-
JCTarheel82 said...
I voted against the amendment as did my wife. The more populous, higher-educated counties all voted down the amendment. The religious right is very strong in this state though.
"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche
joetheogre ●
- 5 stars Rating: 85
5862 votes total - Starter
- (8639)
- 22 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
BamaLivesFootba
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6602 votes total - The Incorruptibles
- Heisman
- (20348)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
appoo said...
Please. We have abuse laws that go above and beyond anything else. The only valid reason to ban polygamy is for tax purposes. If a group of CONSENTING adults decide to enter a contract of marriage, I could not give a flying f*ck. They can whatever the hell they want, so long as no intentional harm is being done to anyone. It shouldn't be up to the gov't to say that type of society is wrong.
But going back to tax purposes, if more than 2 people want to enter a civil union, it would be a nightmare to regulate that.
That's why any 2 legal, of age, consenting adults should be able to enter a civil union, get a civil union license, and claim as many dependents as they financially want to. The only thing the gov't should care about are SSNs. The word "marriage" should be stricken from all laws, statues, and regulations.
MrBlonde
- 5 stars Rating: 91
1186 votes total - Letterman
- (1776)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
shoeless7777 ●
- 5 stars Rating: 98
12557 votes total - Heisman
- (27659)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
appoo
- 4 stars Rating: 80
3256 votes total - Starter
- (5289)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Mr. Blonde said...
The abuse laws are discriminatory by your standard. These people could have a genetic predisposition to younger partners. For thousands of years men have been marrying girls of 12 and 13...even in this country...within the last century.
I don't care if polygamy would be a regulation nightmare. These people are also being discriminated against, by your standard.
FWIW, I don't support either of the above - but you can't frame the argument to exclude these examples...
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
appoo
- 4 stars Rating: 80
3256 votes total - Starter
- (5289)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
CamelSpider said...
I agree with this part of your statement 100%. No one, not you, nor I, nor good, nor the government has any right to define marriage for another person. That is a personal choice none of us can interfere with. If two people decide they're married, then no one else can tell them they're not based on any of their personal beliefs. Just because the government decided it has a right to issue some worthless marriage license, doesn't mean that the license means anything.
If your concern is insurance, then go appeal to the insurance companies to extend insurance to gay couples. The government won't stop them and you shouldn't try to sneak in the back door and get the government to redefine something just to force them to do it. I'm no expert on the history of insurance, but I'd be surprised if it got extended to spouses by government order. Most likely, insurance companies decided to do this own their own and would be willing to do it for gay couples too.
If your concern is tax breaks, appeal to the government to extend tax breaks to gay couples. They aren't bound to only giving those breaks to people they deem to be married anyway. That's just some arbitrary way they've decided to pass them out.
I've got a feeling, though, that this isn't what this is about at all. I would bet that this gay marriage thing is just an excuse to whine.It is something to make noise over. It is something to judge others over and point fingers over. Otherwise, you'd have taken the logical, simple route and did the things I mentioned above to actually extend the benefits to gay couples rather than spend years fighting over some meaningless piece of paper...while they go without these benefits. At least you enjoyed it and got to condemn a few folks along the way though.
For all of you anti-gay marriage folks, why do you want to give the government the right to define marriage? Do you think that God intended for you to go to the Court House and get permission before being married? No. In his eyes, and the bible is clear on this, a couple became married when a woman left her home and moved in with the man, an act you now condemn as "shacking up" because the people didn't go through the proper channels of asking the government's permission.
Every side is wrong in this argument. The real answer is to tell the government to get out of the marriage business altogether rather than begging it do abuse its limited power by defining it for us. Go that route, and everyone wins.
Except the Bible stuff. Don't really know or care what a book says about the gay.
PTCcock195
- 5 stars Rating: 85
7949 votes total - All Conference
- (10836)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Raging Bull said...
Im amazed at the people who argue rights to the exclusion of responsibility... you only have the right to do whats right... or you lose your rights.... so when a dude chooses Harry instead of Mary, he loses his "right" to marry....its simple to understand really
"A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."
BamaLivesFootba
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6602 votes total - The Incorruptibles
- Heisman
- (20348)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
appoo
- 4 stars Rating: 80
3256 votes total - Starter
- (5289)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
BamaLivesFootba
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6602 votes total - The Incorruptibles
- Heisman
- (20348)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
appoo
- 4 stars Rating: 80
3256 votes total - Starter
- (5289)
- 31 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
bhiley77 said...
I agree for the most part.
I'm not sure about the science angle. I haven't done much research, but I'd be curious as to what the non-agenda driven science in this situation is. I think it's probably a mixed bag, as I've implied (probably too subtly for the activists in the thread). I doesn't matter to me why a person is or isn't gay, because I don't need the answer to the question to fuel my reasoning.
My personal stance on the issue is I dont care what gay people do. Society is moving in the direction of gays getting married, it will happen and I don't have a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with is the comparison to jim crow/civil rights movement, etc, which I find at best ridiculous and at worse deeply offensive to black people, who suffered real injustices that make things like marriage seem paltry in comparison, and of which nobody ever presented the argument that being black was a lifestyle choice. Gay people have it pretty good in America, I'm not willing to pretend not being able to have a legally recognized marriage in all 50 states is on par with having Bull Conner sick the dogs and hoses on them.
EyeOfTheQueef
- 5 stars Rating: 81
122 votes total - Freshman
- (96)
- 14 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
EyeOfTheQueef said...
The science is pretty staggaringly conclusive against people being born gay. It's basically a slam dunk case if you look at just the science alone.
The problem with that is that I grew up with some folks who turned out to be gay and everyone around knew they were gay long before we even knew what sex was, much less what gay sex was.
I don't know how to settle this little disparity in knowledge, but I don't think it is that important to the issue. I think the born/chose argument is just clutter coming from both sides.
"A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."
BamaLivesFootba
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6602 votes total - The Incorruptibles
- Heisman
- (20348)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
PTCcock195
- 5 stars Rating: 85
7949 votes total - All Conference
- (10836)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
ASBamaguy ●
- 5 stars Rating: 84
1695 votes total - Walk-on
- (2730)
- 25 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
BamaLivesFootba
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6602 votes total - The Incorruptibles
- Heisman
- (20348)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
SmithDawg48 ●
- 4 stars Rating: 80
1976 votes total - Redshirt
- (3477)
- 25 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Raging Bull
- 4 stars Rating: 72
897 votes total - Jr. Varsity
- (502)
- 27 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
GamecockWorld ●
- 4 stars Rating: 67
2512 votes total - Letterman
- (2391)
- 32 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 33
OT: So to be clear, in North Carolina