North Carolina Bans Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

[The Corparation]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

I will quote the Late FST's sig on this.

Gays are made up of gaytrinos and they interact via faggons, which are massless spin 2 particles. They're massless because gays care so much about their weight, and have spin 2, cause that's as much spin as particles can get, and liberals love spin. The exchange of spin 2 particles creates an attractive force between objects, which is why gays are so promiscuous. When gays get "settle down" into a lower energy state by marrying, they release faggon particles in the form of gaydiation. Everyone is a little bit gay, so every human body has some gaytrinos in it, meaning that the gaydiation could cause straight people to be attracted to gays and choose to turn gay.

[Alaje]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Because it would violate their concept of what marriage is. For many Americans, that definition is defined by religion. One man + one woman = marriage, in the mainstream Christian culture...and they don't want to change that.

[Archliva]

I never constrained the separate but equal institution. You fathomed that from your imagination. The fact of the matter is that Blacks could of chosen to get the benefits of marriage by marrying other blacks. It doesn't matter if blacks wanted to get married with whites. As long as they had the opportunity to get married with other blacks, there's no inequality so in essence, Virginia was unjustly deprived of their anti-miscegenation statute

Amirite or amirite?

The principle of Separate but Equal is imbued in your argument whether it was your intention or not. Separate but equal was the nature of marriage laws along with other laws in the south during that period. And it was ruled unconstitutional. The only way your argument would carry weight here is if you said that homosexuals are lower class citizens because the government is not allowing them to marry heterosexuals...and that doesn't make much sense does it?

So you're just assuming it was apart of my argument when all along it was not. Now that we got that out of the way, we can move on how blacks are still allowed to marry whites despite the fact that they could of just married other blacks.

Because as we all know, marriage doesn't take into consideration the other person right?

[Christian Democrats]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

[Liriena]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Because it would violate their concept of what marriage is. For many Americans, that definition is defined by religion. One man + one woman = marriage, in the mainstream Christian culture...and they don't want to change that.

Even though the definition of civil marriage being expanded for same-sex couples wouldn't really affect them at all...

And if you think about it, that ultra-conservative Christians want to ban same-sex marriage could be interpretated as them violating the religious freedom of homosexuals. After all, like many of these same ultra-conservative Christians would say, gays are not Christian.

[Aluzky]

The problem is letting laws that are based on morality to past, since morality is subjective, it leads to good things being illegal and bad things being legal based on moral grounds.

Morality should not be legislated, it only leads to discrimination, minorities easily gets discriminated based on moral laws.

Sadly, most USA has religious values, which are dogmatic morals, which molds what laws people support and want to past, which end up being moral laws. In secular countries homosexuality, zoosexuality, even incest is legal for secular reasons, long path before USA can get to be that secular.

[Salpae]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

You can procreate without marriage, so obviously this isn't the reason why they receive benefits.

[The Corparation]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

What about people who get married but don't have and don't want kids? By this logic they shouldn't get any of those legal benefits either. After all they don't give anything back to society.

[Archliva]

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

What about people who get married but don't have and don't want kids? By this logic they shouldn't get any of those legal benefits either. After all they don't give anything back to society.

Or the ones that can't have kids.

[Liriena]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

Only...many same-sex couples raise children, some biological (from previous partners, from in vitro, from surrogacy) or some adopted. So many same-sex couples ARE providing the next generation.

Not to mention several opposite-sex couples don't or can't reproduce, and they still get married, and the status and validity of their marriage is not challenged.

So...your argument again?

[Salpae]

What about people who get married but don't have and don't want kids? By this logic they shouldn't get any of those legal benefits either. After all they don't give anything back to society.

Or the ones that can't have kids.

So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage? Got it.

[Capitalist America]

Repeal all marriage laws. Government should have no say in such an "issue".

[Schlauberger]

Here's a question.

Why the fuck doesn't the North Carolina, or any, general public want homosexuals to get married? What in the flying fuck does it harm? What in the flying fuck are they afraid of? Why in the flying fuck does anybody dislike gay rights?

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

You recognize the many flaws with that argument, right?

[Hageshisa]

See, because I know a few of the extreme militant Right. They are very vocal in being anti-gay, but give NO reasoning behind it. To me, it just seems like because it's something liberals tend to fight for, it's something they should fight against. Many of these people aren't even religious. People, ESPECIALLY SOUTHERN YOUTH, have become so corrupted, that to most of these people, if you even mention gay marriage, you are now a socialist hippie communist liberal faggot. It's quite irritating.

[Christian Democrats]

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

You can procreate without marriage, so obviously this isn't the reason why they receive benefits.

Children who come from two-parent households tend to be better off. Civil marriage makes it more difficult for couples to separate. Some of the benefits of civil marriage are aimed at making it easier for couples to raise their children.

[Archliva]

Or the ones that can't have kids.

So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage? Got it.

What?

I was enforcing his argument that if the reason for marriage was basically for procreation, then infertile couples shouldn't have legal benefits of marriage.

[United Dependencies]

...Except that the message is being pushed in churches and by religious organizations.

oh hell, this is just like abortion, the driving force isn't some distant legal opinion. As always the issue returns to the same thing: sex

I am convinced that while people may make grand gestures about it being " a child not a choice" or "don't redefine marriage" is all just people not saying what they really want to say: "you should only have sexual intercourse under certain circumstances".

At least that's what I believe.

[The Corparation]

Repeal all marriage laws. Government should have no say in such an "issue".

Actually my friend subscribes to this view. I think it actually has some merit. After all if marriage is a religious institution as many of those opposed to gay marriage claim, then it has no place in government under the principles of seperation of church and state.

[Salpae]

You can procreate without marriage, so obviously this isn't the reason why they receive benefits.

Children who come from two-parent households tend to be better off. Civil marriage makes it more difficult for couples to separate. Some of the benefits of civil marriage are aimed at making it easier for couples to raise their children.

It's still a two-parent household even if they aren't married.

[Archliva]

Repeal all marriage laws. Government should have no say in such an "issue".

Actually my friend subscribes to this view. I think it actually has some merit. After all if marriage is a religious institution as many of those opposed to gay marriage claim, then it has no place in government under the principles of seperation of church and state.

I don't think its possible to get the government out due to legal reasons concerning the married couple.

[Forza Nuova di Italia]

>People complaining about a state exercising its democratic right in a republic

Wow, there's no pleasing you liberals.

[Salpae]

So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage? Got it.

What?

I was enforcing his argument that if the reason for marriage was basically for procreation, then infertile couples shouldn't have legal benefits of marriage.

I was enforcing your enforcement.

[Archliva]

>People complaining about a state exercising its democratic right in a republic

Wow, there's no pleasing you liberals.

When it conflicts with the constitution....

[Christian Democrats]

Most opponents of same-sex civil marriage believe that same-sex couples should not receive certain benefits because their unions do not give anything back to society, whereas opposite-sex unions provide the next generation.

Only...many same-sex couples raise children, some biological (from previous partners, from in vitro, from surrogacy) or some adopted. So many same-sex couples ARE providing the next generation.

Not to mention several opposite-sex couples don't or can't reproduce, and they still get married, and the status and validity of their marriage is not challenged.

So...your argument again?

The usual legal argument is this:

Opposite-sex couples are much more likely than same-sex couples to have children. Therefore, it is not wrongful and unconstitutional discrimination for the state to provide certain benefits to the class (opposite-sex couples) that is more likely to have children.

[Salpae]

>People complaining about a state exercising its democratic right in a republic

Wow, there's no pleasing you liberals.

Liberals? Or, you know, people who actually care about the constitution.