Ablejack: I don't see what benefit anyone gets by banning marriage from same sex couples. Can anyone explain how this "preserves the sanctity" of marriage, or any such nonsense?

No.
No one can.

keylock71: Well, that's what the majority of voters down there wanted, apparently... Nothing much I can do about it except vow never to spend another dime in that state or visit it until they can get their heads out of their asses and take that big step into the 20th Century.

Unfortunately, that list is getting long:

Texas
Utah
Arizona
North Carolina
South Dakota
Kansas
Virginia
Mississippi

Generation_D: You punk kids are forgetting something. People grow more conservative with age. So unless you start killing people off by the time they're 50, we will never be rid of this problem. I say this as a 50 year old. Conservatism is like a creeping slow disease eating away at your brain as you age.

I think you're wrong. The reason behind the "liberal at 20, conservative at 40" phenomenon, isn't because views change, but because the Overton Window moves. Therefore, what was a radical idea 20 years ago is quaint and conservative by modern standards. The problem is, for the past 20-30 years or so, the Overton Window hasn't been moving left. It's been moving right. So I don't think that phenomenon will continue to hold true in the years ahead.

Ablejack: I don't see what benefit anyone gets by banning marriage from same sex couples. Can anyone explain how this "preserves the sanctity" of marriage, or any such nonsense?

It's a BS cover for oppression through legislation based on religious beliefs. They have never been able to prove their claim. If they want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage then they need to address the divorce rate.

"I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and throw rocks at those in the center." -- DD Eisenhower

MeinRS6: Gay marriage loses every vote by the public, so it's not just NC.

And one time the United States tried to get an official language, through the public voting on it, almost ended up with us speaking German. Then of course there's the 2000 election. My point? People vote for stupid shiat on a regular basis.

Serious Black: Why would the Bible use the exact same word to describe the nature of an opposite-sex couple's relationship with each other and a same-sex couple's relationship with each other?

It's really bad form to compare word use in a translation. The original text may use the same word or it may not.

wademh: "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and throw rocks at those in the center." -- DD Eisenhower

The mental midgets in the Tea Party are not "the center"

Cythraul: Janusdog: Here's some generational data:

http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Support-For-Sa m e-Sex-Marriage-Edges-Upward.aspx

The colors they use are kind of annoying.

Gen X is slightly under majority approve but not by much, and happily their attitudes are changing. And they are better than Boomers.

Thanks. That's about where I thought Gen-X would be. I dare say it'd take about at least 55% of representatives supportive of gay rights at a given time to finally get gay marriage a done deal, and I still doubt Gen-X would offer that. Maybe with a combination of millenials and GX, but that would still take quite some time to get those into Congress.

I actually think if you removed some of the loudest, most senior Boomer jerkoffs in the GOP, Gen X would not be obstructionist as a whole. We're nothing if not fatalistic and pragmatic.

First, full disclosure, I'm for gay marriage. I don't think there's a particularly pursuasive argument that gay marriage will cause any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have.

On the other hand, even though the pro-gay marriage side has the better argument, they would rather call people who disagree "bigots" and insult them rather than making the arguments they could win. Is it really that shocking that if you insult and attack people, they're not going to vote for your side? No wonder gay marriage keeps being defeated when it comes up for a vote.

The pro-gay marriage side has got to accept than 1.) the arguments are nowhere near as popular as they think and 2.) that calling people "bigots" and spewing off about "hate" isn't going to change that.

The pro-gay marriage side is asking for society to accept a fundamental change to an institution that pre-dates government itself. That's a tall order. They have to answer fundamental questions like this: if you accept the premises of the pro-gay marriage side, is there any principled basis to oppose polygamy? How can society draw a principled and rational line that says that same-sex marriage is OK, but plural marriage is not? As a gay-marriage supporter I struggle with how society could draw that line, and very, very few gay marriage advocates are even bothering to discuss that.

Unless the pro-gay marriage side can treat the other side with respect and make their case in a non-insulting way, gay marriage will not be widely accepted in this country. Until gay marriage advocates can start debating the actual merits of their position (which there are plenty), they will not win at the ballot box. And if they push the judiciary to enforce gay marriage, we will sadly see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in our lifetimes - which would be a terrible mistake for the country and something we should try to avoid.

