Amendment One Passed in North Carolina

[btbam]

I dont care much about gay marriage. I personally ddont think the govt has the right to regulate marraige gay or straight. Now the government has some compelling reasons to encourage marriage so I see why they do regulate it but I still dont think it should. Now fact is gay realationships are a reality. Denying gay rights achieves nothing. I think people need to remember a separation of church and state. You can be morally opposed to same sex marriage, but still accept equal rights because ons deals with your morality and one deals with legality.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[-Kwesnoth-]

So keep this in mind kids, it is ok to get an abortion because we declared a fetus is techinicly not a person(not my opinon at all just the reason why abortion is legal. I am neutral on subject), but we decalre two people of same sex getting married is wrong. Odd no?(I am speaking of legal terms not relegion terms)

Don't even go there man.

So gay marriage is the "gateway drug" to even "worse" things?

Everything is a gateway to something else. Something such as gay marriage just brings in my mind the possibility of worse things to come.

[Rapture]

The only thing legalizing gay marriage would do is allow gays to get married. It's a bit silly to assume that it could accomplish anything else, even separate things later on. Don't forget that same-sex marriage is perfectly allowed in many countries and states, but you don't see any snowball affect there. It's only ever been under relgious dogma that homosexuality has been feared and oppressed. The Greeks actually condoned it quite well, and they're an ancient civilization. In some ways, we've actually progressed backwards.

[TRF]

I can't even fathom how one could think that legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to things like bestiality, which is pretty much rape since no goat or dog or kangafuckingroo is going to want to screw a human.

These are human-human relationships we're talking about here.


Tapatalking from my bed. Ya mutha says hi.

[HellsJester]

The only thing legalizing gay marriage would do is allow gays to get married. It's a bit silly to assume that it could accomplish anything else, even separate things later on. Don't forget that same-sex marriage is perfectly allowed in many countries and states, but you don't see any snowball affect there. It's only ever been under relgious dogma that homosexuality has been feared and oppressed. The Greeks actually condoned it quite well, and they're an ancient civilization. In some ways, we've actually progressed backwards.

Watch him mention Germany's bestiality brothel problem to counter attack you. lol

[btbam]

You should really avoid tems like progression, evolved etc...its subjective. One on the side of pro tradotional marraige will see their position as the progressed one and vise versa for pro gay marriage. It not about progression, it is about our social norms we accept.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[-Kwesnoth-]

Watch him mention Germany's bestiality brothel problem to counter attack you. lol

Counter attack?

You act as if this is an argument. I don't counter attack in a discussion because you have your opinions, and I have mine. All I do is state my opinions, and respond if responded too.

If you guys want to agree with gay marriage then thats your opinion, and you are all entitled to it. I honestly don't give a fuck since this battle has already been won. Rock on North Carolina.

[Rapture]

You should really avoid tems like progression, evolved etc...its subjective. One on the side of pro tradotional marraige will see their position as the progressed one and vise versa for pro gay marriage. It not about progression, it is about our social norms we accept.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

I don't see how you can reverse the position of equality and inequality on a progression line. I don't see the subjectivity here... unless we argue the semantics of progression, but I doubt its definition is up in the air.

[Blacksite]

I only argue against gay marriage, because gays themselves disgust me to my core. Its just my opinion, no arguing will ever change that. And I understand that I am the only one here that feels this way. But if every time someone wants to change things up, no matter how strange, will it be allowed?

Well, according to what you posted earlier, no. I'm not saying people should change things up on a whim though. I think we should have the right to bear arms, question what our government is doing and all that stuff. But of course we're going to have laws put into place. It's just that those laws shouldn't oppress a certain group of people. So who are we to tell someone that they shouldn't get married? You say that gays themselves disgust you to your core but do you think they want to take away our right to marry someone of the opposite sex?

What if tomorrow, a sizable group of people want to fuck, and marry their pets? Would it be allowed, just because they want it?

No, dude. Of course not. We're not insane.

[Firefox]

Who made the pets analogy? That makes no logical sense.. comparing consensual intimacy between two humans who are of the same species and a human and an animal...

I've heard that analogy on many of these American cable news channels like Fox News and as a Canadian I am always surprised news channels aren't unbiased always leaning way left/right there. And no the media is not off-topic.. the media is a huge part of the discussion of this topic and a big influence on people's minds in your country, let's not even begin to deny that.

[btbam]

I don't see how you can reverse the position of equality and inequality on a progression line. I don't see the subjectivity here... unless we argue the semantics of progression, but I doubt its definition is up in the air.

What constitutes progress is subjective is what i'm trying to argue. Take the line of thought of the "pro traditional marriage" side. To them, homosexual exhibits of Greek and roman civilizations represent barbarisims of ancient cultures and thus the marriage between a man and a woman is the progressive position. To the "pro gay marriage" camp, the recognition of lgtb rights is self evident and thusly is the progressive oppinion. I support marriage rights for homosexuals, I was merely trying to point out using terms like that are vague and can be equally applied to either side of this issue.

