefs on everyone else. I think it comes dangerously close to state-sanctioned religion, which I can't support, even if it's my own religion.

So now we have this amendment in place, so we're going to have to live with it for a while. Personally, I'd advise folks to have patience; sooner or later, I think moderation will win out and we'll have another amendment to allow homosexual civil unions. But I just hope and pray that's as far as we're asked to go. Because if anyone asks for more than that, if people start demanding churches submit to the government, that is where I'm going to put my foot down. And I don't think I'm going to be alone.

My experiences with North Carolina made me think that this was inevitable. Too many giant-ass churches, too many people that start saying "Merry Christmas" before Thanksgiving because the lib'ruls are trying to steal their Bibles and replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" was step 99 in the 100-point plan, and just too damn many people that can't stop thinking about men fucking each other.

Mike Fang:
Now, as a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of the church and the right of all religious institutes to chose who they're willing to marry and who they aren't. If they say they won't provide marriage services to someone, I believe that's their right, as religious organization that's not beholden to any secular government.

I'm a bit confused by your argument here. No advocates of gay marriage (at least none that I know of) want to force churches to marry people. When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about civil marriage: the legal, government-defined contract between two individuals that can be granted by either a religious leader or a justice of the peace. Allowing gay civil marriages doesn't necessarily affect churches in any way other than allowing them to perform gay marriages if they want to.

OT: I think the law's despicable. Nobody's rights are being violated by allowing gay marriage and it's not an unnecessary hassle to implement. Given the validity of what I said above, there's really no argument against gay marriage other than bigotry. In America, land of the free, people shouldn't be allowed to dictate how others live their lives.

Mike Fang:
As the news of this amendment's passing comes out, I find myself with very conflicted feelings. I'm a North Carolinian, a conservative and a Christian, but I also voted against this amendment. Why? Because I believe it goes too far.

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of the church and the right of all religious institutes to chose who they're willing to marry and who they aren't. If they say they won't provide marriage services to someone, I believe that's their right, as religious organization that's not beholden to any secular government.

However, I think that homosexuals have the right to equal protection and treatment under the law. I see no reason why they can't be allowed a civil union provided by a justice of the peace; it's society recognizing their commitment to one another and giving them the rights they want each other to have as spouses.

Now that this amendment is passed, I feel bad that this amendment that, if I understand it correctly, denies homosexual couples in my state a civil union has come to pass. But at the same time, I can't help but feel somewhat glad that at least the rights of my church and others in my state are being protected. Even so, I think this amendment took it a step too far.

This issue and this vote has really caused me anxiety. My church supports the amendment, but I can't bring myself to do so as well. I think homosexuals should have the same rights and freedoms as anyone else, so long as the rights and freedoms of religious organizations are also respected. Nobody should have the right to force a church, synagogue or any other institute to marry them. But a government recognizing a pair of consenting adults as a couple and providing them with the rights and privileges that comes with doesn't sound like that much to ask.

In the end, I chose not to support this amendment because I would have preferred to keep hashing it out and leave it open to debate than pass something that essentially forces some people's beliefs on everyone else. I think it comes dangerously close to state-sanctioned religion, which I can't support, even if it's my own religion.

So now we have this amendment in place, so we're going to have to live with it for a while. Personally, I'd advise folks to have patience; sooner or later, I think moderation will win out and we'll have another amendment to allow homosexual civil unions. But I just hope and pray that's as far as we're asked to go. Because if anyone asks for more than that, if people start demanding churches submit to the government, that is where I'm going to put my foot down. And I don't think I'm going to be alone.

Yes I too have my misgivings about the language of the amendment, I am anxious to see how its applied. If its just definition of marriage thats fine but the language is rather ambiguous.

If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

Wait, what!? It's not a requirement for citizens to have equal rights? Well shit, I guess I've been fooled.

TheDarkEricDraven:

Xan Krieger:
It passed
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/amendment-one-decision-day-has-arrived/nNygw/

Thoughts?