Your intolerance of my bigotry is bigotry itself and makes you intolerant. HYPOCRITE!!! HYPOCRITE!!!

People are farking retards.

Cythraul: Generation_D: You punk kids are forgetting something. People grow more conservative with age. So unless you start killing people off by the time they're 50, we will never be rid of this problem. I say this as a 50 year old. Conservatism is like a creeping slow disease eating away at your brain as you age.

I guess that's true. Anecdotically, it certainly seems true. But if it is, how have gay rights gotten as far as it has?

Plenty of states aren't populated by backwards idiot farkwits and bigoted black people.

OR

It hasn't been put to vote in most states. Washingnton State's law was a narrow win for the right side of history, e.g. for gay rights to marry. But it was close. Plenty of conservative religious bigots out here. Fewer black ones though. Maybe that was the difference, white people are less intolerant as a group than black people on gay rights. Strange but true, look it up following any vote.

BTW the public should NEVER be allowed to vote on minority rights. the public will always or almost always vote wrong. Its an immoral act to vote away rights. Every religious bigot in NC should be deported to Saudi Arabia and learn what religious intolerance really is.

Too bad they weren't motivated enough to get rid of the farking Defense of Marriage Act when they had a majority in the House and the Senate and a Democrat President.

Gotta hand it to the redneck ass-hat Republicans - at least when they get ahold of an issue they follow through.

MeinRS6: Gay marriage loses every vote by the public, so it's not just NC.

No, it's not. But public opinion is shifting on this issue and has been for at least 20 years. 20 years from now, it will allowed nationwide and 20 years after that, the people supporting these bans will be seen as the bigots they are.

WombatControl: First, full disclosure, I'm for gay marriage. I don't think there's a particularly pursuasive argument that gay marriage will cause any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have.

On the other hand, even though the pro-gay marriage side has the better argument, they would rather call people who disagree "bigots" and insult them rather than making the arguments they could win. Is it really that shocking that if you insult and attack people, they're not going to vote for your side? No wonder gay marriage keeps being defeated when it comes up for a vote.

The pro-gay marriage side has got to accept than 1.) the arguments are nowhere near as popular as they think and 2.) that calling people "bigots" and spewing off about "hate" isn't going to change that.

The pro-gay marriage side is asking for society to accept a fundamental change to an institution that pre-dates government itself. That's a tall order. They have to answer fundamental questions like this: if you accept the premises of the pro-gay marriage side, is there any principled basis to oppose polygamy? How can society draw a principled and rational line that says that same-sex marriage is OK, but plural marriage is not? As a gay-marriage supporter I struggle with how society could draw that line, and very, very few gay marriage advocates are even bothering to discuss that.

Unless the pro-gay marriage side can treat the other side with respect and make their case in a non-insulting way, gay marriage will not be widely accepted in this country. Until gay marriage advocates can start debating the actual merits of their position (which there are plenty), they will not win at the ballot box. And if they push the judiciary to enforce gay marriage, we will sadly see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in our lifetimes - which would be a terrible mistake for the country and something we should try to avoid.

No.

I'll tell you why. Because for every significant change, we had a very loud, obnoxious, and usually verbally or physically violent group call attention to the problem. Once it pervades the thick skulls of people not involved personally, THEN you can change attitudes. Without that first element of revolt nothing gets anywhere.

A good example is ACT UP. They did an important thing calling attention to AIDS when pretty much everyone else wrote it off as an 'undesirables' problem.

WombatControl: First, full disclosure, I'm for gay marriage. I don't think there's a particularly pursuasive argument that gay marriage will cause any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have.

On the other hand, even though the pro-gay marriage side has the better argument, they would rather call people who disagree "bigots" and insult them rather than making the arguments they could win. Is it really that shocking that if you insult and attack people, they're not going to vote for your side? No wonder gay marriage keeps being defeated when it comes up for a vote.

The pro-gay marriage side has got to accept than 1.) the arguments are nowhere near as popular as they think and 2.) that calling people "bigots" and spewing off about "hate" isn't going to change that.

