North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Which question? # of partners? Or if you've had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex?

Both have right answers, the second just goes to show that sexual preference isn't either/or, it's more a scale from one extreme to another.

Lots of people would answer the question, especially in private (supposedly anonymous). It's not like it's a field in their Facebook profile.

The first question, and I thought it was pretty obvious I was joking.

But there is no right answer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And if it's root is in the Bible, why are non Christians allowed to marry?

Because certain things in the bible aren't considered root by mans flawed interpretation of the book. People will only take things out of the bible for example that support their argument without looking at the bigger picture.

Its just like the use of selective interpretation of the Koran by both the radical Islamists and the Western world while trying to promote the concept of violence as being inherant to Islam vs getting stupid young men to strap a bomb to their chest so they can get to paradise.

The Simpson's had a great quote where Lisa asked REv Lovejoy to show her where in the bible it stated that gay marriage was bad, and he quiped that it was somewhere in the back.

As a smart guy I can turn any argument based on the segregation of facts from a source or a book as long as your too lazy to read it.

I can probably argue if I worked hard enough that the bible says that its preferable to plow a horse as oppossed to another man. I mean seriously Noah built a boat to house two of each type of animal, yet the only other man on that boat was his son.

Throw in some stuff about Sodom, cook it at 350 degrees and viola, doing a horse is preferable to a man.

[photon]

Originally Posted by valo403

The first question, and I thought it was pretty obvious I was joking.

But there is no right answer.

Lol sorry.

Yeah, that question makes the "does this make me look fat" question easy.

The only answer is to set yourself on fire.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

What base counts as a sexual partner?

n=1,

where n is the number of happy endings

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If you need a marriage certificate from the government to validate your relationship with your wife.....well that is just sad.

It's about as sad as you needing a marriage certifitcate to validate you can have kids. I've never seen someone talk so much with no facts. I swear you just spew your personal opinion as fact and think you are clever.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because certain things in the bible aren't considered root by mans flawed interpretation of the book. People will only take things out of the bible for example that support their argument without looking at the bigger picture.

Its just like the use of selective interpretation of the Koran by both the radical Islamists and the Western world while trying to promote the concept of violence as being inherant to Islam vs getting stupid young men to strap a bomb to their chest so they can get to paradise.

The Simpson's had a great quote where Lisa asked REv Lovejoy to show her where in the bible it stated that gay marriage was bad, and he quiped that it was somewhere in the back.

As a smart guy I can turn any argument based on the segregation of facts from a source or a book as long as your too lazy to read it.

I can probably argue if I worked hard enough that the bible says that its preferable to plow a horse as oppossed to another man. I mean seriously Noah built a boat to house two of each type of animal, yet the only other man on that boat was his son.

Throw in some stuff about Sodom, cook it at 350 degrees and viola, doing a horse is preferable to a man.

My point was just that the Bible is a red herring. Marriages happened before the Bible and in many non Christian cultures

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

My point was just that the Bible is a red herring. Marriages happened before the Bible and in many non Christian cultures

Sure, but I'm curious about the voting contents and how many Christians for example voted against Gay Marriages, vs how many Non Religious folk voted against Gay Marriages.

I don't think that the opposition of Gay Marriage can be confined to just the Christians out there.

For example Mikey has spoken out strongly against Gay Marriage which makes me wonder if he has a religeous affilitiation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think that the opposition of Gay Marriage can be confined to just the Christians out there.

For sure, but I would bet there was a strong correlation for conservative religions.


Link





http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/s...f-homosexuals/

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because certain things in the bible aren't considered root by mans flawed interpretation of the book. People will only take things out of the bible for example that support their argument without looking at the bigger picture.

Its just like the use of selective interpretation of the Koran by both the radical Islamists and the Western world while trying to promote the concept of violence as being inherant to Islam vs getting stupid young men to strap a bomb to their chest so they can get to paradise.

The Simpson's had a great quote where Lisa asked REv Lovejoy to show her where in the bible it stated that gay marriage was bad, and he quiped that it was somewhere in the back.

As a smart guy I can turn any argument based on the segregation of facts from a source or a book as long as your too lazy to read it.

I can probably argue if I worked hard enough that the bible says that its preferable to plow a horse as oppossed to another man. I mean seriously Noah built a boat to house two of each type of animal, yet the only other man on that boat was his son.

Throw in some stuff about Sodom, cook it at 350 degrees and viola, doing a horse is preferable to a man.

sorry Captain...the Mexicans got it right...its all about Donkey's!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cheese

sorry Captain...the Mexicans got it right...its all about Donkey's!