Son of a fucking godsdamn bitch. Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

Smart move, have a bunch of northern yanks go down south and start telling them how their state laws should be with guns in their faces. Yeah I can't see that going the wrong way at all. Why don't you call your group Sherman while your at it. /sarcasm.

Seekster:

hardlymotivated:

Seekster:

What about the legislation is in anyway bigoted?

Also get your facts straight, no one can legally ban two guys or two girls from getting married. The amendment defines what marriage will be in legal terms in North Carolina. If its not that then the state will not recognize it as a marriage. Its not like interracial marriage bans where you could actually be arrested if you were caught living as a married couple.

Of course the bigots are going to keep calling the opposition bigots in an attempt to demonize and discredit them because thats apparently how "progressive" social ideology works, be tolerant of all ideas that agree with you and intolerant of all other viewpoints.

It denies various rights and benefits to citizens based wholly on their sexual preference. Since the rights didn't exist for NC same-sex couples in the first place, the money and effort put towards the amendment was a giant "fuck you" to the same-sex community. The most prominent arguments for the amendment were fundamentalist Christian in nature, i.e., irrelevant in a country with an ostensibly secular legislative system. This is sectarianism at its finest and this is anti-gay bigotry, whether you choose to admit it or not.

It denies rights and benefits based on marriage status not on sexual preference.

A marriage being between one man and one woman is hardly FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity, its more like mainstream Christianity but I digress. As I have said before when it comes to voting you can vote for any reason and your vote counts just as much as anyone elses.

I don't think you know what sectarianism means...

It is plainly both. Marriage status (along with civil union status) is being denied to those with a different sexual preference.

Voting away people's rights is not the hallmark of a civilized society. I'd rather the US government just had done with it and determined that civil union status must be upheld for all couples across the country, but then I suppose I'm lucky because, fortunately, I'm not American.

By the way, the awful logic of your "my intolerant bilge isn't being treated with tolerance" argument is like saying "Rosa Parks was a bigot for refusing to tolerate the point of view that she should give up her seat".

Sectarianism = "a narrow-minded adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination". Sounds like a bang on definition for the actions of those who supported the amendment.

With all this said, your bigotry has been obvious since you made it clear in another topic a while ago that you think homosexuality is "socially undesirable" (here). I don't know why you I didn't stick you on my ignore list for that then, but I might as well do it now.

Cue you strutting around declaring victory in T-minus...

Godavari:

I'm a bit confused by your argument here. No advocates of gay marriage (at least none that I know of) want to force churches to marry people. When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about civil marriage: the legal, government-defined contract between two individuals that can be granted by either a religious leader or a justice of the peace. Allowing gay civil marriages doesn't necessarily affect churches in any way other than allowing them to perform gay marriages if they want to.

The key there is that no advocates -that you know of- want to force churches to marry people. It's my understanding there are some that do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation and I think whatever the case, there should be something on paper guaranteeing the protection of the rights of both religious institutes -and- homosexuals.

Helmholtz Watson:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Xan Krieger:
It passed
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/amendment-one-decision-day-has-arrived/nNygw/

Thoughts?

Son of a fucking godsdamn bitch. Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

Smart move, have a bunch of northern yanks go down south and start telling them how their state laws should be with guns in their faces. Yeah I can't see that going the wrong way at all. Why don't you call your group Sherman while your at it. /sarcasm.

Fuuuuuck, I argued against going to a civil war over this in another thread. Shit. Well, fuck it, let's do the war.

DarkishFriend:

If a state wishes to go further and expand marriage to include same-sex couples, that is up to each state, it is not a requirement for rights to be equal.

Wait, what!? It's not a requirement for citizens to have equal rights? Well shit, I guess I've been fooled.

Of course it is a requirement for citizens to have equal rights before the law. There is no such right to have the government recognize your union as a marriage regardless of what the legal definition of marriage is. That is why the debate over marriage is not about equal rights unless of course we are talking about how even gay couples with state marriage licenses don't get federal benefits like they should.