The pro-gay marriage side is asking for society to accept a fundamental change to an institution that pre-dates government itself. That's a tall order. They have to answer fundamental questions like this: if you accept the premises of the pro-gay marriage side, is there any principled basis to oppose polygamy? How can society draw a principled and rational line that says that same-sex marriage is OK, but plural marriage is not? As a gay-marriage supporter I struggle with how society could draw that line, and very, very few gay marriage advocates are even bothering to discuss that.

Unless the pro-gay marriage side can treat the other side with respect and make their case in a non-insulting way, gay marriage will not be widely accepted in this country. Until gay marriage advocates can start debating the actual merits of their position (which there are plenty), they will not win at the ballot box. And if they push the judiciary to enforce gay marriage, we will sadly see a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in our lifetimes - which would be a terrible mistake for the country and something we should try to avoid.

Nice concern trolling there.

cefm: Too bad they weren't motivated enough to get rid of the farking Defense of Marriage Act when they had a majority in the House and the Senate and a Democrat President.

Gotta hand it to the redneck ass-hat Republicans - at least when they get ahold of an issue they follow through.

Yeah, repeal law that's going to be overturned by the courts in the near future should definitely be a legislative priority.

wademh: "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and throw rocks at those in the center." -- DD Eisenhower

If you think that flat-out banning equal rights is a "center" position, you're sorely mistaken.

Yes, we invite them to kill themselves. It's a choice that only the individual can make; we
are simply saying that the option is there and encourage them to do so. Subby, why do you hate us advocating personal choice and liberty?

WombatControl: On the other hand, even though the pro-gay marriage side has the better argument, they would rather call people who disagree "bigots" and insult them rather than making the arguments they could win.

I would LOVE for you to tell me what that argument is.

WombatControl: The pro-gay marriage side is asking for society to accept a fundamental change to an institution that pre-dates government itself. That's a tall order. They have to answer fundamental questions like this: if you accept the premises of the pro-gay marriage side, is there any principled basis to oppose polygamy? How can society draw a principled and rational line that says that same-sex marriage is OK, but plural marriage is not? As a gay-marriage supporter I struggle with how society could draw that line, and very, very few gay marriage advocates are even bothering to discuss that.

True. It is a slippery slope. We allowed straight marriage and now people want equal access to that right. The only rational thing is an Amendment banning marriage in any form what so ever so that such questions are eliminated once and for all.

IrateShadow: Serious Black: Why would the Bible use the exact same word to describe the nature of an opposite-sex couple's relationship with each other and a same-sex couple's relationship with each other?

It's really bad form to compare word use in a translation. The original text may use the same word or it may not.

From everything I've read of Biblical scholars, the original word in Hebrew is the exact same between those two verses as well.

Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

theknuckler_33: MeinRS6: Gay marriage loses every vote by the public, so it's not just NC.

No, it's not. But public opinion is shifting on this issue and has been for at least 20 years. 20 years from now, it will allowed nationwide and 20 years after that, the people supporting these bans will be seen as the bigots they are.

The sad thing is they should be seen as the bigots right now, not 20 years from now.

WombatControl: No wonder gay marriage keeps being defeated when it comes up for a vote.

While I agree that civility goes a long way, that is NOT why it keeps getting defeated.
Putting civil rights issues up for a popular vote is never a good idea. Minorities will continue to be oppressed. The negative backlash comes from "hurt" when your own fellow citizens vote to oppress you, it feels like unabridged targeted hate. The reaction is from the gut. The arguments to support gay marriage are mostly straight forward and civil. When that argument is answered with a vote that basically says you are "less than zero" it's understandable that people will respond with anger and hurt.

Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay rights and civil rights are two entirely different things. I still don't understand how people can compare homosexuality with skin color.

Remember, this is what these bigots are against.

kukukupo: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay rights and civil rights are two entirely different things. I still don't understand how people can compare homosexuality with skin color.

Because neither of them are choices and sexuality is a huge part of human identity.

OneTimed: wademh: "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and throw rocks at those in the center." -- DD Eisenhower

The mental midgets in the Tea Party are not "the center"

Very true but more than the Tea Punks voted into the 61%. Feel outraged. Think outraged. Good.
Talk outraged if you want to stay that way. But I'd rather you didn't as I'd rather my country progressed and it simply won't happen if people feel pushed. There really are a significant number of people who would support greater rights for teh ghey if they didn't feel like they were being pushed around. This isn't about being right, or justified but having a winning strategy.