[Gaddes]

As a Libertarian I'll say that the government needs to stay out of the bed room all together. This country has much, MUCH bigger fish to fry than worrying about who one marries. I'll got for a twofer and say that as a Christian, I have zero problem with gay people. Your move North Carolina.

[Kasu]

I think it is a problem that government is getting in the way of humans loving humans. This delays the concept of peace in the country which in turn makes people hate a certain group of people. Love coincides with Peace. Those people screaming peace are the same people shouting to make sure that a certain people cant get married. In time those laws outlawing gay marriage will fail as a new generation will take over and be better then the one before it. Those who oppose this change, in time will become the minority.

[vipergts2207]

[Dave-The-Rave]

There really are some laws for some stupid things, someone should be able to marry their mop if they really want to..fair play to them. lol

[Silver_Knight]

So much for complete freedom. America reminds me of a big, giant, billboard that advertises something but in very tiny letters at the bottom it goes against what it originally says. For example American where your free to make your own choices and where everyone man/woman is equal!
Except homosexuality!

[-Kwesnoth-]

Do you guys even know what marriage means? It was oringally a contract between a man, and the wifes father. In which the man took possession of the wife, took care of her, and everything while she produced offspring and took care of them. Thats what it is. The possession even went so far as to be "Mr's". Before it was changed to "Mrs" during the women's rights movement.

That is what heterosexuals are attempting to defend. Its not a marriage if the couple can't produce children. Adoption does not count. If they were to call it something else like a, "partnership" then I can guarantee that a lot of people would not care. But to some people having something as important as marriage in its meaning be destroyed is a horrible thought.

[Naxi]

Do you guys even know what marriage means? It was oringally a contract between a man, and the wifes father. In which the man took possession of the wife, took care of her, and everything while she produced offspring and took care of them. Thats what it is. The possession even went so far as to be "Mr's". Before it was changed to "Mrs" during the women's rights movement.

That is what heterosexuals are attempting to defend. Its not a marriage if the couple can't produce children. Adoption does not count. If they were to call it something else like a, "partnership" then I can guarantee that a lot of people would not care. But to some people having something as important as marriage in its meaning be destroyed is a horrible thought.

What about an infertile couple?

Marriage doesn't mean that anymore, it's a relationship recognized by law, a declaration of commitment.

[$Greatness$]

Why would two grown men want to get married anyway? Someone needs to direct these people to the Chick thread ASAP!

Chick on Chick - Awesome (Long as one of the chicks isn't a lady-boy)

Man on Man - Just stop it! JUST STOP IT RIGHT NAO IN A FIYA!

But if you must Man on Man. Fine, that isn't my business.

[-Kwesnoth-]

What about an infertile couple?

Marriage doesn't mean that anymore, it's a relationship recognized by law, a declaration of commitment.

Then that is a circumstance that is beyond their control. Maybe they didn't know before they got married. Or maybe they married without the intent of having children.

But why call two guys getting together a marriage? Its not. So don't call it that. As long as they try it will be shot down.

[DayWalker]

The parallels between marriage equality and the civil rights movement are actually quite stunning.

[*goo]

Do you guys even know what marriage means? It was oringally a contract between a man, and the wifes father. In which the man took possession of the wife, took care of her, and everything while she produced offspring and took care of them. Thats what it is. The possession even went so far as to be "Mr's". Before it was changed to "Mrs" during the women's rights movement.

That is what heterosexuals are attempting to defend. Its not a marriage if the couple can't produce children. Adoption does not count. If they were to call it something else like a, "partnership" then I can guarantee that a lot of people would not care. But to some people having something as important as marriage in its meaning be destroyed is a horrible thought.

So the argument is really about semantics? In that case, it's even more petty than I first thought!




Obligatory Tapatalk Signature

[DayWalker]

They, the religious fanatics, are banning civil unions too... So its not just a defense of the term marriage

[keefy]

Letas all go gay and go get married in that state and live as an outlaw gay banditos.

Maybe I or someone else posted this already?

[Rapture]

Do you guys even know what marriage means? It was oringally a contract between a man, and the wifes father. In which the man took possession of the wife, took care of her, and everything while she produced offspring and took care of them. Thats what it is. The possession even went so far as to be "Mr's". Before it was changed to "Mrs" during the women's rights movement.

That is what heterosexuals are attempting to defend. Its not a marriage if the couple can't produce children. Adoption does not count. If they were to call it something else like a, "partnership" then I can guarantee that a lot of people would not care. But to some people having something as important as marriage in its meaning be destroyed is a horrible thought.

It's 'meaning' is an archaic and outmoded definition then, though you ignore the marriage has always been different between cultures and nations of the world. Things change, and they should change for the better. Goo is right. It's pathetic if the only excuse for being unfair here is just semantics.