Fuck You North Carolina

[SDHornet]

Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't fucked with....but we still have what we have today.

This!

[D1B]

[Gil Dobie]

Very similar to my view.


Stop using the term "marriage" as a legal term. If someone wants to get "married" in the traditional way..fine....


If someone wants to be legally joined make it a civil union between the two.


That way the "sanctity" of traditional marriage isn't **** with....but we still have what we have today.

Can I still call a King and Queen combo in Pinochle a marriage or do I violate the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's still something called a marriage, but it's not the same as the "traditional marriage". If marriage is about joining a couple in a committed relationship, it still has variable meanings to different cultures. The only part the government should take is to make sure married couples all have the same rights.

[Ibanez]

Regardless of the outcome, Democracy worked yesterday.

[kalm]

Stating the obvious, but crap like this is the exact reason why representative democracies are better. All these referendums on the state level, regardless of the issue, are completely stupid. It always ends up with the majority directly imposing their will on the minority and goes against what the Framers intended; it's not supposed to be this easy to pass laws.

The Framers never meant it to be this easy to pass laws at the FEDERAL level. They enumerated certain powers they felt a central government should possess, and left the rest to the States.

As for the tyranny of the majority, that is quickly becoming a non-issue where gay marriage is concerned. If recognition of gay marriage was simply imposed on the states by fiat (as you seem to imply should happen) then we are not talking democracy. Much better that we evolve to a point to where it is a true minority that opposes gay marriage, then it is no longer an issue. Given that just 20 years ago we would have seen a 70 percent-plus majority against gay marriage, and now the nation is just about 50/50, I would say that in a short time all of this will be moot.




Also Sodomy

Oh for fucks sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

[Ibanez]

The Framers never meant it to be this easy to pass laws at the FEDERAL level. They enumerated certain powers they felt a central government should possess, and left the rest to the States.

As for the tyranny of the majority, that is quickly becoming a non-issue where gay marriage is concerned. If recognition of gay marriage was simply imposed on the states by fiat (as you seem to imply should happen) then we are not talking democracy. Much better that we evolve to a point to where it is a true minority that opposes gay marriage, then it is no longer an issue. Given that just 20 years ago we would have seen a 70 percent-plus majority against gay marriage, and now the nation is just about 50/50, I would say that in a short time all of this will be moot.




Also Sodomy

Oh for fucks sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

They need tomake up thier minds on Sodomy? I thought it was understood that it's cool, as long as you don't discuss it.

[kalm]

Oh for fucks sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

They need tomake up thier minds on Sodomy? I thought it was understood that it's cool, as long as you don't discuss it.

Ah, I see.

[grizzaholic]

[Skjellyfetti]

not the most well written billboard ad... but, i like the message it's trying to get across.

[CID1990]

I just don't see how the sky is falling here. Civil unions will be universally recognized in this country within 5-10 years.




Also Sodomy

[CID1990]

The Framers never meant it to be this easy to pass laws at the FEDERAL level. They enumerated certain powers they felt a central government should possess, and left the rest to the States.

As for the tyranny of the majority, that is quickly becoming a non-issue where gay marriage is concerned. If recognition of gay marriage was simply imposed on the states by fiat (as you seem to imply should happen) then we are not talking democracy. Much better that we evolve to a point to where it is a true minority that opposes gay marriage, then it is no longer an issue. Given that just 20 years ago we would have seen a 70 percent-plus majority against gay marriage, and now the nation is just about 50/50, I would say that in a short time all of this will be moot.




Also Sodomy

Oh for **** sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

Not sure what you are talking about, so here is some local gummint silliness for you to whack off to:




Also Sodomy

[kalm]

Oh for **** sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

Not sure what you are talking about, so here is some local gummint silliness for you to whack off to:




Also Sodomy

Well the founders hated democracy. Why do you hate the founders so much?

[CID1990]

Not sure what you are talking about, so here is some local gummint silliness for you to whack off to:




Also Sodomy

Well the founders hated democracy. Why do you hate the founders so much?

No, the founders hated governmental tyranny of any kind, and came as close as anyone to creating a system that makes it difficult for the government to impinge on basic human freedoms. They did a pretty good job, but I am sure they never anticipated things like cellphones and self esteem to be considered inalienable human rights.

The founders also had very diverse views on the role of a centralized government, so although you are just throwing out hyperbole you should at least try to make it remotely accurate. They were in no way a consensus body, and Jefferson and Hamilton argued over centralization vs. strong state governments to their death beds.


Sent from my iPad using one stinky pinky.

[kalm]

Well the founders hated democracy. Why do you hate the founders so much?

No, the founders hated governmental tyranny of any kind, and came as close as anyone to creating a system that makes it difficult for the government to impinge on basic human freedoms. They did a pretty good job, but I am sure they never anticipated things like cellphones and self esteem to be considered inalienable human rights.

The founders also had very diverse views on the role of a centralized government, so although you are just throwing out hyperbole you should at least try to make it remotely accurate. They were in no way a consensus body, and Jefferson and Hamilton argued over centralization vs. strong state governments to their death beds.


Sent from my iPad using one stinky pinky.

I'm sorry I lumped you in with the conks.

[Baldy]

Oh for **** sake. You conks need to make up your minds about democracy.