This reminds me of my math teacher in high school. Every time he thought I should have answered differently on my math tests, he would mark them wrong. That guy was really intolerant of my beliefs.

kukukupo: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay rights and civil rights are two entirely different things. I still don't understand how people can compare homosexuality with skin color.

I bet you're one of those people who think you can "choose" your sexuality, huh?

NC, though I dont agree with your view, I do respect and tolerate your decision. Now all the gay people who dont want to live in NC, please note that your disposable income and fashion sense is welcome up north.

Sincerely,

DerpdeeDerp

I look forward to the day that all "christians" who support the oppression of minorities find themselves, on their deathbeds, looking at an eternity of hellfire. I look forward to their little piggy squeals of of horror as they realize that God doesn't appreciate other people doing the judging for him.

/Burn in hell as I laugh, Xian hypocrites!

kukukupo: Gay rights and civil rights are two entirely different things. I still don't understand how people can compare homosexuality with skin color.

It's more about being a minority outside the mainstream. The concept however, is much the same, you are different from me, not like me therefore not equal.

OneTimed: kukukupo: Generation_D: I'll say more than that. I'll say every black person who voted to deny another minority their civil rights deserves to have theirs given up. Farkin hypocrites with their bible bs.

Gay rights and civil rights are two entirely different things. I still don't understand how people can compare homosexuality with skin color.

I bet you're one of those people who think you can "choose" your sexuality, huh?

Yes, but to be fair, he struggles every day with his choice to be straight.

WombatControl: The pro-gay marriage side is asking for society to accept a fundamental change to an institution that pre-dates government itself. That's a tall order. They have to answer fundamental questions like this: if you accept the premises of the pro-gay marriage side, is there any principled basis to oppose polygamy? How can society draw a principled and rational line that says that same-sex marriage is OK, but plural marriage is not? As a gay-marriage supporter I struggle with how society could draw that line, and very, very few gay marriage advocates are even bothering to discuss that.

The British Columbia Supreme Court decided a case recently where some Mormons who think polygamy should be legal sued to declare the polygamy law unconstitutional. The court released a 300+ page decision that rigorously detailed what happened in societies where polygamy was legal. In these marriages, women faced statistically higher rates of being abused, dying at a young age, and suffering from mental illnesses. The children from these marriages were similarly abused at higher rates, performed more poorly in school, and suffered from more emotional and behavioral problems. They also found that societies with legal polygamy suffered from increased crime as a result of the inevitable creation of a pool of unmarriable men and that women's rights were systematically undermined by men seeking control over their lives and marrying increasingly younger women.

TL;DR: There is a compelling state interest in allowing a government to ban polygamy, but there is no such compelling state interest in allowing a government to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

bdub77: WombatControl: Unless the pro-gay marriage side can treat the other side with respect and make their case in a non-insulting way, gay marriage will not be widely accepted in this country. Until gay marriage advocates can start debating the actual merits of their position (which there are plenty), they will not win at the ballot box.

I disagree. Not that calling people bigots will change anything, but the majority of people who vote against gay marriage are against it because they believe an invisible sky god told someone thousands of years ago that gays can't marry, he wrote it into a book, and they actually believe that. People who have those types of mindsets are intractible about them. Trust me on this, I've spoken with LOTS of these people.

Bigots are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead.

It's extremely difficult to debate a policy on its merits when one side of the argument has no farking merit, and is still advanced as an argument.

"Homosexuals deserve equal rights."
"No, they don't."
"Why not?"
"They're gay."

There is no "why". There are no points to be debated. The right doesn't want homosexuals to have equal rights, period, and their opposition is based entirely on religion. Glossing over that helps no one and only serves to reinforce the idea that opponents of equal rights have a valid reason for not only their opposition, but their active efforts to prevent recognition of those rights.

NC should ban religious marriages as well. At least then they would have a rational argument.
Hmmm, just occurred to me; Is there any religion that approves of or practices same sex marriage? Could a same sex couple then be married in that religion and demand it be recognized by the state because of religious freedoms? I understand that's getting rights through the back door but hey c'mon.