Well at least it isn't mules, becauss Mules are infertile which means that by the Mikey watch a marriage between Man and Mules will never produce horse faced children.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But you've been to Asia. You know that homophobia is much worse there, regardless of religion.

Actually, I haven't, I'm going there this year. But you're right about that. Heck, my parents think that way. I think as the older generation dies off, it'll start getting better. Like someone has said in another thread, 50 years from now, we'll probably look back and be incredulous that they even had this referendum in 2012.

[Cheese]

^^^^ wait a second here....
Man + Donkey = mankey? = monkey? = evolution?

sheeite

[J pold]

Actions like this one are so disappointing – I’ve never in my life heard a sound and logical argument as to why two people of the same sex should not have the right to be married.

[ericschand]

The crazy part to all this is that ALL civil unions are now unrecognized, not just gay ones.

Here's a summary of what this new law does and possible effects.

Another quick summary:

(1) It is not needed. There is already an NC law forbidding gay marriage.
(2) It bars recognizing any legal domestic union other than marriage, including unmarried men and women partnerships.
(3) NC will face substantial legal costs to defend it in court if passes.
(4) It takes away legal protection for the children of unmarried people.
(5) A child could be taken away from a parent who has taken care of them their entire life if something happens to the other parent.
(6) It takes away domestic violence protection for all unmarried people and has led to convictions of abusers being overturned in other states.
(7) It strips health benefits from unmarried people whose coverage is through their partner's, including people with severe pre-existing conditions.
(8) It interferes with the medical and financial decisions of unmarried couples and invalidates certain trusts, wills and end-of-life directives.
(9) Seniors [and widow(er)s] wanting to keep these legal protections would have to marry and could lose their pension, health care and Social Security benefits.
(10) It would be one of a handful of times NC constitution has been used to take away rights rather than grant them.

Also, as asked on another website, anyone got any reasons to oppose gay marriage that are not based in religion?

ers

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well at least it isn't mules, becauss Mules are infertile which means that by the Mikey watch a marriage between Man and Mules will never produce horse faced children.

Then how do you explain Sarah Jessica Parker?

[Bunk]

It's quite unfortunate (as Photon's post indicates) that the strong majority of African Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. Something like 70% voted in favour of Prop 8 in California. One would think that there would be more empathy for another oppressed minority group.

Hopefully Obama's long overdue declaration today in favour of same sex marriage will help turn that tide in that community and across America as a whole - but probably not - it'll just further polarize the populace.

Originally Posted by SeeBass

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Thank you for responding, I was hoping Mikey would provide this information.

Is that difference statisically significant?

I think that it is, but I also don't think (haven't read the study) that there is any causal relationship between being gay and having more sex.

There could be any number of reasons from a lifetime of sexual repression being released when someone comes out of the closet to it being more social acceptable to discuss sex if you are part of the gay community fuelling a higher response rate.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Not having children per se....people are automatically going to do that......but keeping a mother/father together for their best interests promotes stability.

This made me laugh. Gotta love the stability of 50% of all marriages ending in divorce. Those straight folk sure do know how to keep a family together.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by ericschand

The crazy part to all this is that ALL civil unions are now unrecognized, not just gay ones.

Here's a summary of what this new law does and possible effects.

Another quick summary:

(1) It is not needed. There is already an NC law forbidding gay marriage.
(2) It bars recognizing any legal domestic union other than marriage, including unmarried men and women partnerships.
(3) NC will face substantial legal costs to defend it in court if passes.
(4) It takes away legal protection for the children of unmarried people.
(5) A child could be taken away from a parent who has taken care of them their entire life if something happens to the other parent.
(6) It takes away domestic violence protection for all unmarried people and has led to convictions of abusers being overturned in other states.
(7) It strips health benefits from unmarried people whose coverage is through their partner's, including people with severe pre-existing conditions.
(8) It interferes with the medical and financial decisions of unmarried couples and invalidates certain trusts, wills and end-of-life directives.
(9) Seniors [and widow(er)s] wanting to keep these legal protections would have to marry and could lose their pension, health care and Social Security benefits.
(10) It would be one of a handful of times NC constitution has been used to take away rights rather than grant them.

Also, as asked on another website, anyone got any reasons to oppose gay marriage that are not based in religion?

ers

That list is really sad.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Interesting how fat and sloppily dressed the modern crowd is compared to the old one (not they are exactly stylish either)