4li2k73z Share your Vital activity on Facebook (More info)
close

Congratulations North Carolina

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 11:59 AM

motogeezer wrote: That's got to be right up in the top ten most homophobic statements I've ever heard.

Maybe even top five.

Congratulations!

gabrielmalinois wrote: I am curious why you think that statement is homophobic?

motogeezer wrote: "Now, all the laws and victories of the Civl Rights era are being perverted to twist the law for a certain group that will never be satisfied, no matter how much leeway is given, and no matter how many laws are passed to try and give them what they want - which is to be cleared of a guilty and confused conscience, and to be healed of a wounded heart."

I think there is a big assumption there that comes from burn's personal beliefs but I didn't see it as being homophobic. I just bring that up because the term "homophobic" is a major cliche ascribed to anybody who disagrees with homosexuality on any level. Often it is rightly applied but many times it is not and it is a counter demonization.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 12:00 PM

jtomasik wrote: Ok, give me a quantifiably backed study that shows the negative effects of allowing two gays to get married vs. living their lives together, paying even more taxes than you and me, and getting less back from the system they contribute to than you and me.

And don't pull out some religious horseshit from a book written by a bunch of sand monkeys 2000 years ago who were so in tune with the creator that they thought the sun revolved around the earth. Because if you think that religious belief alone legitimizes actions, then those religious fruitcakes who flew those planes on 9/11 are justified.

Fucking right-wing bible thumping nutbags. Get out of the 15th century and evolve already. Oh, and your boy is on the take from the money, including Wall Street. Goddamn. Ignorants.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Whoa! Simmer down buddy.

Again you are the one who keeps bringing religion in to the conversation not me. I am just asking a simple question. Is it is it not a reasonable position to think that marriage is between a man and a woman? That somebody could legitimately come to that conclusion without being "homophobic, ignorant or fearful.

jtomasik wrote: No, it's not, because you don't have a logical, quantifiable leg to stand on. And no, I won't simmer down. The only thing you're doing is violating the Bill of Rights.

If I'm wrong, produce the data and study, or STFU.

Seriously you need to relax.

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15257

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/9/2012 12:01 PM

burn1986 wrote: Is there a serious right being violated? Which constitutional right is being violated. Age, Race, and Sex are different than sexual behavior or orientation. But we know there will not be an argument good enough to satisfy you. Now, all the laws and victories of the Civl Rights era are being perverted to twist the law for a certain group that will never be satisfied, no matter how much leeway is given, and no matter how many laws are passed to try and give them what they want - which is to be cleared of a guilty and confused conscience, and to be healed of a wounded heart.

Rooster wrote: Civil rights are supposed to be for everyone, not just the group you decide is worthy of them.

Because someone is gay doesn't mean they're a lesser person or that they don't deserve the same rights and freedoms as you or I do. If you truly believe that they are not worthy of the same rights you or I have, then what is the next group you'll decide isn't worthy? Where do you draw the line? Non-christians? Atheists? Adulterers?

I'd like to trade one right wing retard to Canada for you to live here. Maybe we can replace our idiots and still maintain a revenue stream.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 12:02 PM

jtomasik wrote: Ok, give me a quantifiably backed study that shows the negative effects of allowing two gays to get married vs. living their lives together, paying even more taxes than you and me, and getting less back from the system they contribute to than you and me.

And don't pull out some religious horseshit from a book written by a bunch of sand monkeys 2000 years ago who were so in tune with the creator that they thought the sun revolved around the earth. Because if you think that religious belief alone legitimizes actions, then those religious fruitcakes who flew those planes on 9/11 are justified.

Fucking right-wing bible thumping nutbags. Get out of the 15th century and evolve already. Oh, and your boy is on the take from the money, including Wall Street. Goddamn. Ignorants.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Whoa! Simmer down buddy.

Again you are the one who keeps bringing religion in to the conversation not me. I am just asking a simple question. Is it is it not a reasonable position to think that marriage is between a man and a woman? That somebody could legitimately come to that conclusion without being "homophobic, ignorant or fearful.

motogeezer wrote: The only reason to think of marriage as strictly between a man and a woman is religion.

Jtom is totally justified in bringing it to the conversation.

I don't think so. I think history and biology are good reasons as well.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 12:03 PM

burn1986 wrote: Is there a serious right being violated? Which constitutional right is being violated. Age, Race, and Sex are different than sexual behavior or orientation. But we know there will not be an argument good enough to satisfy you. Now, all the laws and victories of the Civl Rights era are being perverted to twist the law for a certain group that will never be satisfied, no matter how much leeway is given, and no matter how many laws are passed to try and give them what they want - which is to be cleared of a guilty and confused conscience, and to be healed of a wounded heart.

Rooster wrote: Civil rights are supposed to be for everyone, not just the group you decide is worthy of them.

