North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

[Sawber]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
...including homosexuals. That IS the point.

Please explain how they would survive the abortion.

Pretending homosexuality is genetic, yes, some homosexuals would be conceived, just as those with debilitating birth defects will continue to be conceived.

Are you claiming that those with debilitating birth defects are fundamental to our existence because they will continue to be born?

Anyway, you've got your logic backwards. Society if fundamental to the existence of everyone-straight, gay, pedophiles, rapists murderers, good citizens, etc.

That does NOT mean that all of those sorts of people are fundamental to the existence of our society.

Oat are fundamental to the existence of Cheerios. That does NOT mean Cheerios are fundamental to the existence of oats.

[Jupiter]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain how they would survive the abortion.
Pretending homosexuality is genetic, yes, some homosexuals would be conceived, just as those with debilitating birth defects will continue to be conceived.
Are you claiming that those with debilitating birth defects are fundamental to our existence because they will continue to be born?
Anyway, you've got your logic backwards. Society if fundamental to the existence of everyone-straight, gay, pedophiles, rapists murderers, good citizens, etc.
That does NOT mean that all of those sorts of people are fundamental to the existence of our society.
Oat are fundamental to the existence of Cheerios. That does NOT mean Cheerios are fundamental to the existence of oats.

So what? Homosexuals aren't causing any harm, and they can and do procreate, just not with each other. What are you suggesting -- weeding out all the "undesirables?" Perhaps women past childbearing years should be killed off, since they are no longer "fundamental" to our society.

What if someone decides that "undesirable" includes YOU? Maybe the government thinks that you are not "fundamental" to society.

[Sawber]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
So what? Homosexuals aren't causing any harm, and they can and do procreate, just not with each other.

So let me get this straight. You think gay couples should receive benefits for not causing harm and not procreating.

So why shouldn't we provide these benefits to single people. Or siblings?

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you suggesting -- weeding out all the "undesirables?" Perhaps women past childbearing years should be killed off, since they are no longer "fundamental" to our society.
What if someone decides that "undesirable" includes YOU? Maybe the government thinks that you are not "fundamental" to society.

Have I seriously suggested killing off gays? Nope. So don't bring hyperbole. Are infertile women "fundamental to our existence" Nope.

If they were all killed off, society would continue on. But obviously I am not suggesting that or suggesting to kill of gays.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I was thinking about putting down tile in my bathroom this weekend.
So, fail.
Clearly you also cannot know what the justices were thinking, only what they wrote.

Really?

"I know what the ruling said. That is all that matters.
I don't pretend to know what they were thinking."

What I said was, we KNOW what your're thinking they meant and it sure wasn't "... putting down tile in your bathroom."

But go ahead, make a joke out of it. You do that when backed into a corner.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Because under the federal law, there is no such thing as a legally married gay couple.
Why didn't you answer the question about equality? One married couple has no kids, one has kids. Why does the one with no kids have to pay more taxes? That is not equality.

STOP TRYING TO MOVE THE GOAL POST.

I'm asking why a gay couple should pay more than a straight couple, all things being equal. Your red herring about couples with kids and couples without kids is NOT a valid analogy.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Says logic and math. If one side of the equation is not true, the the equivalent statement on the other side is not true.
And that quote IS from a SCOTUS case.(Loving v Virginia)

Excuse me? Where is the proof that "gay marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival?" SCOTUS has not ruled on that yet, so it is merely opinion, not a mathematical fact.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain how they would survive the abortion.
Pretending homosexuality is genetic, yes, some homosexuals would be conceived, just as those with debilitating birth defects will continue to be conceived.
Are you claiming that those with debilitating birth defects are fundamental to our existence because they will continue to be born?
Anyway, you've got your logic backwards. Society if fundamental to the existence of everyone-straight, gay, pedophiles, rapists murderers, good citizens, etc.
That does NOT mean that all of those sorts of people are fundamental to the existence of our society.
Oat are fundamental to the existence of Cheerios. That does NOT mean Cheerios are fundamental to the existence of oats.

Homosexuality is NOT a debilitating birth defect and you are NOT going to get ANYONE to tesify to that silliness in Court.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
So let me get this straight. You think gay couples should receive benefits for not causing harm and not procreating.
So why shouldn't we provide these benefits to single people. Or siblings?
<quoted text>
Have I seriously suggested killing off gays? Nope. So don't bring hyperbole. Are infertile women "fundamental to our existence" Nope.
If they were all killed off, society would continue on. But obviously I am not suggesting that or suggesting to kill of gays.

Why do we extend those benfits to hetero couples that have no chance of procreating?

[EdmondWA]

Sawber wrote:

Well, yes. You are asking for me to provide benefits to you,so why shouldn't I expect it to get something out of it?

Maybe becaue I don't want to marry YOU?

Sawber wrote:

Well, except for a well adjusted next generation to help take care of you when you are old. But who needs society to continue, right?

More lies from the right, as if gay people don't WANT society to continue. But, since we're not likely to breed, we just don't DESERVE to enjoy society, right?

Sawber wrote:

If you don't support sibling marriage and polygamy, you really don't mean that.

