Gay Marriage Legal in North Carolina!

[Atlanticatia]

I always found it amusing that this argument only started to rear its ugly head when the anti-equality movement started its full retreat from relevance. Mite bit convenient that now, of all times, you want to get government out of marriage.

This.

And it is such a quintessentially American argument too. The refusal to admit defeat, the visceral hatred of government, and the whitewashing of wrongs and claiming of always being on the "right side".

Especially because people often don't know what they even mean when they say it.

There's such an irrational fear of government intervention in anything here in the US. If you say 'government regulation' or 'government service' to someone, chances are they'll be like "OH GOD NOOO". but if you say "the government provides a structure for couples to benefit from tax status, for signing documents, owning property, managing assets, managing medical rights and rights at death, etc and basically everything else that straight married couples currently enjoy" they'll have a different reaction.

I mean - I do believe that some people do have a view that the government shouldn't recognize relationships at all (extreme libertarians), but obviously it's necessary for the things i listed above. it's just become a cover-up for being anti-marriage equality in some cases, imo

[The New Sea Territory]

Most people understand that by "marriage" we are referring to the legal institution. One would think it was obvious, but apparently not.

The Polygamists in Utah only have one legally recognized marriage but in the eyes of God they have several wives. For them, it is likely God's views matter more than man's.

Thus, marriage has two contexts. Legal/civil and Religious/Social. We are talking about legal/civil marriage.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

"Marriage" has two forms. Legal and Religious. Other than that, it's not really "marriage".

And in this context I would have thought it obvious that we are talking about the legal institution of marriage. What with all the talk of court decisions and judges and attorneys and it saying "Legal" in the title.

Yeah, weird how the anti-equality crowd keeps arguing against a point that nobody is making.

"Gay marriage shouldn't be legal, since it goes against my beliefs."

"Okay, but it should be legal because your religious beliefs don't dictate law."

"My religion doesn't allow it."

"Mine does, and people who don't have a religion seem to be okay with it for the most part."

"YOU'RE TRYING TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND FORCE MY CHURCH TO MARRY TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX."

"No, we're...."

"I WILL STAND UP FOR MY GOD AND MY BELIEFS!"

"Nobody's trying to..."

"JESUS IS A FRIEND OF MINE, JESUS IS MY FRIEND..."

"Right. I'll be over here at this awesome gay marriage reception...."

[The New Sea Territory]

Lol. That's actually not true, as anarchists in the 1800s argued for such things. I've almost always argued for separation of state and relationships.

Alright, with exceptions for anarchists noted.

Well, it's a good point to bring up, because the first people to truly support LGBT Rights, especially in America and Europe, were anarchists and some socialist radicals. All the progressives and "liberals" during those times were pretty homophobic as well. Without anarchists, there wouldn't have been a developed LGBT Movement until much later.

[Othelos]

The Christians of the Middle East during the time of the invasion of the Rashidun Caliphate were no friends of the Byzantines. They were predominantly non-Greek, non-Chalcedonian Christians who had been consistently persecuted by the Chalcedonian imperial authorities for centuries. The first caliphs, in contrast, were completely willing to leave them alone to practice their religion as they wished so long as they paid their taxes and didn't cause trouble. You ever wonder why there weren't any serious revolts against Muslim rule in places like the Levant and Egypt during the first few centuries of the caliphate, even though the Christians were by far the dominant religious group? That's why.

I'm aware that the crusaders were no friends of the Byzantines. Infact, the Crusaders trampled all over the Byzantines lands and eventually established Crusader states in the heart of the Empire and in outlying pieces of it which were centered near Jerusalem. I did not need to know this again. And no, I do not wonder. The Muslims had more than a capable military force that would have crushed any Christian rebellions, even though the first caliph were plauged by more problems than the fear of the Christians uprising.

It doesn't change the fact that they invaded Europe, that they took Christian lands over, that they invaded Jerusalem and killed thousands while doing so(yes, the crusaders were no better as they also killed thousands in the multiple attempts to re-take Jerusalem,). They were not nice people. They were radicals who had immense power and immense sway and used that to their advantage against the European and non-muslim cultures in their scope.

If you aren't going to respond to my posts, just concede already. Honestly.

[Olerand]

This.

And it is such a quintessentially American argument too. The refusal to admit defeat, the visceral hatred of government, and the whitewashing of wrongs and claiming of always being on the "right side".

...and if you guys are trying to imply that only homophobes argue that govt should be out of marriage...I'm bisexual and support government out of all marriage.

No I meant to imply that only Americans come up with it.

We legalized gay marriage last year, and some of the Catholics, and the right-wing demagogues that unrealistically pander to them, would like to see it "banned again" or "reformed".

But no one has suggested the Republic stop performing marriages or civil unions. And in France, only civil marriages are recognized by the State. You must have a civil marriage to be legally married.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

And in this context I would have thought it obvious that we are talking about the legal institution of marriage. What with all the talk of court decisions and judges and attorneys and it saying "Legal" in the title.

