We would prefer that you only post the first paragraph of an article along with a link. Not too long ago we had the author of an article join Subsim to ask that an article be edited or removed or else to expect legal action. Neal stepped in and defused the situation, but it seemed iffy for a bit.

While I am know for having a different opinion, I have to agree here. The law was passed and that is that, at least until it is opposed in court or overturned by a future law.

I'm not so agreeable on the "whine and complain" comment. The thread was created just so someone could make their objections. They excersised that right and so did you, and now so am I. None of us has to respond, or even read it.

Again I agree in part. Or rather I waffle back and forth. Sometimes I'd like to see the church out of marriage altogether. It's my understanding that they only got involved when they saw the money they could make out of it. Then again from what I've read it mostly seems to have been the priests of whatever stripe who actually performed the ceremonies, so I could be wrong. As I said, I waffle.

I feel the same way. Laws should never be passed on religious grounds.

I'm a believer in God but I am not a religious person. I haven't been inside a church, except for obligatory appearances at various weddings and funerals, in almost 40 years and I see this push for same sex marriages as nothing more than yet another attempt to stick it to religion.

After all if this were really about obtaining spousal benefits then the gay side would be happy with Civil Unions but they are not.

I like it when these "religious" people speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTiBv...layer_embedded

I believe civil unions should be instituted. There is much more involved than the moral issue that seems to be the focal point. Specifically legalities later in life such a living Wills for example. A "life partner" has not much say in matters later in life.

Really? Where was that?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=article+quote

I'll admit I misremembered some of the events. It didn't get as far as I thought I remembered, but the point is still the same.

you know these events only show how out of touch American values are with the rest of the western world.

The U.S. is supposed to be the great defender of freedom around the world.

you have posters here that argue that they have a constitutional right to walk into any business with a loaded concealed firearm and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. :o

you have other posters who argue that they have the constitutional right to have no medical insurance whatsoever and the governement can't restrict their freedom to go bankrupt from medical fees. :o

yet you have posters who argue that it is perfectly all right to tell two consenting adults whether or not they are allowed to get married. :doh:

grow up.

Funny I don't remember reading that in my copy of the US Constitution nor do I see anything in there about staying in sync with some imaginary group that you call the "Western World".

The "rest" of the western world?

What part of the world is that? Europe, where the goal is to see who can reach utter poverty first? Yep, that place has the moral high ground let me tell ya!

Or perhaps you meant Mexico - where the entire country except for Mexico City is against same sex unions....

Maybe you meant Eastern world.....

Japan, S. Korea, Tiawan - all say no to homosexual unions... Well - guess you didn't mean the far east after all.

About the only "western" areas that really "promote" this other than europe are Canada (where if it wasn't 2 guy's boffing, moose would be involved sinply because what else is there to do up there!) and South America - which I simply need to point out the atrocious rate of STD's there to show why support is such a bad idea.

Yet isn't that the whole complaint of your earlier referenced "western world" - that we are too involved in everyones business? So we do something at home you don't like and you complain about that too!

No - you had ONE person vote in a poll that way.... and no one HERE argued FOR that right.....

It has nothing to do with "the freedom to go bankrupt" and you know it. If you want to be taken seriously, making up extravagent lies won't help your cause.....

What 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is up to them. What your saying is that 2 consenting adults - or in this case - 39% of the citizens can tell the other 61% what is and is not acceptable. That isn't how the STATE of NC is set up to be governed.

Come with facts to a debate, or don't come at all.... The tiny little tantrum at the end just doesn't seem to make your argument any more "adult" since it lacks facts and plays on emotionalism and strawmen.

see, personally this is why I think it's AT LEAST immoral got the government to do this, If not unconstitutional. It's IMO a HUGE overstepping of the Governments grounds. And to deny people civil unions solely based on their sexual orientation? In all other terms this is discrimination. Personally There needs to be a total de-Institutionalization of the secular thing called "marriage", because it's a religious thing. That way, when church groups deny gays and people they don't like marriage the government isn't part of it...and allow civil unions or whatever you like for all people. Essentially, make it where when ANYBODY signs the papers they are "in a union" to the eyes of the government...and then you can do whatever you like with any church or Spaghetti monster after.

so...if the good voters of NC had decided that the only valid union is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, you would have no problem with that?

There are certain issues of basic human liberty which citizens have to stand up for if we are to evolve as a society.

In the 50s a majority of voters in NC supported strict racial segregation laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as unjustifiable now as discrimination based on race was back then. Opponents of Gay marriage are the racists of the 21st century.

Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...

No, it doesn't. Unless you believe homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And if you believe that, it's pants on head retarded to use it as an argument against gay marriage. You know, marriage. A monogamous commitment. Not promiscuity. A committed relationship between two people.

Are you saying then that all marriages are not monogamous?

I'm saying that Haplo is attributing the higher incidence of STDs to the social acceptance of gay marriage in South American countries. I'm also saying that monogamous relationships would necessarily reduce the rate of STDs. He's arguing out of both sides of his mouth - saying on one hand that gay people have a higher rate of STDs since they're promiscuous sexual deviants, but then also using it as an argument against them when they want to show how they're not promiscuous sexual deviants.

Besides, he also engages in the classical "correlation = causation" fallacy.

Mookie....

You want the 1980 study?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conten...6/836.abstract

How about the 2007 one that states heterosexuals would need to have 3x as many partners to create the same epidemic that currently is rampant in the homosexual community?

http://www.science20.com/news_accoun..._behavior_data

Oh, even more recent you ask? Ok - here is 2010...

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/us_g...vstd_rates.php
and
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/...ssrelease.html

The official sanction of homosexuality does nothing to push back the ever expanding rate of STD growth. Doesn't matter whether you call it "marriage" or not. If you can't see that homosexuality as an "allowable" social norm contributes heavily to the STD problem faced in various geographic areas - then your doing so with intent to ignore facts.

Edit: Also - your claiming marriage must be monogamous. Why? If the LGBT crowd can redefine it - why can't the polygamist? Why can't the person who want's to marry a horse? It was good enough for a Roman Emperor..... After all - its only FAIR.

The argument that this is about "love" is disproved right here. I have a capacity for love that isn't limited to one person. Ask a parent. I love my son with all that I am - but when his sister was born, I didn't love him less because of it - nor do I love her any less than him. Why is it somehow perfectly reasonable for me to love both my kids - but its "beyond the pale" for me to love more than one adult? My daughter's mother and I are good friends - I love her deeply and always will. That doesn't stop me from building other relationships. So who is to say I can't be polyamorous? Who can FAIRLY define marriage as limited to only 2 people? See - the LGBT crowd doesn't want to ever go there - because it doesn't fit their agenda. Not every relationship or marriage is monogamous. So trying to make that claim also fails.