False. These are unrelated.

Sawber wrote:

Don't dodge the question. CAN you build a family without the gov't recognizing affinity?

Just as well as YOU can. But, you don't.

Sawber wrote:

NECESSITY? Really? So you think a 60 lb comm pack or a box of ammo suddenly gets lighter when a woman picks it up? You think no women are stronger or faster than any men?

How much of what you say is just a set-up so you can twist someone's words? You KNOW that most aren't, and that's WHY the military has different qualifications for men and women, which YOU pointed out.

Sawber wrote:

I married someone that I can create the next generation of our society with.

And my spouse and I might raise the kids that straight people like you ABANDON.

Sawber wrote:

Nope. But the gov't thought it was worth it for me to stay around to raise the results.

But they won't prevent you from marrying if you don't. Or if you have MORE kids with another woman. Or if you want to "raise" your kids from prison. Or if you're just a terrible parent in general. Or if you carried a disorder like Down syndrome. You have carte blanche to do marriage as badly as possible.

Sawber wrote:

You've got all of these excuses and reasons why SOME inequality is OK. Either inequality is OK or it isn't. You are clearly showing that some inequality is OK. Which completely sinks the argument you are hanging gay marriage on.

No, that's just you being absolutist. There's a such thing as shades of gray, and case-by-case review. You want my argument to be all-or-nothing, but no reasoned argument is.

Sawber wrote:

Great. But you can't take part of the sentence and keep the rest.

I think I can do what I want. Are there sentence police lurking nearby?

Sawber wrote:

At least you are finally admitting you are wanting to change marriage. Which leaves no excuse for not including polygamists and siblings. After all, equality is equality. Once you start making exceptions, it is no longer equality.

Yes, it is. Shades of gray. Stop trying to cram EVERYONE into the SAME box. I only want to change marriage so that it continues to fit with the changes in society. You don't seem to even want SOCIETY to change.

Sawber wrote:

So, can a gay couple do everything a straight couple can--especially when it comes to advancing our society? Nope. On the other hand a straight couple can do everything a gay couple can and more. that is pretty much the definition of LESS.

Since gay people take up the slack when it comes to the children that straights can't manage or don't want, I'd say we do a fair job of advancing society. Since we help prop up that society as citizens, I think we do our share.

There are plenty of great reasons for straight people to enjoy marriage. But there are few reasons to WANT to deny marriage to gay people. Division. Segregation. The NEED to have someone "less than" oneself. Certainly not for the "benefit" of a homophobic society.

[Sawber]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Really?
"I know what the ruling said. That is all that matters.
I don't pretend to know what they were thinking."
What I said was, we KNOW what your're thinking they meant and it sure wasn't "... putting down tile in your bathroom."
But go ahead, make a joke out of it. You do that when backed into a corner.

Seriously? You think you can know what they were thinking beyond what they wrote? How?

[Sawber]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
STOP TRYING TO MOVE THE GOAL POST.
I'm asking why a gay couple should pay more than a straight couple, all things being equal. Your red herring about couples with kids and couples without kids is NOT a valid analogy.

Pretending it isn't doesn't change the fact. If it isn't relevant, why not just answer?

Because you know it undermines your position.

[Sawber]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me? Where is the proof that "gay marriage is not "fundamental to our very existence and survival?" SCOTUS has not ruled on that yet, so it is merely opinion, not a mathematical fact.

That one is a FACT.

If every homosexual ceased to exist for all time, society would go on just fine.

[Sawber]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuality is NOT a debilitating birth defect and you are NOT going to get ANYONE to tesify to that silliness in Court.

And I clearly differentiated between the two.

Don't worry, I did notice that you tried to attack the strawman of something I didn't say rather than answer the question and deal with the point of the post.

[Sawber]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do we extend those benfits to hetero couples that have no chance of procreating?

Yep. Because when the rules/benefits went into effect, we had no way of determining that.

But yet we could tell with 100% assurance that no gay couple could.

[Sawber]

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe becaue I don't want to marry YOU?

that doesn't change the fact that you want to involve me in your relationship and want something from me.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
False. These are unrelated.

You:"But we ALL benefit by promoting a fair and equitable society where everyone feels welcome to participate."
So by "everyone", you don't mean "everyone", right? Just those you approve of.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Just as well as YOU can. But, you don't.

So "YES". Thank you.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
How much of what you say is just a set-up so you can twist someone's words? You KNOW that most aren't, and that's WHY the military has different qualifications for men and women, which YOU pointed out.

No twisting needed. Just pointing out it isn't NECESSITY. It is a choice to treat people differently based on their abilities.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
And my spouse and I might raise the kids that straight people like you ABANDON.

Great. And that will be a well thought out choice on your part and will not require the gov't to convince/entice you to do so.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
But they won't prevent you from marrying if you don't. Or if you have MORE kids with another woman. Or if you want to "raise" your kids from prison. Or if you're just a terrible parent in general. Or if you carried a disorder like Down syndrome. You have carte blanche to do marriage as badly as possible.