Also Sodomy.

Not sure what you are talking about, so here is some local gummint silliness for you to whack off to:




Also Sodomy

Silly string...Schmilly string. It's like banning bake sales in Massachusetts, they're just being "progressive".

[kalm]

Not sure what you are talking about, so here is some local gummint silliness for you to whack off to:




Also Sodomy

Silly string...Schmilly string. It's like banning bake sales in Massachusetts, they're just being "progressive".

No.

Progressives would truly appreciate silly string because it's similar to hacky sack. Honestly, when was the last time you saw a conk playing hacky sack?

[BDKJMU]

In another 40 years young people will look back in horror at the way gays were treated by our society, like women of 1920s & blacks of the 50s & 60s. It may take some time but it's coming.

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

Oh that's a bunch of BS. Marriage isn't just sex. No one is pushing govt into anyone's bedrooms. Gays can still boink each other all they want in their bedrooms, whether their state allows gay marriage or not.

[kalm]

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

Oh that's a bunch of BS. Marriage isn't just sex. No one is pushing govt into anyone's bedrooms. Gays can still boink each other all they want in their bedrooms, whether their state allows gay marriage or not.

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

[BDKJMU]

Oh that's a bunch of BS. Marriage isn't just sex. No one is pushing govt into anyone's bedrooms. Gays can still boink each other all they want in their bedrooms, whether their state allows gay marriage or not.

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

What right does the govt have to not recognize a brother & sister getting married, or 2 cousins?
What right does the govt have to not recognize someone under a certain age getting married?
What right does the govt have to not recognize a man's marriage to 2 or more women at the same time (and vice versa)?

[kalm]

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

What right does the govt have to not recognize a brother & sister getting married, or 2 cousins?
What right does the govt have to not recognize someone under a certain age getting married?
What right does the govt have to not recognize a man's marriage to 2 or more women at the same time (and vice versa)?

I'll put on my conservative freedom loving hat and say...it doesn't?

[89Hen]

What right does the govt have to not recognize a brother & sister getting married, or 2 cousins?
What right does the govt have to not recognize someone under a certain age getting married?
What right does the govt have to not recognize a man's marriage to 2 or more women at the same time (and vice versa)?

I'll put on my conservative freedom loving hat and say...it doesn't?

Indeed. BDK posting what I asked a week ago. People don't mind the gov deciding on some issues, but when they decide on one they don't agree with, all of a sudden they say the gov needs to stay out of it entirely.

[Ibanez]

It's ironic, the Party that wants less Gov't and the Gov't out of thier lives feel necessary to push government into the bedrooms.

When do we vote against marriage as a whole? I'll vote against that. The government has no business saying who can marry whom. I'm for civil unions, where those that entered it are treated like Married couples are too. THat might be too vague but hey, my view is "evolving."

Oh that's a bunch of BS. Marriage isn't just sex. No one is pushing govt into anyone's bedrooms. Gays can still boink each other all they want in their bedrooms, whether their state allows gay marriage or not.

You're an idiot. Tell me the harm then in allowing a gay couple to have the same legal rights and benefits of a straight couple? You're a fucking moron if you don't know the difference between gay and straight is attraction (including sex which is why you conks are against gays, unless you're a closet homo.)

[Ibanez]

And sex isn't always about procreation either. If conservatives christians don't want to have fun in the bedroom I fully support their right to do that regardless of whether or not they're married.

BTW, if a church decides to marry two homosexuals what right does the government have to tell them they can't or to not recognize it? I thought we had freedom of religion here.

What right does the govt have to not recognize a brother & sister getting married, or 2 cousins?
What right does the govt have to not recognize someone under a certain age getting married?
What right does the govt have to not recognize a man's marriage to 2 or more women at the same time (and vice versa)?

What right does the govt have to recognize a mans marriage to a woman?

We GAVE the government the authority to make those decisions. THe question is WHO gave the gov't that authority.

[kalm]

What right does the govt have to not recognize a brother & sister getting married, or 2 cousins?
What right does the govt have to not recognize someone under a certain age getting married?
What right does the govt have to not recognize a man's marriage to 2 or more women at the same time (and vice versa)?

What right does the govt have to recognize a mans marriage to a woman?

We GAVE the government the authority to make those decisions. THe question is WHO gave the gov't that authority.

God, duh.

[UNI88]

I'll put on my conservative freedom loving hat and say...it doesn't?

Indeed. BDK posting what I asked a week ago. People don't mind the gov deciding on some issues, but when they decide on one they don't agree with, all of a sudden they say the gov needs to stay out of it entirely.

Hen, you raised an interesting point last week. I've always felt that a marriage was essentially a contract between two people and what right did the government have to say that said contract could only be between a man and a women. Why couldn't it be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? The issue you raised was an interesting one .. Essentially, can't you also apply that logic and ask why not between first cousins? Brother and sister? 3+ people? Where do you draw the line and why?

You could argue that marriages between brother and sister or even first cousins raise legitimate health concerns if there are children but if you were so inclined you could also make a similar argument that homosexual marriage raises concerns about morality and the impact on society. I don't share those concerns but I recognize a more socially conservative individual's right to his or her opinion.

I'm not sure how to respond to the issue you raised. I need to think about it rather than giving you some kneejerk reaction.