They only made it to the 2nd day of the legislative session and they are already prioritizing this?

Never mind that North Carolina law already bans marriage equality so this is entirely redundant, and a waste of time and tax payer dollars to pursue, and it doesn't show much respect for the NC Constitution to try to amend it willy-nilly and unnecessarily.

5/13/2010 3:47:02 PM

It will never happen simply because if it does then the GOP will have one less thing to scare the yokels with.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2010 3:57:52 PM

i've never understood all the focus on this issue


PEOPLE ARE DYING yet you feel you could better this country by banning gay people from throwing their lives away by getting married?

assholes





seriously though, makes no sense. it's just a way to scare those god fearing christians into joining the republican forces.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2010 8:04:45 PM

Quote :

"t's just a way to scare those god fearing christians into joining the republican forces."

It seems like you understand the focus just fine.

5/13/2010 8:10:38 PM

Quote :

"Never mind that North Carolina law already bans marriage equality so this is entirely redundant, and a waste of time and tax payer dollars to pursue, and it doesn't show much respect for the NC Constitution to try to amend it willy-nilly and unnecessarily."

But isn't an ammendment like a 100 times harder to repeal?

5/13/2010 8:52:35 PM

One word on why amending a constitution without considering the long-term effects is bad: Prohibition.

5/13/2010 9:21:19 PM

The people that support this shit are probably the same people that think they're for limited government. "People aren't smart enough to figure things out for themselves, we have to have government to tell us how to live!"

5/13/2010 9:26:53 PM

^you make a good point. But you have to remember that limited government is not the same thing as no government.

5/13/2010 9:42:25 PM

You can't be for limited government AND want to legislate morality. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed.

5/13/2010 9:43:51 PM

^^are you saying not having a constitutional ban on gay marriage is like having no government?

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2010 9:43:53 PM

I think the NC congress should be more worried about balancing the god damn budget.

5/13/2010 9:44:05 PM

Quote :

"^^are you saying not having a constitutional ban on gay marriage is like having no government?"

not by any stretch. I am saying that limited government still implies that the government will pass laws

Quote :

"You can't be for limited government AND want to legislate morality. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed."

Please explain. I am having a tough time seeing this from your angle.

5/13/2010 9:46:27 PM

limited government is conceptually about letting people live freely, with very limited government interference in their lives.

"legislating" morality is what got people hanged in Salem. but more seriously, putting morality into law is about telling others that you know better about what is right and wrong. that's interference.

5/13/2010 9:49:21 PM

ok i guess i'm misunderstanding you. it seemed to me you were saying having limited government implies the govt should make some decisions on how we live (ex: who we may marry)

5/13/2010 9:51:05 PM

Every single person has different values. There aren't two people with the same exact values across the board. For that reason, you shouldn't have a government that is telling everyone in the state or country what their values should be. Government should be limited to protecting rights, i.e. protecting people from harm inflicted by other people. The government shouldn't be regulating human relationships, which means that marriage should not be recognized through any sort of tax incentives. It could all be done with a simple contract.

I don't give a damn what any two, three, or one hundred people do, as long as they're not hurting someone else. They should have to pay the exact amount in taxes as they would if they're not being married. Ideally, same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue, because there would be no "free stuff" that would come along with it. Two people want to spend their lives together? Go for it. No legislation needed.

5/13/2010 9:53:24 PM

Quote :

"ok i guess i'm misunderstanding you. it seemed to me you were saying having limited government implies the govt should make some decisions on how we live (ex: who we may marry)"

Nope, i was many responding to another comment which seemed to me to imply that limited government people shouldn't ever want a law passed.

Quote :

"For that reason, you shouldn't have a government that is telling everyone in the state or country what their values should be. "

That statement is self-defeating. What if someone doesn't value your opinion on that? Isn't that subjective? Who are you to say that the government shouldn't tell people what to do?

I am not trying to be a douche here...just keeping the thoughts a rolling

5/13/2010 9:57:45 PM

feel free to respond to mine.

5/13/2010 9:59:59 PM

Quote :

"limited government is conceptually about letting people live freely, with very limited government interference in their lives. "legislating" morality is what got people hanged in Salem. but more seriously, putting morality into law is about telling others that you know better about what is right and wrong. that's interference."

