North Carolina Bans Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions

[Northern Dominus]

Because pious people who champion the subjugation of and stripping rights away from LGBT people cloak themselves in religion to hide the fact that they're just bigots, plain and simple.

We'd have more respect for them if they came out of the closet and admitted that they are in fact monumental real-life trolls. Not a lot, possibly a micrometer, but more than hiding behind some sort of proverbial shield with a cross emblazoned on it.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate what rights have been stripped away from the LGBT community within North Carolina as per my last post. Which I'm very curious as to why you are trying to 'champion' it so much from the military side. I am only asking this because you won't disclose what part of the military you served in and seem to claim that they are everywhere in the military. Which I can tell you from experience they aren't. The few that I have met congregate together though in cliques to discuss how they are singled out when in reality they ostracize themselves from the rest of the unit. I ask because I am making the stretch that you were one of the in the military, which is why you say 'We'd have more respect...'

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

[Tecknoko]

Finally! A step in the right direction.

[Hauzenberg]

Being gay and living in North Carolina and being a native Carolinian i would just like to say....'

fuck....

[Gallogach]

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate what rights have been stripped away from the LGBT community within North Carolina as per my last post. Which I'm very curious as to why you are trying to 'champion' it so much from the military side. I am only asking this because you won't disclose what part of the military you served in and seem to claim that they are everywhere in the military. Which I can tell you from experience they aren't. The few that I have met congregate together though in cliques to discuss how they are singled out when in reality they ostracize themselves from the rest of the unit. I ask because I am making the stretch that you were one of the in the military, which is why you say 'We'd have more respect...'

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

[Christ is Risen]

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

That was genius!

[Tmutarakhan]

It isn't a fundamental right.

False. Within the American legal system's definitions, it is.

[Threlizdun]

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

You got one thing right amongst this mass of ignorance, marriage is a matter defined by the institutions that reside over them. The state has no business getting involved in this. Your claims about the Judeo-Christian foundation of this nation are both innaccurate and irrelevent. We are officially a secular nation, thus laws enforcing policies based upon religious morality are completely unconstitutional.

[Tmutarakhan]

As for the legal limbo; you are using the slippery slope fallacy.

No I'm not. The problem already exists in Michigan and appears now to exist in North Carolina.

The right has not yet been taken away, so there is no slight.

At the very least there is already an uncertainty over whether the papers will be honored. The only purpose of spending money on the lawyers is to get some clarity, and that has already been taken away.

Family members do that to each other all the time when grandma dies and the children fight over the leftovers.

If grandpa is still alive, he will not be thrown out of the house. That is very unlike what happens to us.

[Grays Harbor]

Was just reading an article that another dastardly Southern State has decided against gay marriage, Colorado. Oh, wait, they're not a southern state, so how can that be? As a southerner, I do so hate all the negative stereotypes associated with the south by those who don't live here and know us merely by anecdote for the most part. Get over yourselves, there are nutbars in every state and every country. We know we have a few nuts down here, that doesn't make us all nuts, no more than New York, Boston, Los Angeles or London.

All that aside though, I do have to wonder why with all the problems facing this country and its economy both republicans and democrats have chosen to focus on this issue. If two people want to get married, so frelling what? It effects nobody else, it doesn't lessen marriage vows made by anybody else. It is a stupid issue to focus on, and something it is past time to make legal and get on with more important things.

[Northern Dominus]

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

And where is the citation for all of that exactly? Marraige wasn't spelled out in the constitution in any form, so that doesn't preclude same-sex marriage from being protected any more than it does heterosexual unions. To favor one or the other and not apply both equally is however uncostitutional. Precedent was set when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed. If it's wrong to discriminate against a human based on the color of their skin, then how is it justified when doing the exact same thing to a human based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

Your argument also falls flat because it automatically assumes that only male-female relationships are appropriate to raise families. This has been debunked:
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Fil ... Review.pdf
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload ... _27496.pdf
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Doc ... /brief.pdf

[Czinuzkkia]

I dont live in america, but this is just downright disgusting. Land of the free my arse.

[Desperate Measures]

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

You can't have rights taken away that are being denied you. I guess that's true. What is the purpose of a marriage where one person is sterile with no plans to adopt? What would the purpose of a marriage be between senior citizens?

But if marriage is a religious matter how did I get married by a judge with absolutely no religion involved whatsoever? It wasn't a civil union. It was marriage.

[Christ is Risen]

I'm going to bed, I know this debate got a little contentious, but I think you guys made some verry good and valid points. You provided analogies that I've never thought of. I understand your argument and your concerns a lot more than I did before. Thanks for keeping the debate civilized. Who knows, maybe we'll continue this tomorrow. Thanks, God have mercy on all of us sinners, and have a splendid night!