Yep. I never claimed marriage was perfect. Unfortunately, in the past few decades, "progressives" have indeed weakened marriage via no-fault divorce.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's just you being absolutist. There's a such thing as shades of gray, and case-by-case review. You want my argument to be all-or-nothing, but no reasoned argument is.

Actually, some are. Is child rape OK sometimes?

You claim the gov't should recognize gay marriage based on equality. That is a pretty absolute claim. Yet we come to find that you don't really want equality. You want shades of grey on equality.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I can do what I want.

Sure, but your position then has zero credibility. I can make up data to support my position. Would that be acceptable to you?

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it is. Shades of gray. Stop trying to cram EVERYONE into the SAME box. I only want to change marriage so that it continues to fit with the changes in society. You don't seem to even want SOCIETY to change.

You are KILLING your "equality" claim. Equality DOES put "EVERYONE into the SAME box", right?

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Pretending it isn't doesn't change the fact. If it isn't relevant, why not just answer?
Because you know it undermines your position.

It does not. Couples with children and childless couples ARE NOT EQUAL. Geez, buddy..... 3 doesn't equal 2
4 doesn't equal 2

And I can say the same thing about YOU refusing to answer my question. You know, the one you keep avoiding because it undermines your position.

[EdmondWA]

Sawber wrote:

Because equality is equality.

No, that's just a tactic to try to lump people together who don't belong, so you can try to invalidate whichever you like.

Sawber wrote:

Yep. Which means, by definition, they cannot become polygamists until they marry that second spouse. So in the eyes of the gov't, a polygamist CANNOT MARRY which would mean they would have to be marrying a third spouse since they didn't become a polygamist until the second marriage. And love has nothing to do with gov't recognizing the marriage.

If you're trying to tell me that you support polygamy, so do I. If it's fair.

Sawber wrote:

Very judgmental. Using your analogy, a straight marriage is one car in a garage. Gay marriage is two empty garages or two cars with no garage.

No, EVERY marriage is 2 cars in a garage. You're getting into different territory if you want 3 cars, or 4, or 5....

You're really STUCK on the idea that gay people are somehow "missing" something, and therefore don't deserve marriage, aren't you?

Sawber wrote:

Unless they have the same rights as a married couple, it isn't equal. Would you be perfectly fine if they set up gay marriage and only gave them the rights that siblings have?
Of course not. So stop pretending you care about equality.

These logic pretzels are exactly why this is unrelated. An incestuous marriage would have MORE rights than yours or mine. They'd be siblings AND spouses. How many doubled-up rights does someone need?

Sawber wrote:

Now you are judging love? You sound just like those people who say the gay can the trained out of people and that they can love someone of the opposite sex.

No, I don't. I'm saying that a person in an incestuous relationship isn't in it because they were BORN to love only siblings. They can love non-siblings. Some situation LED them into such a relationship.

It's not as if there's a man out there saying "Wow, I sure like that woman, and would like to share my life with her, but darn it, she's not my sister, so I can't".

But go ahead and deny this. Spin me a strawman of a person who is only capable of love when they're with a sibling.

Sawber wrote:

But yet we have people all of the time leaving their heterosexual marriage because they "discovered" or "realized" they were gay. How about Anne Heche?

You people just LOVE your absolutism. Ever heard of bisexuality?

Do you LIKE the idea of these marriages failing, due to the incompatibility of the couple? Wouldn't it be BETTER if they could make their OWN choice of who to marry, rather than defying their own nature just to satisfy others?

Sawber wrote:

There isn't any reason to deny polygamists the right to marry, unless you LIKE seeing their lives made more difficult.

When I hear about a pastor who wants to lock polygamists in an electric fence until they die, then I'll believe that some kind of anti-polygamy motivations exist. But I KNOW that anti-gay sentiment is rampant in this country, and I KNOW that this is the motivation of many. A person's life is not made more difficult if they are permitted to marry, but not permitted to marry over and over and over.

It's not as if there's a man out there saying "Wow, I sure love that woman, and I'd like to share my life with her, but I just CAN'T until I have 6 more women as well!".

But, if polygamists want to make a case, and show that marrying multiple people isn't an attempt to gain EXTRA benefits, nor an attempt to cow timid women into haremdom, I would do my best to LISTEN to that case. I wouldn't tell them that they deserve to remain SINGLE their whole lives, just because their family would be different from mine.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. Because when the rules/benefits went into effect, we had no way of determining that.
But yet we could tell with 100% assurance that no gay couple could.

Oh really? Then why aren't you voting their right to marry away now that we CAN determine that? Because we all know your objection isn't about reproduction, because gay people have been getting married for 8 years now. Did people stop reproducing? No, they didn't.

The State doesn't ask if couples intend to have children because IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. Most adults realise you don't need to be married to reproduce. In fact MOST of the time, it happens outside of marriage.

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

You:"But we ALL benefit by promoting a fair and equitable society where everyone feels welcome to participate."
So by "everyone", you don't mean "everyone", right? Just those you approve of.

Oh no you didn't........

[Mona Lott]

Sawber wrote:

No twisting needed. Just pointing out it isn't NECESSITY. It is a choice to treat people differently based on their abilities.

Hmmmmm..... what "abilitiy" might that be?