Helmholtz Watson:

TheDarkEricDraven:

Xan Krieger:
It passed
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/amendment-one-decision-day-has-arrived/nNygw/

Thoughts?

Son of a fucking godsdamn bitch. Okay, everyone. Get your guns. We're going to North Carolina.

Smart move, have a bunch of northern yanks go down south and start telling them how their state laws should be with guns in their faces. Yeah I can't see that going the wrong way at all. Why don't you call your group Sherman while your at it. /sarcasm.

Yeah I thought about that too...

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
of course we are talking about how even gay couples with state marriage licenses don't get federal benefits like they should.

Then by definition they do not have equal rights before the law. Why are we leaving that up to the states again?

I ask again, are you really so weak that your marriage is threatened by giving that same right to gays?

Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

No they don't have their equal and due rights before the law, that is correct. We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
of course we are talking about how even gay couples with state marriage licenses don't get federal benefits like they should.

Then by definition they do not have equal rights before the law. Why are we leaving that up to the states again?

I ask again, are you really so weak that your marriage is threatened by giving that same right to gays?

Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

No they don't have their equal and due rights before the law, that is correct. We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

El Danny:

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Then by definition they do not have equal rights before the law. Why are we leaving that up to the states again?

I ask again, are you really so weak that your marriage is threatened by giving that same right to gays?

Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

No they don't have their equal and due rights before the law, that is correct. We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

Seekster:

El Danny:

Seekster:

Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

No they don't have their equal and due rights before the law, that is correct. We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

I prefer this analogy:

I do not approve of the Republican 'lifestyle'. As such I want to pass a law that defines marriage as the union between two non-Republicans. I am not being unfair since the Republicans can simply vote for non-Republican candidates and thus qualify as non-Republicans and get married.

Nielas:

Seekster:

El Danny:

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

I prefer this analogy:

I do not approve of the Republican 'lifestyle'. As such I want to pass a law that defines marriage as the union between two non-Republicans. I am not being unfair since the Republicans can simply vote for non-Republican candidates and thus qualify as non-Republicans and get married.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, being a Republican is. Your analogy doesnt work.

Mike Fang:

Godavari:

I'm a bit confused by your argument here. No advocates of gay marriage (at least none that I know of) want to force churches to marry people. When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about civil marriage: the legal, government-defined contract between two individuals that can be granted by either a religious leader or a justice of the peace. Allowing gay civil marriages doesn't necessarily affect churches in any way other than allowing them to perform gay marriages if they want to.

The key there is that no advocates -that you know of- want to force churches to marry people. It's my understanding there are some that do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation and I think whatever the case, there should be something on paper guaranteeing the protection of the rights of both religious institutes -and- homosexuals.

Well I certainly hope that whenever a bill concerning gay marriage comes up you'll consider whether or not the language forces churches to perform the marriage. Because I'd hate to have people's rights denied because a few voters had misconceptions about what the law would actually do.

Seekster:

Nielas:

Seekster:
To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

I prefer this analogy:

I do not approve of the Republican 'lifestyle'. As such I want to pass a law that defines marriage as the union between two non-Republicans. I am not being unfair since the Republicans can simply vote for non-Republican candidates and thus qualify as non-Republicans and get married.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, being a Republican is. Your analogy doesnt work.

Wow, you really picked that out to attempt to discredit his analogy? The fact that homosexuality isn't a choice kind of makes that analogy apply even more. If voting Republican wasn't a choice, banning Republicans from getting married would be even more despicable.

Godavari:

Mike Fang:

Godavari:

I'm a bit confused by your argument here. No advocates of gay marriage (at least none that I know of) want to force churches to marry people. When we're talking about gay marriage, we're talking about civil marriage: the legal, government-defined contract between two individuals that can be granted by either a religious leader or a justice of the peace. Allowing gay civil marriages doesn't necessarily affect churches in any way other than allowing them to perform gay marriages if they want to.

The key there is that no advocates -that you know of- want to force churches to marry people. It's my understanding there are some that do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation and I think whatever the case, there should be something on paper guaranteeing the protection of the rights of both religious institutes -and- homosexuals.