[Tmutarakhan]

We were talking about the issue of whether insurance companies might renege on health-care coverage and see if the courts would let them get away with it. Your response was that it would be a good thing if companies had the "right" to be assholes in this way. And, this was your first reaction: to come in and kick people while they're down. Now you claim that you have a prior history of being supportive of civil unions, which you don't: just like on the previous thread, where you also made claims that you had a history of opposing bullying, when you have no record except for making statements against opponents of bullying.

As I have supported civil unions in this thread consistantly your statement is ludicrous.
I believe a corporation should indeed have the right to decide who they offer their benefits to. I don't give a rats if you think that's evil. It's called freedom.

So thank you for your judgment based on your preconceived, and as it turns out, incorrect assessment of who I am and what I believe.

I do apologize for missing your page 1 post about civil unions. I thought your page 2 post was your entry to the thread: there you scorned the notion that the government should protect the equal rights of minorities against a hostile a majority, saying that would be "dictatorship" like "North Korea". You then said companies could either grant or deny health coverage and the only difference would be that the state wouldn't enforce it; so I asked about the worrisome case where a company says it is coverage, until we are in the hospital, then reneging-- that is what you said would be "a good thing" which provoked my flaming response. And I don't give a rat's ass if you don't give a rat's ass, I still consider it evil for you to endorse the abuse of the weak by the strong. I note that you also qualify your support of civil unions as "if the majority will allow it": the concept that we should be treated equally as a matter of right is something you evidently don't just oppose, but are actively hostile to.

[The Emerald Legion]

Here is a list of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that the Government Accountability Office has identified. These are the rights and responsibilities that under the state constitution and the law in North Carolina aren't afforded to certain US citizens IE LGBT citizens:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The irony here is this was all compiled for DOMA.

And your experience is different than mine apparently, although I fail to see where I inferred that I met masses upon masses of LGBT service men and women. I've known a few, about the sample size given the minority population in any setting. An integral part of the crew I was assigned to was gay. Everyone on that crew knew and nobody cared. I also trained with different personnel form different branches as well as went to military-friendly bars when I was actively serving, so that's primarily how I met the other LGBT men and women who were also in uniform at the time.
As far as sequestering themselves away, I can't really comment on that. The only one I can really comment on is the aforementioned crew member and he was just one of us, period.

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

Treaty of Tripoli. The US was never a Judeo-christion nation. We are, and will remain to the end of this nation a land of godless heathens, with believers of all sorts mixed in.

In essence, this land tolerates religions. It does not believe in any of them.

If anything, it was founded as a greek pantheon nation. Democracy, all those statues and murals in the capital... states? Seems like the ancient greeks to me.

Christ had the old world. The new world belongs to Zeus.

[Tmutarakhan]

Was just reading an article that another dastardly Southern State has decided against gay marriage, Colorado.

There's somewhat of a difference: what shocked me about North Carolina was that nearly two-thirds of the citizenry voted for this. You don't find such margins outside the south. In Colorado, it was a Republican faction within the legislature; this is more akin to a filibuster in the US Senate than to an expression of the dominant culture of the whole state.

[A High Dark Place]

You are making the assumption that these LEGAL rights are somehow fundamentally being taken away from LBGT. It isn't a fundamental right. Marriage has been defined since the beginning of this country as a union between man and woman. That is the legal founding and none of that has been taken away because they never had the right in the first place. You cited earlier that there are fundamental rights of this country and that marriage was one of them (again, wikipedia). But the only enumerated rights we have is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it say marriage. That has always been a religious matter. And at the time of the founding of the nation, we were a judeo-christian nation that decided marriage was between a man and a woman. Hence the legal standing that the rest of the system was built upon. It has only become a government issue in terms of legality.

Those 'rights' you are citing are not rights at all. They are in fact benefits afforded the a man and a woman to encourage and foster a desired socio-path for the masses. One the government wants to encourage and nothing more. I will state this one more time: they are not rights, they are benefits. Ones used by the government to encourage a stable family environment for the youth of the nation.

That was genius!

Which bit? The bit where Gallogach gets the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights mixed up? The unfortunate neologism "desired socio-path"? The idea that government can grant or deny legal recognition based on "encourage and nothing more"? Or the obviously vile implications of that for other social groups with worse records for raising children than same-sex couples do?

Look, same sex couples are going to raise children together and you can't stop them. If marriage "encourages a stable family environment" then denying a same sex couple marriage makes the environment of their child/ren less stable. How is that possibly a good thing?