Because someone is gay doesn't mean they're a lesser person or that they don't deserve the same rights and freedoms as you or I do. If you truly believe that they are not worthy of the same rights you or I have, then what is the next group you'll decide isn't worthy? Where do you draw the line? Non-christians? Atheists? Adulterers?

jtomasik wrote: I'd like to trade one right wing retard to Canada for you to live here. Maybe we can replace our idiots and still maintain a revenue stream.

Dude seriously chill out. you should be able to discuss grown up topics like an adult.

2strokebarrett

C100_searle_1398580264

Posts: 1561

Joined: 8/31/2010

Location: Cymru, GBR

5/9/2012 12:03 PM

burn1986 wrote: Is there a serious right being violated? Which constitutional right is being violated. Age, Race, and Sex are different than sexual behavior or orientation. But we know there will not be an argument good enough to satisfy you. Now, all the laws and victories of the Civl Rights era are being perverted to twist the law for a certain group that will never be satisfied, no matter how much leeway is given, and no matter how many laws are passed to try and give them what they want - which is to be cleared of a guilty and confused conscience, and to be healed of a wounded heart.

You better watch out, they will start recruiting your children next.

I regret my username, I chose it before I realized that the pro 2 stroke crowd on vital mx are completely and utterly insane


The facts contradict my opinion, but my opinion is the only thing that matters

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15257

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/9/2012 12:05 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Seriously you need to relax.

Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4446

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/9/2012 12:08 PM

jtomasik wrote: I'd like to trade one right wing retard to Canada for you to live here. Maybe we can replace our idiots and still maintain a revenue stream.

Now why would I do that to my country? We have enough idiots of our own. We have no need to import yours.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

TeamGreen

C100_rip_beach_shot

Posts: 12058

Joined: 11/25/2008

Location: Redding, CA USA

5/9/2012 12:08 PM

Does a true "Conservative" really give two-shits about who you're sleeping with, in love with, want to marry...etc.?

I totally understand the viablility of the Moral Argument; however, what's the fundamental basis to an individuals "Belief System" when you have this "Moral Argument"?

In most all cases...this is a Moral argument based on one's Religious Beliefs.

This WILL end up in the SCOTUS.

Dave "Ozzy" Osterman quote..."You finish in the Top Ten -OR- You Don't Eat!"
I heard him say it. He can't deny it.

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6116

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/9/2012 12:13 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 12:15 PM

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

Edited.

unknownmxr

C100_7890

Posts: 473

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: CAN

5/9/2012 12:15 PM

reded wrote: Well then your brother-in-law has a problem. I'm sure that you, spinner and I have bigger problems in our lives than worrying about gays getting married in NC. If we all fixed our own problems rather than worrying about everyone else there would be a lot less bullshit going on in this country.

oldfart wrote: You mean if we weren't playing the world police, we'd be better off? I definitely agree!!!

Americans have been devoting themselves to 'fixing' problems in other countries for a hundred years.

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21442

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/9/2012 12:16 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Seriously you need to relax.

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

burn1986 wrote: Edited.

I think he's more angry that people try to exert influence over another's life using religion as the basis. I'd have to agree with him on that.

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21442

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/9/2012 12:17 PM

Why right around the time the fed was created yes? Isn't that convenient.

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

TeamGreen

C100_rip_beach_shot

Posts: 12058

Joined: 11/25/2008

Location: Redding, CA USA

5/9/2012 12:19 PM

reded wrote: Well then your brother-in-law has a problem. I'm sure that you, spinner and I have bigger problems in our lives than worrying about gays getting married in NC. If we all fixed our own problems rather than worrying about everyone else there would be a lot less bullshit going on in this country.

oldfart wrote: You mean if we weren't playing the world police, we'd be better off? I definitely agree!!!

unknownmxr wrote: Americans have been devoting themselves to 'fixing' problems in other countries for a hundred years.

Before that...actually...

I'd have to say our 1st years of "Empire" (The phrase that the Lib's would use; so, I'm using it in a Colbert sort of Fashion...) would be our 1st foray into Tripoli...

Dave "Ozzy" Osterman quote..."You finish in the Top Ten -OR- You Don't Eat!"
I heard him say it. He can't deny it.

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6116

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/9/2012 12:26 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 12:27 PM

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

Are you gay, jtomasik? Seriously, if you are then I apologize if I offended you.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 1:01 PM

jtomasik wrote: No, it's not, because you don't have a logical, quantifiable leg to stand on. And no, I won't simmer down. The only thing you're doing is violating the Bill of Rights.

If I'm wrong, produce the data and study, or STFU.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Seriously you need to relax.

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4446

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/9/2012 1:09 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

Opinions and beliefs are one thing.

Legislation that gives one person more freedom than another is quite a different story.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

yzvet426

C100_photo

Posts: 805

Joined: 5/12/2008

Location: Lake Zurich, IL USA

5/9/2012 1:16 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Seriously you need to relax.

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

Ok, well I can see your point about my language. It's just hard when I see the Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity, Bachman and many of the far right scream in terror of the idea. Yes, I could possibly see someone who feels marriage is between a man and a woman not being in that club. But the majority I'm afraid are in that club. I'm going to go home tonight and I bet if I turn on Fox they will be running around with their proverbial hair on fire claiming Obama is waging a war on Marriage and this is the end of America. anyone wanna bet?