Well I certainly hope that whenever a bill concerning gay marriage comes up you'll consider whether or not the language forces churches to perform the marriage. Because I'd hate to have people's rights denied because a few voters had misconceptions about what the law would actually do.

Seekster:

Nielas:

I prefer this analogy:

I do not approve of the Republican 'lifestyle'. As such I want to pass a law that defines marriage as the union between two non-Republicans. I am not being unfair since the Republicans can simply vote for non-Republican candidates and thus qualify as non-Republicans and get married.

Homosexuality isnt a choice, being a Republican is. Your analogy doesnt work.

Wow, you really picked that out to attempt to discredit his analogy? The fact that homosexuality isn't a choice kind of makes that analogy apply even more. If voting Republican wasn't a choice, banning Republicans from getting married would be even more despicable.

I can pick out other things to discredit his weak analogy if you like? I also don't see how what you said changes anything.

In other news Obama is now official pro same-sex marriage. Glad he finally stopped trying to have it both ways.

Mike Fang:
Because if anyone asks for more than that, if people start demanding churches submit to the government, that is where I'm going to put my foot down. And I don't think I'm going to be alone.

What about making it llegal for churches that DO what to marry gay people to have the right to MARRY them? Isnt it ALREADY government demanding churches to submit by telling them they CANNOT marry gays no matter if they want to or not? Put your foot down then! Dont let the government force churches that WANT to marry gays NOT to marry them! Cant you see how this works both ways around?

From what youve said it sounds like you want each church to have a choice on who it can marry. Thats what the marriage laws in every state so far DO. You dont HAVE to marry anyone. But you can if you want. And from what youve said youd be strongly opposed to the state telling a church what it can and cant do, such as marry two gay people. Why arnt you outraged? Where is this rightous fury you apparently hold. And from the "i dont think im going to be alone" where are the others! The state is denying churches the right to marry individuals that they want to! You think thats wrong!

There are no advocates of forcing homophobic churches to marry gay people. This view is stupid and has no supporters. People just want to give the church freedom to choose. Its actively giving the church rights. You cant "force" a church to marry two people. But you can let them if they want to. Why would you deny your church rights?

Seekster:

In other news Obama is now official pro same-sex marriage. Glad he finally stopped trying to have it both ways.

I actually want you to address this point. By accepting the government can force churches that want to marry gay people to not marry them arent you effectively telling the government it can control the church and religion? Surely a better option would be to grant any church the power to do whatever the hell it pleases.

Seekster:

El Danny:

Seekster:

Nice try but Im not married and currently have no plans in my life to get married. Even if I was though that line of argument in the last part of your post is flawed.

No they don't have their equal and due rights before the law, that is correct. We both know that what this topic is about isnt equal rights, its about getting angry at a state for exercising its right to define marriage in legal terms and doing so in a way that is perfectly legal and fair.

I say again, there are equal rights for homosexuals which I support and then there is a separate distracting issue about same-sex marriage which does little to nothing to advance equal rights for homosexuals.

It's not fair, you're offering something to heterosexual couples and denying that to same-sex couples.

Lets put this in the most simplistic language possible:
If a teacher offers all the kids in her class a cookie, but denies the cookies too those who are black that would be racist. NC is doing the same thing with marriage and same-sex couples.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?

To clarify, what isnt fair exactly? What am I or rather the state offering to heterosexual couples and denying to same-sex couples.

I don't like cookies and your analogy is flawed too. For your analogy to be correct gay people would have to be banned from getting married AT ALL. A better analogy (using ice cream) is that everyone in class is offered chocolate ice cream but some people in the class want strawberry ice cream. The people who want strawberry ice cream are not having their rights violated if all the class is being offered is chocolate ice cream.

Your analogy is flawed, you're suggesting marriage and gay marriage are different.

They're the same thing! When two gays have dinner it isn't a 'gay dinner', when two gays watch a film, that doesn't make it a 'gay film'.

You still didn't answer my question:
"Out of curiosity, what is your definition of marriage and why?"