Personally, I am against gay marriage. However, I am not sure that it should be legislated. But with that said I am not sure I think marriage of any sort should have any legal standing. Marriage should be separate from the law for both gay and straight couples. Again I am not settled on this issue.

As for legislating morality, I again repeat and think that your statement may be self-defeating. You are making a moral judgment by stating that you know better about whether or not you should legislate morality. But again who are you to make such a judgment?

Again...i'm not being a jerk here...

5/13/2010 10:18:30 PM

ps I believe marriage is by definition an institution between a man and a woman, so by saying gay marriage I mean in a cultural sense. IE what value some in our society have assigned to it to which I disagree with

5/13/2010 10:19:46 PM

Quote :

"But again who are you to make such a judgment?"

Who is anyone to make any moral judgments? So how about we just stop voting on them?

5/13/2010 10:25:02 PM

Quote :

"Who is anyone to make any moral judgments? So how about we just stop voting on them?"

You just made a moral judgement...lol

5/13/2010 10:29:53 PM

Quote :

"As for legislating morality, I again repeat and think that your statement may be self-defeating. You are making a moral judgment by stating that you know better about whether or not you should legislate morality. But again who are you to make such a judgment?"

that's kinda my point. the people doing the judging are the same ones screaming about limited government. you should be telling them that, not me.

5/13/2010 10:33:49 PM

I make plenty of judgments but I'm not calling for them all to be legislated.

5/13/2010 10:34:52 PM

Proud to be unrepublican!

5/13/2010 10:38:26 PM

^^^yea. my point is basically that people constantly tell others "don't make a moral judgment on me!" But that in and of itself is making a moral judgment. You have to draw the line somewhere or else you can't really say anything rational. Thats what i'm driving at. Thus the government steps in on some things. So its not necessarily irrational for someone to be for limited government but also opposed to gay marriage. They just draw the line in the sand at a different spot than someone else. But both those for and against gay marriage have drawn a line in the sand whether they realize it or not.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : im slow]

5/13/2010 10:38:29 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I am against gay marriage."

Why?

5/13/2010 11:04:05 PM

Quote :

"The government shouldn't be regulating human relationships, which means that marriage should not be recognized through any sort of tax incentives. It could all be done with a simple contract."

I kind of agree with this, but unless & until something like that happens I think gay marriage should be on the table because as we have recently seen it required presidential action just to stop gay couples from having to die alone in hospitals while being denied visitation rights and any number of other situations where marriage is more than tax incentives. If and when contracts become the societal norm though then I'll probably be on board with that. Further reading:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=592827

But all that aside, whether or not someone is for it or against it or going libertarian against all marriages, I think we can all agree that spending the limited time the legislators are in office during a short legislative session, that spending your time on trying to amend the constitution to do something that will have 0 practical effect in the real world because of existing law is pretty stupid.

As someone who is pro-gay marriage, I can respect someone's position who is against gay marriage as a part of a greater whole of being against government involvement in all marriages. I'd only ask that they recognize that marriage is used in our society for more than tax incentives and that until government does pull out that they get on board with allowing gay couples to have hospital visitation rights, and to qualify for housing that is reserved for married couples only or limits the number of "unrelated persons," and allow gay married couples to sponsor each other to qualify for US citizenship if they got married in Canada where one of them is from and both partners want to be citizens here, and all the other stuff where marriage is more than something that counts on April 15th.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2010 11:06:32 PM

sometimes I hate republicans.

5/14/2010 7:56:40 AM

i'll never understand the position on this issue, this seems like something that should be taken care of in the church. the government should have a neutral position on this, marriage in the church and by the state are two different things. if someone's church want's to ban gay marriages fine, that's their right; but the state shouldn't take that position. the idea that it somehow damages marriage is retarded; you know what damages marriage? ...marriage. The high divorce rate in this country has nothing to do with gay people wanting to get married.

+1 for the government getting out of marriages entirely. imo if anything the government should only be involved in civil unions, and they should be available to anyone. but this will never happen.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 8:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 8:15:48 AM

What part don't you understand? That Christianity fosters bigotry or that politicians pander to the Christian majority?

5/14/2010 8:43:20 AM

Quote :

"You can't be for limited government AND want to legislate morality. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed. "

100% correct.