The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 1:21 PM

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

Rooster wrote: Opinions and beliefs are one thing.

Legislation that gives one person more freedom than another is quite a different story.

There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 1:26 PM

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

yzvet426 wrote: Ok, well I can see your point about my language. It's just hard when I see the Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity, Bachman and many of the far right scream in terror of the idea. Yes, I could possibly see someone who feels marriage is between a man and a woman not being in that club. But the majority I'm afraid are in that club. I'm going to go home tonight and I bet if I turn on Fox they will be running around with their proverbial hair on fire claiming Obama is waging a war on Marriage and this is the end of America. anyone wanna bet?

I live in state that is going to decide this issue in the upcoming election as well, and honestly there is as much harsh rhetoric from the left on this issue as there is on the right. That is the way it always is though.

Spinner

C100_equipee_du_cannonball_81_07_g

Posts: 3370

Joined: 8/1/2006

Location: Fayettenam, AR USA

5/9/2012 1:30 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Hey thanks for calming down. I don't come on here to purposefully anger people. I understand that some issues are hot buttons and others are just you know political jibber jabber and don't really matter in the big scheme of things. I really do try to distinguish between the two and adjust accordingly.

Honestly I just asked a simple question here and didn't even offer any type of opinion from my point of view. The reason is is that there was an assumption that those who disagree with homosexuality and homosexual marriage are ignorant and fearful. and divisive. If a person really believes that is the case and there is no legitimate reason to believe in traditional marriage then there is really no conversation to be had. It is essentially over right there. I did find it ironic though (which is often the case) that yzvet426 made such a divisive statement while simultaneously accusing those who disagree with homosexual marriage as being divisive.

Rooster wrote: Opinions and beliefs are one thing.

Legislation that gives one person more freedom than another is quite a different story.

gabrielmalinois wrote: There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

Well, if it's always been the law In NC, why then the amendment?

"Blind faith in a god is a poor substitute for logic and reason."

WhKnuckle

C100_dsc05462_jpgsmall2

Posts: 10542

Joined: 7/17/2007

Location: TX, USA

5/9/2012 1:31 PM

I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 1:34 PM

Rooster wrote: Opinions and beliefs are one thing.

Legislation that gives one person more freedom than another is quite a different story.

gabrielmalinois wrote: There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

Spinner wrote: Well, if it's always been the law In NC, why then the amendment?

Like i said to solidify it. I haven't looked at it but I would guess this would put it in the state constitution.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2978

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 1:35 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

Way too reasonable. We must come to a disagreement on this.

WhKnuckle

C100_dsc05462_jpgsmall2

Posts: 10542

Joined: 7/17/2007

Location: TX, USA

5/9/2012 1:36 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Way too reasonable. We must come to a disagreement on this.

Well, we'll work on it...

TerryB

C100_the_witches_of_eastwick_30057_medium_1_1373810572

Posts: 2250

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: North Branch, MN USA

5/9/2012 1:44 PM

reded wrote: You're not gay and you apparently don't live in North Carolina. It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it.

"It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it."

Apparently the people of North Carolina don't follow that line of thinking.

Someone else's relationship and marriage is none of their business and has no affect on them. Yet they passed this?

...and evidently, you support it. Talk about hypocrisy...

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21442

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/9/2012 1:54 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

gabrielmalinois wrote: Way too reasonable. We must come to a disagreement on this.

WhKnuckle wrote: Well, we'll work on it...

But you are assuming your religious beliefs apply to all, and that's simply not practical. If it's truly a religiously sanctified event, then laws have no place in the picture at all do they? It's between you and your maker, whomever you believe that to be.

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6116

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/9/2012 1:55 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 2:05 PM

It sounds like we need to outlaw marriage altogether.

WhKnuckle

C100_dsc05462_jpgsmall2

Posts: 10542

Joined: 7/17/2007

Location: TX, USA

5/9/2012 1:55 PM

reded wrote: You're not gay and you apparently don't live in North Carolina. It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it.

TerryB wrote: "It's not your problem and it doesn't affect you, don't worry about it."

Apparently the people of North Carolina don't follow that line of thinking.

Someone else's relationship and marriage is none of their business and has no affect on them. Yet they passed this?

...and evidently, you support it. Talk about hypocrisy...

It's funny to me that David Cameron, the conservative Prime Minister of the UK, says that, as a conservative, it's none of his business who marries who. He says conservatism makes marriage none of his business; Americans say conservatism makes marriage their business. As John Lennon wrote, strange days indeed.

burn1986

C100_2015_yz_1401991639

Posts: 6116

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/9/2012 2:01 PM

Wasn't it Alister Crowley who wrote " 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law."
Post a Reply to: Congratulations North Carolina

To post, please join, log in or connect to Vital using your Facebook profile Fb_connect_sm