Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If there is no practical difference then why insist on a different name?

Because it involves a different combination of gender.

Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?

[antikristuseke]

Efficiency.

It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state what the gender of the married people is, to the state all it should be was a contract by which joint property etc. is divided, among other things. As far as the state is concerned marriage is no more than a legal contract.

Thats the way it should be anyway, at least in my opinion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to the state

If you had stopped with the above quote, I could have agreed in full. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.

[antikristuseke]

That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.

That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.

Because it involves a different combination of gender.

Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?

Could they call it a union or would that be a union or a union or maybe a union?
damn they need another name for a union as they are not all the same. Maybe they should call it a coupling instead. Damn that can be coupling or coupling or coupling.
why oh why do people use the same name for different things

That would be well and good if marriage was nothing but a religious tradition, it is anything but. It is first and foremost a legal contract.

Get with the program anti, don't let rational thought get in the way

That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.

So you are familiar with the history and with the origins of the words involved.
You are wasting your time along that line though as those seemingly important details are brought up regularly in the all too frequent "gay marriage" topics and promptly ignored again and again by those who have a problem with gay marrriage but can't seem to make facts fit their arguement.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Get with the program anti, don't let rational thought get in the way

Alright, I shall get with the program.

Here is a picture of my new sunglasses, gay marriage should be banned!

[Alex]

[Ducimus]

^



Random, and obligatory Village people links:




and of course....



Good christ, what am i posting, I ain't even had coffee yet.

Good christ, what am i posting, I ain't even had coffee yet.

don't bring religion or stimulants into this.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

don't bring religion or stimulants into this.

Oh no. More variables.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rilder

That is the origins of marriage isn't it? Trading off your daughters to secure trade deals and alliances.

I've heard that the ancient Greeks believed that the only true love could be homosexual, and marriage was invented as a legal contract to force a man and a woman to stay together for the sake of the children.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Because it involves a different combination of gender.

Which means exactly nothing. The contract is the same; the distinction is artificial.

Why insist on using the same name for two distinctly different combinations?

Because there is no reason to. The combinations only mean something to people who don't like them. You're trying to make the words fit your bias.

[Bilge_Rat]

On a semi-related note, what is going on out on the campaign trail?

It was inevitable that a Democratic candidate would eventually embrace same-sex marriage, but I was a bit surprised Obama would embrace a potentially toxic issue so openly, given how close the election is.

But I was really surprised by the Republican response. I would have thought this was the kind of cultural issue that they would pounce on, but Romney and the leadership are trying to stay as far away as they can from it.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

But I was really surprised by the Republican response. I would have thought this was the kind of cultural issue that they would pounce on, but Romney and the leadership are trying to stay as far away as they can from it.

Smart move on their part. Big issue is economy, why muddy the water?