I understood what you meant. My point was that one does not need to be married to have joint ownership of something.

Exactly where did I accuse you of anything? Certainly not in the statement you quoted. You seem to reach a point in every debate where you attempt to make it personal by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of attacking you. I've been very careful to do no such thing.

As for civil unions, they are not the same as marriage in everything but name. In fact there seem to be very great differences.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Right here:

That sounded like an accusation to me. Can you show where I said I want to deny gays inheritance rights?

I get called a bigot, repeatedly, and *I'm* the one making things personal? That's just rich.

I never said that you're attacking me. I said you're accusing me of something I never said and that I was kind of surprised that you'd do it. Sorry if you think that's getting personal.

Yeah, sure. "Oh I didn't quote yoooooou when I was quoting a completely hypothetical person talking about "bigots dying off" and twisting it into this completely hypothetical person wishing that I was the bigot who would die soon. I certainly have no idea what you're talking about!" :roll:

When it gets to this level of ridiculousness, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm done here.

Relax August - I am the bigot here - I am one who voted for the amendment so by their definition I must be a bigot.

Never mind that "team R" offered at one point to codify civil unions and make them equal to in all respects to marriage. Never mind that this has only come because the gay lobby refused to accept ANYTHING short of their demands. Of course, the gay lobby wants you to think of this as "discrimination" by a bunch of "religious bigots" - so don't google "Church sued over gay marriage" because facts show that gay activists have been trying to FORCE religious institutions to accept gay marriage through the courts since at least 2007.....

The reality is that the homosexual activists pushed way too hard - and finally the rest of society - at least in NC - got sick of it and decided to push back. So now they scream "its not fair".

So Mookie, Bilge and whoever else - go ahead and call me a bigot all while claiming I am treating people unfair because they can still have every single "benefit" of a married couple except one.

Live together? Check
Share finances? Check
Leave inheritance? Check
Medical decisions and visitation? Check
Get a state certificate that says married? Nope

Cry me a river.....

Oh i'm completely relaxed, although several folks on the other side of this argument seem to be getting pretty hot under the collar. It's actually pretty funny to read. :DL

You've openly admitted you want them denied the right to be married, and the benefits that go with it. I didn't accuse you of anything you didn't say yourself.

I've seen people using a broad brush and using "bigot" as a general term for everyone who would deny these rights. I don't think in those terms, but you do seem to enjoy making it about you.

I didn't say you were getting personal. I said that sooner or later you make every argument about yourself, and accuse others of making it personal.

I'm not sure who that would be. From an objective viewpoint your responses have been no more and no less antagonistic that your opponents. You come across as just as hot as you think they do.

I believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. Two people of the same gender do not meet that basic requirement. Your use of the term "openly admitted" implies that I am guilty of some crime. Do you feel that my opinion is criminal?

This is the second time you have claimed this and it is still totally false. Now either find where I said anything about denying gays these benefits or admit that you are fabricating this.

Then you obviously have no idea what I enjoy or not Steve.

Telling a person that they are making the argument about them then repeatedly posting fabrications about their position sounds pretty darn personal to me. What do any of these unfounded claims of yours have to do with the thread topic?

Well that's your misunderstanding then. Not very objective of you...

Another red herring.
Ducking the issue as it destroys your claim:yep:

You have shown what you believe, however your attempts at justifying and supporting those beliefs have failed in spectacular at every stage. Which means your "basic requirement" isn't an actual basic requirement in the real world as it doesn't stand up.


"Openly admitted" implies openly admitted.
So is that "criminal" another red herring but with a side order of victim mentality?


oh dear:doh:
Your whole arguement has been about denying them this.
It has been expalianed in detail and people have even posted links to show you how you are doing it.
So that makes it appear that as well as being unable to support your views on the subject you also do not seem to know what exactly it is you are arguing in favour of.

I am afraid you seem to be having problems with the words "fabrications" and "unfounded"....would you like a link to a dictionary to learn what they mean?

Your formula is faulty as it is incomplete. So......
Not quite
not quite
not quite
not quite
exactly.
the "exactly" is the issue which clears up all the "not quites" into "check"

so, in other words, uppity Gays were not willing to accept whatever second class status was cobbled together, so "y'all" decided to put the Gays back in their place by stripping away ALL their rights. :o

Good call, very mature. :rolleyes:

apparently, allowing gay marriage will bring about the destruction of society as we know it...:o

http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/threat/

Ahhh its nice to know some things never change. I see your still stalking ME here on subsim. Still consumed by ME..... My thanks to the person who pointed out I should see this post, as it truly is an opportunity to good to pass up....

For all of you actually silly enough to pay attention to tribesman and his stalking of my every post - lets examine his foolish stance here, shall we?

I say that in NC, homosexuals can live together.
His position is "not quite".

