Gay Marriage Legal in North Carolina!

[Organized States]

I hoped that the state would've completely left the institution of marriage instead of redefining it, but it is their Constitutional right to define marriage, so I won't advocate using federal power to change it.

wait, what?

Well, I share this opinion as well.

Marriage is considered by a lot of people as an inherently religious term, which in this manner violates Separation of Church and State.

[The New Sea Territory]

I hoped that the state would've completely left the institution of marriage instead of redefining it, but it is their Constitutional right to define marriage, so I won't advocate using federal power to change it.

The American Right's argument of "abandoning marriage" that conveniently popped up with the rise of gay marriage has already been discussed, countered, and had heads shaken at.

Sure, the Religious Right bought onto the idea once they lost...but that still doesn't defeat the whole argument. I'm thinking about starting a Free Love thread.

[Inzijard]

well, I suppose that if there were specific documents available to share rights among non-married people, it would be more fair.

Of course it would be more fair, but not truly equal still. I know it isn't in all cases, but married couples can get very good tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

This is what I argue. There should be a separation of state and interpersonal relationships. If people want to be married, then sure, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for your extra rights and privileges. I don't think that's an irrational opinion to hold, as I wouldn't want to force people to pay for my special rights and benefits.

Agreed.

[Othelos]

wait, what?

Well, I share this opinion as well.

Marriage is considered by a lot of people as an inherently religious term, which in this manner violates Separation of Church and State.

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

[Othelos]

The American Right's argument of "abandoning marriage" that conveniently popped up with the rise of gay marriage has already been discussed, countered, and had heads shaken at.

Sure, the Religious Right bought onto the idea once they lost...but that still doesn't defeat the whole argument. I'm thinking about starting a Free Love thread.

do eet

[The New Sea Territory]

Of course it would be more fair, but not truly equal still. I know it isn't in all cases, but married couples can get very good tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

This is what I argue. There should be a separation of state and interpersonal relationships. If people want to be married, then sure, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for your extra rights and privileges. I don't think that's an irrational opinion to hold, as I wouldn't want to force people to pay for my special rights and benefits.

some of them are necessary, though, like hospital visitation & inheritance.

How can these not be provided in non-state solutions? They could either be provided communally or through free markets.

[Organized States]

Well, I share this opinion as well.

Marriage is considered by a lot of people as an inherently religious term, which in this manner violates Separation of Church and State.

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

[The New Sea Territory]

Sure, the Religious Right bought onto the idea once they lost...but that still doesn't defeat the whole argument. I'm thinking about starting a Free Love thread.

do eet

Alright, gimme a minute.

[The balkens]

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

Join the club.

[Othelos]

some of them are necessary, though, like hospital visitation & inheritance.

How can these not be provided in non-state solutions? They could either be provided communally or through free markets.

How so?

[Othelos]

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

no it's a secular government institution, like social security.

[Godular]

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

I've always been of the opinion that if a gay couple wants to get married, civil ceremonies are fine. If they want a church to do it though, g'luck finding one... I hear Vegas is nice.

[Olerand]

The American Right's argument of "abandoning marriage" that conveniently popped up with the rise of gay marriage has already been discussed, countered, and had heads shaken at.

Sure, the Religious Right bought onto the idea once they lost...but that still doesn't defeat the whole argument. I'm thinking about starting a Free Love thread.

Sure. And I'd be all for it, as I refuse the validity of the institution of marriage, and thus refuse to enter one; for different reasons.

However, legalizing polyamory would be a bureaucratic nightmare and:

I'm neutral on polygamy and polyandry, but have no moral argument against them.

Same.

But I have a bureaucratic argument against them though.

And since I am studying to be that most byzantine of all mandarins, the French Bureaucrat, I will be damned if your polyamorous marriage makes me have to do actual work, research, and paperwork, rather than me requesting proof of your great-grandparents' citizenship status.

I'll be damned before I let that happen! Non!

