I'm sorry Steve but I disagree. Gender is not an artificial distinction.

No reason? Obviously a whole lot of people disagree with you or it wouldn't be the huge issue that it is. As for making words fit your bias, I could say the same thing about you. You only think combinations don't mean anything because you support the other side.

The arguement used works whichever "side" he is supporting or if he is entirely neutral on the issue, it deals with a claim that was made
Several people have taken your claim and shown it to be rubbish, in fact they have taken it in detail and shown it to be complete rubbish.
Your response ....
:wah::wah:its only because you are on the other side.
If you cannot deal with what was written and counter it effectively then you have no arguement against it...simple isn't it:yeah:

But hey lets be generous, maybe you are just missing the key word.
so try again, the important word is in the first and your red herring is in the second

Umm, I think the term you guys want is "sex" not "gender".


Otherwise then you would be ok with gay marriage as long as one of the people involved considered themselves female and the other male, IE they are different genders but the same sex.




Anyhow I'll add my 2 cents to the topic. I could care less what other people do when it comes to forming unions. I also could care less what they want to call it. I do think that you can't force religions to perform union ceremonies, but I don't think that is the main issue. Personally I say just call them all civil unions period, and if the individuals want to consider themselves "married"... whatever.


I do however have a problem with passing laws against it as it is discriminating against certain groups and denying them the basic rights everyone else has. I don't care how many people vote in support of it, it is still completely unethical and should not be permitted. It is always the slippery slope, deny the rights of one group, and you probably will be the next group being denied rights.

I don't think gays in NC should have to pay taxes now.

No, it's not, but making it a criterion for different designations certainly is.

It's only a huge issue because biased people make it so. My only bias here is against those who would dictate to others how they must live their lives.

And there it is - the ultimate falsehood in this whole thing. Steve - please note I am not accusing you of lying - your repeating the disinformation that is constantly put out there.

This doesn't say 2 men or 2 women can't spend their lives together. It doesn't tell them what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home. It does not force them to seperate their lives and move on without one another.

To say that this tells other how they MUST live their lives is a total perversion of the truth.

Let me give another, related example. Polygamy. Yes - its illegal. But what is the "legal" definition? Being "married" - as defined by the state - to more than one person. But guess what - many poly families don't need some state recognition of their relationship. True relationships are not defined by a marriage certificate signed by some beaurocrat. If it is, then its not worth the paper it would have been printed on. I know of a few poly families, am friends with them - and yes there is only one "legal" marriage (or sometimes not one at all) involved - but everyone has a love for another in certain ways.

Know what - they don't care that polygamy is illegal - because the state can't define their love for each other. This isn't about relationships and what is or isn't allowed - its about forcing societal change.

No one can tell those families that there can't be 4 or 5 adults in one house. No one can tell them who can "sleep" with whom. Just as this amendment doesn't stop any couple of people of the same sex choosing to do the exact same thing.

Its never been about what people can or can't do - its been about making everyone else accept what some people do in their bedrooms. Its none of anyone's business - and it wouldn't be an issue if those that want to have same sex relationships didn't want to flaunt their bedroom preferences to the rest of the world. Its was none of anyone's business - till they decided to make it everyone's business.

So they MAY live their lives as a married couple?

Who knew?

Naughty
Are you repeating the disinformation that has just been put out there here?:03:



Complete bull.:doh:
So who is it that is repeating the disinformation again and again?

Isn't it interesting that just about every arguement put forward by the "anti" side falls apart very quickly and they just throw up more increasingly obvious false claims instead of re-appraising their objections

Again - depend on how you define live. If you mean live in a house together, share their lives, joys and concers with each other as they see fit, sleep with each other in the privacy of their own home (or in places where ownership allows same), talk about the day, troubles, finances, life worries, etc, argue and fight like other couples (married or not) - then yes.

If you mean they get to have some piece of paper from the state saying they are "married".... No

Which has a deeper meaning?

So marriage means forcing people to accept what you do in the bedroom with your spouse? Well I think the people against gay marriage would have a hard time accepting what some heterosexual couples do in their bedrooms. :rotfl2:

That is a very good question. And I think we all know the answer.

So in a short time have you meant live but not live and not discriminate but discriminate and not marriage but marriage and christian but not christian.
Haplo when you are managing to tie yourself in knots rather than say "ooooops that claim I made didn't make sense" doesn't it kinda drop a really unsubtle hint to yourself about your views on the subject?

So the real question is why the answer is "No". Is it because there is something inherently wrong with it, or is it because some people just don't like it? If it were any other subject most of the 'antis' would be crying "Tyranny of the masses!"

The answer is obvious, but the question is loaded. Why do some people really have a problem with the idea that they would like to be treated like other couples?

If matrimony a sacred bond between a man and woman, then why is it no big deal and a simple legal procedure to dissolve the bond? After the vows that pledge love no matter what, led by a man of god, and sealed by the state... if one partner decides "hey, I don't want to be married to you any more", that person can dissolve the marriage & drag the other partner into divorce against their will.

People make too big a deal out of marriage, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and hasn't for a long time. Where have your big protests been over the last 50 years against divorce? Been pretty quiet over there. Now gays want to "marry' and it's time to march? :shifty: Weak.

Haplo, picking your partner or partners and living together in happiness is only part of the story and you know it. The real issue is the legal protections offered to spouses by the state when they enter that contract in the eyes of the state. That and equality are at the heart of this thing and as such denying homosexual couples the right to marriage is nothing but discrimination on either religious or just personal dislike grounds, which don't hold up to scrutiny.