Yeah, weird how the anti-equality crowd keeps arguing against a point that nobody is making.

"Gay marriage shouldn't be legal, since it goes against my beliefs."

"Okay, but it should be legal because your religious beliefs don't dictate law."

"My religion doesn't allow it."

"Mine does, and people who don't have a religion seem to be okay with it for the most part."

"YOU'RE TRYING TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND FORCE MY CHURCH TO MARRY TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX."

"No, we're...."

"I WILL STAND UP FOR MY GOD AND MY BELIEFS!"

"Nobody's trying to..."

"JESUS IS A FRIEND OF MINE, JESUS IS MY FRIEND..."

"Right. I'll be over here at this awesome gay marriage reception...."

Excellent satire!

[Freiheit Reich]

All marriage should be legal and ignored by the govt. The govt. needs to get out of the marriage business.

I always found it amusing that this argument only started to rear its ugly head when the anti-equality movement started its full retreat from relevance. Mite bit convenient that now, of all times, you want to get government out of marriage.

I didn't adapt this viewpoint until 2010-2011 when I started adapting more libertarian viewpoints. It had nothing to do with gay marriage, it had to do with a change in my political beliefs. Actually, my views towards gays have also become more tolerant over the years. I used to also think they should be sent to re-education camps but now I know this is too much govt. control and leads down a dangerous slippery slope.

It is better to reduce govt. involvement in many things (but at a gradual pace). This is one area that would be safe to get the govt. out of.

[Olerand]

Alright, with exceptions for anarchists noted.

Well, it's a good point to bring up, because the first people to truly support LGBT Rights, especially in America and Europe, were anarchists and some socialist radicals. All the progressives and "liberals" during those times were pretty homophobic as well. Without anarchists, there wouldn't have been a developed LGBT Movement until much later.

Noted, and acknowledged, once again.

[Socialist Abania]

Yeah, weird how the anti-equality crowd keeps arguing against a point that nobody is making.

"Gay marriage shouldn't be legal, since it goes against my beliefs."

"Okay, but it should be legal because your religious beliefs don't dictate law."

"My religion doesn't allow it."

"Mine does, and people who don't have a religion seem to be okay with it for the most part."

"YOU'RE TRYING TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND FORCE MY CHURCH TO MARRY TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX."

"No, we're...."

"I WILL STAND UP FOR MY GOD AND MY BELIEFS!"

"Nobody's trying to..."

"JESUS IS A FRIEND OF MINE, JESUS IS MY FRIEND..."

"Right. I'll be over here at this awesome gay marriage reception...."

Excellent satire!

If only.
That gay marriage was flaming fab though.

[Othelos]

I always found it amusing that this argument only started to rear its ugly head when the anti-equality movement started its full retreat from relevance. Mite bit convenient that now, of all times, you want to get government out of marriage.

I didn't adapt this viewpoint until 2010-2011 when I started adapting more libertarian viewpoints. It had nothing to do with gay marriage, it had to do with a change in my political beliefs. Actually, my views towards gays have also become more tolerant over the years. I used to also think they should be sent to re-education camps but now I know this is too much govt. control and leads down a dangerous slippery slope.

It is better to reduce govt. involvement in many things (but at a gradual pace). This is one area that would be safe to get the govt. out of.

how? what's wrong with the government ensuring that people have the 1,100 rights & benefits that comes along with civil marriage?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Alright, with exceptions for anarchists noted.

Well, it's a good point to bring up, because the first people to truly support LGBT Rights, especially in America and Europe, were anarchists and some socialist radicals. All the progressives and "liberals" during those times were pretty homophobic as well. Without anarchists, there wouldn't have been a developed LGBT Movement until much later.

True. Even immediately before and following the Stonewall Riots, it was the political radicals who took the reins of the nascent "Gay Lib" movement (as it was known at the time).

[United States of The One Percent]

They are both against God.

I find it beyond sad that anyone would think someone who truly loves anyone else is somehow disobeying God.

[Socialist Abania]

They are both against God.

I find it beyond sad that anyone would think someone who truly loves anyone else is somehow disobeying God.

Tell that to Archeuland and Baughistan

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yeah, weird how the anti-equality crowd keeps arguing against a point that nobody is making.

"Gay marriage shouldn't be legal, since it goes against my beliefs."

"Okay, but it should be legal because your religious beliefs don't dictate law."

"My religion doesn't allow it."

"Mine does, and people who don't have a religion seem to be okay with it for the most part."

"YOU'RE TRYING TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND FORCE MY CHURCH TO MARRY TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX."

"No, we're...."

"I WILL STAND UP FOR MY GOD AND MY BELIEFS!"

"Nobody's trying to..."

"JESUS IS A FRIEND OF MINE, JESUS IS MY FRIEND..."