5/14/2010 8:51:26 AM

Well, this is a State's issue as far as I'm concerned, so I don't have any problem with it in that regard.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that should be higher priority.

Finally, I'd prefer governments out of the business of marriage to the maximum extent possible. Marriage should be a social institution (and religious if you want), but I don't see why it needs to have specific legal implications.

Quote :

" Government should be limited to protecting rights, i.e. protecting people from harm inflicted by other people. The government shouldn't be regulating human relationships, which means that marriage should not be recognized through any sort of tax incentives. It could all be done with a simple contract. I don't give a damn what any two, three, or one hundred people do, as long as they're not hurting someone else. They should have to pay the exact amount in taxes as they would if they're not being married. Ideally, same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue, because there would be no "free stuff" that would come along with it. Two people want to spend their lives together? Go for it. No legislation needed."

Exactly.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 8:54 AM. Reason : didn't see that someone had beaten me to it]

5/14/2010 8:52:04 AM

This is just a political move by conservative NC legislators to rally their voter base. I doubt it will actually pass, or that these guys even WANT it to pass. Gay marraige is one of those perpetually unresolved issues that fundamentalists in both parties use to encourage voters without actually having to achieve something.

5/14/2010 8:52:20 AM

Quote :

"What part don't you understand? That Christianity fosters bigotry or that politicians pander to the Christian majority?"

dude, get over it. you sound like a whiny faggot

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 8:53:34 AM

^ That's offensive. As an actual faggot in this thread, have you seen me whining? Choose your pejoratives with more care.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 9:00:12 AM

m52ncsu

Quote :

"dude, get over it. you sound like a whiny faggot"

quoted for posterity.

Also, nice rebuttal.

5/14/2010 9:05:41 AM

with all the shit going down in this country and all the problems I'm so glad our state gov't has time to tackle this very important issue.

/sarcasm

5/14/2010 10:17:43 AM

no surprise a little irony is over the heads of some posters

5/14/2010 11:16:55 AM

how many times is Optimum gonna bitch about people using the words faggot and gay? gtfo of here with that shit

on the same note, i really can't even fathom why any person would oppose gay marriage. blows my mind.

5/14/2010 11:23:16 AM

Quote :

"i really can't even fathom why any person would oppose gay marriage. blows my mind."

5/14/2010 11:28:58 AM

^^when used in a derogatory manner it's completely disrespectful and makes you look like an idiot.

5/14/2010 11:45:10 AM

denying faggots equal rights is the dumbest, gayest shit and anyone arguing for a ban is probably a massive homo.

5/14/2010 12:07:55 PM

a

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : a]

5/14/2010 12:07:55 PM

fuckin tdub tripple post

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : a]

5/14/2010 12:08:10 PM

When I'm on Xbox Live, I call other people breeders and state how fucking hetero they are.

5/14/2010 12:46:10 PM

Quote :

"no surprise a little irony is over the heads of some posters"

You weren't being ironic. You were clearly using "whiny faggot" as a slur because you disagreed with a statement someone made. You meant it as an insult, not ironic. No one's stopping you from using the word "faggot," but you make yourself look foolish by reverting to schoolyard taunts to get your point across.

Quote :

"how many times is Optimum gonna bitch about people using the words faggot and gay? gtfo of here with that shit"

I'll continue to respond to it where it's needed. I'm not gonna stop just because you don't like it. Either you'll figure out that it's offensive when used as a sophomoric insult, or you'll continue to act like I am the problem. I think I know which side you're going to fall on.

5/14/2010 2:52:29 PM

Optimum has won this thread hands down.

5/14/2010 3:19:31 PM

do you know about me or my story at alll? it was an ironic response to someone saying christianity fosters bigotry. go get your panties out of your ass.

5/14/2010 3:47:21 PM

5/14/2010 3:49:19 PM

^^

You said:

Quote :

"dude, get over it. you sound like a whiny faggot"

And now you are trying to weasel out of it. If you want to be dishonest, that's fine. But you clearly did not mean it to be ironic, and to claim otherwise after the fact insults the intelligence of every other person in this thread.

And I'm not sure why you are bringing up your personal life, unless you want to share something about it. Perhaps you'd like to use it to justify calling someone a "whiny faggot?"

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 6:05:40 PM