Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Blood_splat]

Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.

Marriage is between man and dog.

So when he said his wife is a bitch......

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So when he said his wife is a bitch......

The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?

Any christian that knows their text wouldn't have much of a problem with his comment, "christians" might though.

Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.

Can anyone top that for a display of false victim mentality?
It really is a doozy of magnificent proportions.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.

Considering the women I know, this man is a genius

[razark]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.

I'll dive headfirst down this slippery slope and say that I have no problem with this.

Of course, you do have proof that the dog consented to the marriage, right?

Originally Posted by August

What about people (like me) who don't care if gays form a permanent union but just feel it should be called something other than "marriage"?

"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.

Cliche's tend to oversimplify so you really shouldn't rely on them in an argument. Your name is different than mine. Does that make us unequal? No. We name things to categorize and identify them, not to make them unequal.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

Your name is different than mine. Does that make us unequal?

Only if you try to deny me rights because my name is different from yours.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

Only if you try to deny me rights because my name is different from yours.

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

I understand the point, a legal union having all the rights and obligations of a traditional marriage, but with a different name. I personally always thought that would be a good compromise, but for that to be a viable alternative, there would have to be movement very soon. Politically, it may already be too late for that. If Gays are obliged to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to have their rights recognized, they will accept nothing less than full equality.

In Canada, our former liberal government had legalised same- sex marriage after losing a series of court cases, all using the same reasoning as the U.S. cases I mentioned previously. When the Conservatives came in, they toyed with the idea of creating a separate " civil union", but finally gave up since it did not make sense to get into a major political fight over a name.

[geetrue]

Isn't marriage between a man and a woman just a way to make co-habitation legal?

You now have the right to lay with your mate with a legal paper and legal status if the marriage doesn't work out they can terimate the marriage dividing property as the state they live in has already agreed to, which is 50% in California.

If this is so and I believe it is ... then all the gays really want is to do is make what they do legal.

Retirement pay and other US government restrictions to gay partners has already been lifted from what I understand. They can kiss each other upon returning from an overseas deployment in front of cameras without fear of pushiment.

Now they have someone from the white house, for the first time, on their side.

Just like North Carolina had someone, Billy Graham, on their side to defeat the gay marriage bill.

It's like black and white to me ... both sides have people in high places on their side.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

Ok let's say they do that. Gays can have their civil unions. But here's the kicker - since separate but equal has been found to be inherently unequal, they tell all married people, ok in the interest of equality, you're not married anymore...we now consider you a Civil Union and you still have all the rights and benefits, but you're just not legally "married" anymore. Can you imagine the crapstorm that would stir up?

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

But that's the whole point of Civil Unions. You wouldn't get any more or less rights or benefits by getting married as opposed to obtaining a civil union, you're just calling something different a different name. That is all.

So you're denying them the right to get married.

It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

So you're denying them the right to get married.

It used to be that black people had the right to ride the bus, as long as they sat in the back. They had the right to ride the bus, but for some reason, they had a problem with it. It shouldn't matter, as long as they can still ride the bus, right?

I'm not denying them anything.

You tell me the practical differences between marriage and civil unions and how the latter equals riding in the back of the monogamy bus and maybe you'll have a point, but until then it's just another misapplication of a tired analogy.