Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.

Well since the state is in the business of making and enforcing laws, ofcourse they should be involved. Either that or abolish any joint ownership via marriage etc. anything else and it is arbitrary discrimination.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is no better or more valid than yours, and vice versa.

Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A totally useless and irrelevant analogy.

Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.

I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

Which is where you are going hopelessly wrong.
Marriage is a legal contract that may or may not involve religion but certainly involves the state in lots of ways.
Despite everything shown to the contrary you still think it is a religious ceremony and nothing else.

Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant.

It was totally and utterly useless and irrelevant.

You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.

Because it is so totally and utterly useless it certainly cannot support your opinion.
If it supported it then it couldn't have been shown as nonsense so easily in a single word

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Well since the state is in the business of making and enforcing laws, ofcourse they should be involved. Either that or abolish any joint ownership via marriage etc. anything else and it is arbitrary discrimination.

There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?

There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?

Who inherits the cabin if one of you dies?
Who inherits if both of you die?
you really are setting yourself up for a fall again and again with your attempts to defend your view on this

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.

Gay marriage is not a car, nor a traffic law. It's indeed useless and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by August

Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".

If you're going to take one of your trademark petty swipes at someone, at least have the courtesy to quote what I said correctly.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.

That's a far friggin' cry from "August is a bigot and I hope he dies soon." It's stating a plainly obvious truth that's been the case for thousands of years. Social change doesn't happen overnight, it happens generationally, as the previous generation passes along with their ideas. If you don't like that and feel offended over that fact, I don't know what to tell you. It's going to happen, as it's happened time and time again. Deal with it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant. You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.

No, I say that because it had nothing to do with the subject.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah right. Tell that to the people who call me and others "bigots" who will hopefully "die off soon".

I was stating my own. And I was trying to be nice. Sorry if that concept is foreign to you.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

There can still be joint ownership without marriage.

If your friend dies and leaves all his money to you the government will take a large share. If you are married you will get it all. That's one of the things they are asking for and you want to deny them.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Gay marriage is not a car, nor a traffic law. It's indeed useless and irrelevant.

You're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong but you're entitled to it.

your trademark petty swipes

Now isn't that just lovely, more personal insults.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Now isn't that just lovely, more personal insults.

But no admission of how you intentionally misquoted me. Nice.

And denying rights to others because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. is still bigotry.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

If your friend dies and leaves all his money to you the government will take a large share. If you are married you will get it all. That's one of the things they are asking for and you want to deny them.

Uhm, that's just not true Steve and i'm kind of surprised that you'd accuse me of such a thing. Perhaps you have forgotten that I have repeatedly said in both this and other similar threads that I have no problem with Civil Unions which were created for that very reason.

Oh and BTW he's joint owner of the land. He pays nothing when I die except maybe another Land Management Plan which we have to do every 10 years anyway.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But no admission of how you intentionally misquoted me. Nice.

Funny I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere in that post Mookie. You seem quite eager to claim the mantle though.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

There can still be joint ownership without marriage. My friend and I jointly own a cabin up in Maine. That does not make us married, so what business does the state have in sanctifying marriage again?

I ment joint ownership as part of marriage, that should have been obvious from the context.