"Right. I'll be over here at this awesome gay marriage reception...."

Excellent satire!

Thank you. Like all good satire, it's simply a distillation of the truth.

[Kargintina]

A Southern State gone Demi? I'm actually quite shocked.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I find it beyond sad that anyone would think someone who truly loves anyone else is somehow disobeying God.

Tell that to Archeuland and Baughistan

You may call me NIAPA if you wish as well.

[The New Sea Territory]

"the government provides a structure for couples to benefit from tax status, for signing documents, owning property, managing assets, managing medical rights and rights at death, etc and basically everything else that straight married couples currently enjoy"

Taxation is theft, signing documents and owning property, along with rights, do not require sanctions or endorsement from the state, and straight couples are arbitrarily given those privileges over single individuals, thus showing the government is unfairly treating married people over single people.

I mean - I do believe that some people do have a view that the government shouldn't recognize relationships at all (extreme libertarians),

That's me.

but obviously it's necessary for the things i listed above. it's just become a cover-up for being anti-marriage equality in some cases, imo

Of course. It is like the Tea Party. They use the "libertarian" label to distinguish themselves from mainstream conservatives, despite largely agreeing with the Religious Right and not agreeing with libertarians.

[Inzijard]

They are both against God.

I find it beyond sad that anyone would think someone who truly loves anyone else is somehow disobeying God.

And if that really is the case, is that not strictly between them and God?

[Socialist Abania]

Tell that to Archeuland and Baughistan

You may call me NIAPA if you wish as well.

I'd rather not.
That would signify I have respect for you.

A Southern State gone Demi? I'm actually quite shocked.

Now all we need is Mississippi and Alabama and then we have the South all together

[Freiheit Reich]

This.

And it is such a quintessentially American argument too. The refusal to admit defeat, the visceral hatred of government, and the whitewashing of wrongs and claiming of always being on the "right side".

Especially because people often don't know what they even mean when they say it.

There's such an irrational fear of government intervention in anything here in the US. If you say 'government regulation' or 'government service' to someone, chances are they'll be like "OH GOD NOOO". but if you say "the government provides a structure for couples to benefit from tax status, for signing documents, owning property, managing assets, managing medical rights and rights at death, etc and basically everything else that straight married couples currently enjoy" they'll have a different reaction.

I mean - I do believe that some people do have a view that the government shouldn't recognize relationships at all (extreme libertarians), but obviously it's necessary for the things i listed above. it's just become a cover-up for being anti-marriage equality in some cases, imo

There are simple ways for this to be done. Co-sign a loan for the house for instance or sign a document that states you own 50% (or whatever %) of the house. With the internet, legal services for things like Power of Attorney should be easier and perhaps the govt. can find a way to simplify this procedure as well.

Two brothers or friends might want to co-own a house or other property. They have a means to do this without marrying each other. Not only married people deal with these issues.

[Organized States]

A Southern State gone Demi? I'm actually quite shocked.

They used to all be Democratic, you know.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I'd rather not.
That would signify I have respect for you.

How's that?

[The New Sea Territory]

Well, it's a good point to bring up, because the first people to truly support LGBT Rights, especially in America and Europe, were anarchists and some socialist radicals. All the progressives and "liberals" during those times were pretty homophobic as well. Without anarchists, there wouldn't have been a developed LGBT Movement until much later.

True. Even immediately before and following the Stonewall Riots, it was the political radicals who took the reins of the nascent "Gay Lib" movement (as it was known at the time).

We can also thank anarchists and radical liberal/socialists/libertarians for labor unions (and their dozens of accomplishments), separation of church and state, drug legalization movements, anti-war movements and basically everything considered "socially liberal".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Especially because people often don't know what they even mean when they say it.

There's such an irrational fear of government intervention in anything here in the US. If you say 'government regulation' or 'government service' to someone, chances are they'll be like "OH GOD NOOO". but if you say "the government provides a structure for couples to benefit from tax status, for signing documents, owning property, managing assets, managing medical rights and rights at death, etc and basically everything else that straight married couples currently enjoy" they'll have a different reaction.

I mean - I do believe that some people do have a view that the government shouldn't recognize relationships at all (extreme libertarians), but obviously it's necessary for the things i listed above. it's just become a cover-up for being anti-marriage equality in some cases, imo

There are simple ways for this to be done. Co-sign a loan for the house for instance or sign a document that states you own 50% (or whatever %) of the house. With the internet, legal services for things like Power of Attorney should be easier and perhaps the govt. can find a way to simplify this procedure as well.

Two brothers or friends might want to co-own a house or other property. They have a means to do this without marrying each other. Not only married people deal with these issues.

Or people can get married, which means that only one document needs to be signed, no lawyers need to be hired, and there is no chance of missing out on the basic rights granted to married couples due to forgetting a detail. But I can understand how someone as Libertarian as you would be all about more government paperwork...wait, no, that makes no sense.