Hmmmm... "not quite"? So they are allowed to live on the same street? They can live next door to each other or across the street from each other? Heck, maybe in the LA-LA land that is the "brain" of poor tribesman, one of the gay folks can even set up a tent in the front yard of his partner? But don'tcha know they are just not allowed to actually live under the same roof.... I bet he is sure that the "gay police" are coming around randomly every night to make sure that honosexual #2 is in that tent, too!

"not quite" :har:

I say that in NC, homosexuals can share finances.
He says - "not quite".

Oh boy.... did you all notice that amendment and existing state law that says a gay person can not deposit his or her money into any one else's account? Did you see where it said they couldn't be on the account of another person? no?!?! You must not be reading the LA-LA land version on NC existence.

"not quite" - Well, you see, in LA-LA land of tribalboy, gays ARE (at least apparently) allowed to use the same bank. They are allowed to get the same kinds of accounts. Amazingly, they can even have accounts that are just 1 tiny number off - so they are "not quite" sharing - but just ever so close to it. But LA-LA land NC apparently makes banks have a form that asks customers about their sexual orientation, so that no homosexuals can share accounts. But if your straight and simply have a business arrangement of any kind, that's ok - the bank won't ask. Only thing that matters is that form answer of "are you gay?"

"Not quite" :woot:

I stated NC allows homosexuals to leave behind anything they choose in a will as they see fit.

Do I even need to remind you all what the "it takes a tribal.... idiot" thinks? That's right ......... "not quite"...

Apparently, in LA-LA land NC, you have to fill out one of those pesky "are you gay" forms when you register your will. If you said yes, you can't leave your stuff to your lover - but you could leave it to anyone else. Maybe your gay lover's doctor, or dentist? You could leave it to their Mom or their Dad. You could leave it to their sister or brother. Just not any other homosexual with whom you have had a (gasp) "relationship" with. Yes, you see - LA-LA land NC must have a serious amount of bureaucracy to make sure those gay folks can "not quite" do the stuff they want.

"not quite" :haha:

Then we come to the issue of Medical rights. I make clear that a homosexual can determine who can make decisions, etc. Its called a medical power of attorney. Alas - the subsim tribe's resident "LA-LA land" expert has a different view. Can you guess?

If you said "not quite" - congrats - your at least smarter than tribesman. That's correct - he says "not quite". So we once again compare reality to the imaginary fairy foo-foo land in which tribesman exits.

In NC, a homosexual is allowed to get the appropriate paperwork that will allow whomever they want to have medical authority. There is no restriction on if its another homosexual.

Of course - in LA-LA NC, any Power of Attorney comes with those ever present "are you gay" forms. Those poor, repressed and discriminated against gay folks, they can't put their gay lovers on the forms. Almost, but not quite. They can still put their dentist though. And their "partners" parents or siblings. Or the straight neighbor that lives on the other side of their lover - since remember their gay lover isn't allowed to live with them.

"Not quite"........:O:

And finally we come to the one that is agreed upon. No little piece of paper that says "your married". At least tribesman got this one right.

Considering he is speaking from across an ocean, and his expansive history of inaccuracy on other things he knows nothing about, this is significant. 1 out of 5 is MUCH better than he normally does! Lets all give him a hand! :yeah:

Now, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the lesson here for poor tribesman. So, young lad, notice that (once again) your right only when you agree with ME. Now, we all know you follow ME around, always have to post after ME, have an obsession bordering on stalking with ME. So bask in the glory that you actually got one right by agreeing with your idol - ME - and be proud of your accomplishment. Who knows - maybe one day - you might actually agree MORE - and thus be right more. You see, there is hope for your (somewhat perverse) worship and obsession with ME. Keep up the good work, lad - there may be hope for you yet! :sunny:

So you still have your false victim complex and still have a propensity for spouting bull.

Yes, not quite:yep:

Yes, not quite:yep:

Yes not quite.:yep:

yes not quite.:yep:

Well done for your epic fail. you managed more red herrings than august and more strawmen than a wizard of oz convention
You amazingly managed to get all four wrong again which is quite some achievement.
You even detailed a few times how you were wrong without even noticing.:rotfl2:

You really are showing youself up to be a plonker there.
CAPS LOCK really does strike again to emphasise the fact:smug:

But hey, you seem to be having real mental problems over grasping this simple issue so lets be really generous and spell it out nice and easy using only simple words.
The last one changes the legal conditions attatched to all the others which is why all of those others are "not quite".

Medical decisions are not allowable if I remember correctly. You might recall Leovampire here at Subsim? His partner was not legally able to make any decisions medically for Leovampire. ICU in most hospitals are family only visitation.

The state certificate allows two things:
1. Noted married
2. Marriage tax penalty.