[Othelos]

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

I've always been of the opinion that if a gay couple wants to get married, civil ceremonies are fine. If they want a church to do it though, g'luck finding one... I hear Vegas is nice.

the episcopal church does them, I think

[Distruzio]

well that's silly, considering that civil marriage is secular.

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

It is secular. Perhaps if the United States were a theocracy or some variant thereof marriage would be a holy sacrement but the moment Americans accepted that marraige merited particular legal protections and rights it became a secular institution. Therefore, homosexual marriage is no threat to "the sanctity" of the institution. The sanctity is unrelated.

[Godular]

I've always been of the opinion that if a gay couple wants to get married, civil ceremonies are fine. If they want a church to do it though, g'luck finding one... I hear Vegas is nice.

the episcopal church does them, I think

OH FINE IF YOU WANT TO GO TRADITIONAL.

Just kick alien-elvis-priest to the curb why don't ya.

[The balkens]

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

It is secular. Perhaps if the United States were a theocracy or some variant thereof marriage would be a holy sacrement but the moment Americans accepted that marraige merited particular legal protections and rights it became a secular institution. Therefore, homosexual marriage is no threat to "the sanctity" of the institution. The sanctity is unrelated.

Oh how i shudder at the thought.

[Geilinor]

well, I suppose that if there were specific documents available to share rights among non-married people, it would be more fair.

Of course it would be more fair, but not truly equal still. I know it isn't in all cases, but married couples can get very good tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love

This is what I argue. There should be a separation of state and interpersonal relationships. If people want to be married, then sure, go ahead. Just don't force me to pay for your extra rights and privileges. I don't think that's an irrational opinion to hold, as I wouldn't want to force people to pay for my special rights and benefits.

They aren't special rights, they're just an easy way to have the common rights many couples want.

[Distruzio]

It is secular. Perhaps if the United States were a theocracy or some variant thereof marriage would be a holy sacrement but the moment Americans accepted that marraige merited particular legal protections and rights it became a secular institution. Therefore, homosexual marriage is no threat to "the sanctity" of the institution. The sanctity is unrelated.

Oh how i shudder at the thought.

I don't. I prefer caesaropapism but a theocracy would do well in a pinch. Maybe then Americans would see what happens when faith actually is involved with government instead of all this fearmongering from both sides of the fence on this issue.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Oh how i shudder at the thought.

I don't. I prefer caesaropapism but a theocracy would do well in a pinch. Maybe then Americans would see what happens when faith actually is involved with government instead of all this fearmongering from both sides of the fence on this issue.

The Jews prayed for a King and got one. Perhaps it's time....

[Toronina]

Glad to see more people are waking up to themselves. Another victory in the name of Freedom

[Distruzio]

I don't. I prefer caesaropapism but a theocracy would do well in a pinch. Maybe then Americans would see what happens when faith actually is involved with government instead of all this fearmongering from both sides of the fence on this issue.

The Jews prayed for a King and got one. Perhaps it's time....

Things happen for a reason. Kritarchy is my preference for the US, as it stands. Fuck the executive and legislative branches. They have proven themselves unworthy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's the part I'm back and forth on.

I've always been of the opinion that if a gay couple wants to get married, civil ceremonies are fine. If they want a church to do it though, g'luck finding one... I hear Vegas is nice.

Or, you know, my church. Also the United Church Of Christ, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Metropolitan Community Church, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, various Buddhist and Hindu sects, and numerous others legally allowed to perform ceremonies. Why do people assume that all churches are against this? Hell, it was the UCC that started this in some states by suing states for the right to perform said ceremonies and have them be legal.

[Faustin Land]

So they legalize gay marriage but not the right to marry multiple people or my own dog? Shame.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Glad to see more people are waking up to themselves. Another victory in the name of Freedom

Eh I wouldn't be so sure. The judge was smart, It was ruled at 5pm just before the weekend starts. Most people wont find out till tomorrow, and no injunctions can be made till the courts open again on Monday. In the mean time no one can get married as the clerks office is closed on weekends too. This could go the other way... possibly. Unlikely, but possibly.