[Minnysota]

Finally! A step in the right direction.

Bad Tecky... bad!

*sends Tecky to his kennel*

[A High Dark Place]

I'm going to bed, I know this debate got a little contentious, but I think you guys made some verry good and valid points. You provided analogies that I've never thought of. I understand your argument and your concerns a lot more than I did before. Thanks for keeping the debate civilized. Who knows, maybe we'll continue this tomorrow. Thanks, God have mercy on all of us sinners, and have a splendid night!

If thinking of yourself as a sinner helps you sleep at night then fine.

But please understand that insulting everyone makes even the most fervent good wishes sound sarcastic. Good night.

[Grenartia]

Plain and simple, The act of homosexuality. Now please read this whole post. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yeah, I am. But in no way does that mean that I believe homosexuals will burn in hell. I agree that attraction to the same sex for some people is not a choice. Some people are born to be attracted to the same sex. That is not a sin. Acting upon that attraction though is a sin. Homosexuality is not the worst sin and in no way is unforgivable. Homosexuality is not even in the ten commandments which tells me that adultery, stealing, and lying are worse sins. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as fornication or pornography. Homosexuals are able to go to heaven as long as they except Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins, just like every other Christian.

Born sick and expected to be healthy. Gotta love that idea.

Indeed.

Very glad North Carolina passed this amendment.

Because America's laws should be based on peoples' misconceptions regarding Christianity, instead of human rights.

The only reason that we are even talking about this is that it is based on principles millenia old, said by a man we have barely any evidence of even exists. People need to wake up, realize that they cannot take what is said for granted, make up their minds for the good of all people, and be good to their fellow countrymen. If God (Which I am presuming is a very large part of this North Carolina Bible-belt legislation) had taught his son maybe a little more toleration of different people, do you think that this would even be a problem? No. I don't get what makes people believe they have the right to dictate other peoples lives. I simply do not get it.

The problem isn't God, its peoples' MISinterpretation of His words that is causing the problem.

World peace and harmony? Funny how you allow your 'beliefs' to enable you supporting the denial of other human beings' freedoms.

How is America going to fall into ruin again? Is it because of those evil liberals that want to make the world a better place?

I see what you mean. I should no longer forbid robbing stores and killing other people because it goes against the Ten Commandments.

They probably think they are doing good. However, the West has gone into a noticeably decline since it enacted more liberal legislation in the twentieth century. I do not think this is a coincidence.

Theft and murder aren't legal because they deprive others of their rights, not because of Biblical law.

Ok then. I challenge you to come up with some unbiased sources that can prove that gay rights will lead to nuclear winter, or some other apocalyptic scenario.

Fine, we'll go with it. Only if you also agree that to counter-balance Amendment one North Carolina adopts another amendment stating that all Roman Catholics are hereby barred from voting in any election.

Fair enough?

I disagree. The first amendment of the Constitution grants religious freedom, not sexual freedom.

No, check it again. 9th Amendment. Your logic is flawed.

I support this legislation one hundred percent. If every nation and region enacted this, we would be one step closer to world peace and harmony. I do pray that North Carolina stands firm against the liberal tide.

So you hate freedom. Good to know.

But why do people who just so happen to be of the same sex being able to express their love through marriage bring the world farther from peace and harmony? And liberal tide? What, praytell, is there to fear from that?

For anyone who thinks that the banning of same-sex marraige, that discrimination against LGBT HUMAN BEINGS is somehow justifiable, click the link below.

Watch it, take in the story. Then look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself it's ok. If you can then you are a monster, period. This is the toll of Amendment One and legislation like it. This is what you are doing to fellow humans with emotions, needs and wants by being short-sighted and as monstrous as possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM

Amendment one does not discriminate against LGBT, they still have the same rights as everyone else.

They don't have the right to marry somebody they love. Which heterosexuals do. Therefore, LGBTs are being discriminated against. Your logic is flawed.

Let's say you live on an isolated island where the only restaurant serves nothing but ham and cheese sandwiches. You, however, are jewish and lactose intolerant, and allergic to wheat. There are 11 other people on this island, 5 of whom also cannot consume said sandwiches for the same reasons.

Are you and the other 5 people being discriminated against?

I challenge you to give a legitimate reason why there's no discrimination in that scenario.

Here's the basic principle of Amendment one in NC:

(Image)

Too fucking true.

It's always sad to see the majority call themselves persecuted.

Its like a fat guy tackling a starving orphan for eating food.

Well, either way it's banned, and either way it's probably not going to be allowed any time soon... At least this way, I can be proud to call North Carolina home.

So, you can't be proud to live in a place where two people who love each other, and aren't hurting anybody else and just so happen to be of the same sex, can't express that love?

So you're not a Christian, and you hate America and the principles upon which it was founded.

Thanks for letting us know where you stand.

On the contrary, I am an Evangelical Roman Catholic (as opposed to a casual, cultural, or cafeteria Catholic) and support America and its principles (I do not wish it to fall into ruin).

Then if you support America and its principles, you should support same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. LGBTs do nothing to ruin America, contrary to popular belief. By denying us our rights, you actually contribute to America's decline.

[Cerberion]

As I have supported civil unions in this thread consistantly your statement is ludicrous.
I believe a corporation should indeed have the right to decide who they offer their benefits to. I don't give a rats if you think that's evil. It's called freedom.

So thank you for your judgment based on your preconceived, and as it turns out, incorrect assessment of who I am and what I believe.

I do apologize for missing your page 1 post about civil unions. I thought your page 2 post was your entry to the thread: there you scorned the notion that the government should protect the equal rights of minorities against a hostile a majority, saying that would be "dictatorship" like "North Korea". You then said companies could either grant or deny health coverage and the only difference would be that the state wouldn't enforce it; so I asked about the worrisome case where a company says it is coverage, until we are in the hospital, then reneging-- that is what you said would be "a good thing" which provoked my flaming response. And I don't give a rat's ass if you don't give a rat's ass, I still consider it evil for you to endorse the abuse of the weak by the strong. I note that you also qualify your support of civil unions as "if the majority will allow it": the concept that we should be treated equally as a matter of right is something you evidently don't just oppose, but are actively hostile to.

"if the majority will allow it" means it's not up to me. It's up to the majority and I can piss and moan all I like but until the majority support it, it is what it is. When I get to vote on it, I'll vote for it.

So again, assumption, judgment, and complete and total lack of validity in your claims that I am hostile.

Society can handle itself on what is acceptable. As many have stated in just 8 years the swing has gone from 60+ against gay marriage, to now about 50%. Once that hits 49% then the majority will carry the day. All of that social change has happened in spite of laws and amendments banning gay marriage.

If society tells corporations that they better hand out the benefits with equal rights or they'll make no money, then they will capitulate.

That's freedom and liberty at work, and it's way better than spending billions of dollars suing each other for the next decade.

And I accept your apology regarding my statement on civil unions.

[The Elven Imperium]

See the Bloody mess people make when they throw religion into anything. Man some joker has some heat induced illusion 5000+ years ago and look at the mess we got to clean up.

[Maralinda]

Honestly, I think I could have been somewhat pro-gay marriage if the constant anti-Republican rants and liberal economic policies didn't alienate me.

As it stands now, I'm glad to see that the liberals have been pushed back in yet another state.

If you were serious about your views, it wouldn't have mattered what others thought. The fact is, you had the option to state your views, but in the end you caved to peer pressure. Where as I would have told them that they could jump.

[Maralinda]

Does it make Jesus feel happy inside or something? Is he preparing those barbecue skewers in hell for the billions of humans who dared to enjoy their lives and be themselves?

Plain and simple, The act of homosexuality is a sin. Now please read this whole post. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yeah, I am. But in no way does that mean that I believe homosexuals will burn in hell. I agree that attraction to the same sex for some people is not a choice. Some people are born to be attracted to the same sex. That is not a sin. Acting upon that attraction though is a sin. Homosexuality is not the worst sin and in no way is unforgivable. Homosexuality is not even in the ten commandments which tells me that adultery, stealing, and lying are worse sins. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as fornication or pornography. Homosexuals are able to go to heaven as long as they except Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins, just like every other Christian.

If you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then what reasoning is there for it to be a sin? A sick game that God likes to play? Play things for hateful heteros? What would be the purpose of creating a group of people that are going to have a forced attraction that is forbidden? Not to mention the counter statements you made. And based on those I get this. "I am against homosexuality, even though it's not the worst thing there is and they will still go to heaven if they repent for their sins, even if they still give in to these feelings." That reeks of inconsistency.

[Tmutarakhan]

"if the majority will allow it" means it's not up to me. It's up to the majority

That isn't how what America was meant to be. We used to stand for the concept of individual freedom, that the will of the majority was only imposed when there was a necessity for it, that otherwise we could make our own choices in life, each one of us equal, with inalienable rights. Not that America has ever perfectly embodied those principles, but it grieves me deeply that much of the country no longer even recognizes those principles as ideals anymore, and thinks we are all about mob rule and nothing else.