North Carolina Votes to make gay marriage unconstituational

[Bond]

I'd also like to add I think we would be very disappointed with the outcome if a gay marriage case went to the Surpeme Court in its current rendition.

[Typhoid]

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with "British Invasion".

Even though I only put that in there for a tongue-in-cheek lark; You needed the militia to defend yourself from the Redcoats because you didn't have a significant standing army at the time (compared to the British). The militia was your army. Now that your country has a massive professional army, and it's hundreds of years in the future, I think the militia thing is a little passe - unless you guys want to pick and choose other archaeic few-hundred-year-old things to live by. I haven't been to a good witch burning in a while. I also haven't stolen any land from any Indians lately - I could probably use a whole lot more of that in my life. I also believe this is a man's world, and we should take back the vote from those fucking dames. That's how the founders wanted it, damnit. If Jesus wanted it any other way he would have told them to found the country like that initially.

The civil war is over - The whole "The government can turn on the citizens, so we need a constant militia" thing is a pretty 3rd world outlook. You're not in Libya or Uzbekistan. There are no child soldiers; and if there are it's only because guns are legal and they stole them from their parents. Your army will not open fire on your people, unless you're a college student linking arms with other college students (too bad those kids didn't have guns!).

Plus I doubt many gays have weapons (Even thought they are Godless heathens, you'd think those Communist-pinkos would be all over having a shitload of guns)- I know they can openly serve in the military now; but I don't think they've got it in them to steal tanks and planes to start another civil war over the civil rights of a group of people; so I think you're good on the guns and militia thing.
I'm pretty sure your massive professional army is there to defend you - and if it did turn on you; I doubt a militia of people with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns could really compete with the biggest professional military on the planet, which has the most modern tanks, planes, drones, and nukes.

(That is joke, friend)


Seriously, I notice you didn't address the fact you were comparing gun ownership to the rights of a group of people. It's like comparing guns to suffrage, or slavery. Same shit, different era. And it will be equally as silly in retrospect. Like a "I can't believe my great grandfathers-ish generation was against women voting. That's fucking offensive" thing.

But many are not necessary, and are therefore bad law because an unnecessary law unnecessarily denies people their rights.

Well I can't not agree with that! Everyone will agree with that. Everyone's idea of a bad law is different though - and your country is so large, and vastly divided (you had a war between two parts of your country BECAUSE they are so different - most countries split up after that) that it's nearly impossible for your entire country to come to a majority decision on anything. (I even bet if you asked that to your people, half would say "we totally agree on a lot of things, you asshole *finds examples*", and the other half would say "That's totally true. We can never agree on anything. It really slows the progress of the country"

no one I've heard is talking about denying gay people rights related to their union such as tax benefits, etc. They're denying gay people the ability to define their union with a word they want to reserve only use for men and women. That's the sum total of their ridiculous exercise in semantics.

Even though I'm not gay or Republican, and my country already allows them to get normal-married - I assume it's not about tax benefits.
It's about the word.
One side is saying "What's the big deal? It's just a word. You're still treated pretty much the same" and the other is saying "Exactly. So let us just use that fucking word."

Anyways. I'm just entertaining myself. No need to break down my nonsensical paragraphs. So really, please don't.

[Professor S]

Typh, if you're going to take the time to write "nonsense", don't plead that people don't address it. If you don't want people to address it, DON'T POST IT. A message board is a conversation, and that takes two or more people. If you just want to get your "nonsense" off your chest, write a blog or better yet just talk to yourself in the car. Don't waste our time. But in any case, please stop your habit of writing paragraphs on serious subjects and then dismissing yourself as "having a lark". Take ownership of your opinion.

A few points:

You needed the militia to defend yourself from the Redcoats because you didn't have a significant standing army at the time (compared to the British). The militia was your army. Now that your country has a massive professional army, and it's hundreds of years in the future, I think the militia thing is a little passe - unless you guys want to pick and choose other archaeic few-hundred-year-old things to live by.

Ok, then I guess we can just ignore all of the Bill of Rights? They're all equally archaic, right? So freedom of speech and protection against unlawful search and seizure should be ignored as well? Of course not. "Archaic" has nothing to do with your opinion. You're entire standard of the law and people's rights are what YOU happen to agree or disagree with, regardless of the process or what individual rights you would deny others. You don't value gun rights, therefore EVERYONE should not be able to exercise them.

Watch the Penn and Teller video, and if you did watch it, watch it again. The militia = the military, it is not paramilitary or a bunch of jackasses running around in the woods on weekends. And if people disagree with the amendment protecting gun ownership, they can overturn it through the amendment process. It was done with prohibition, it can be done with gun ownership. You can't simply ignore it because a few people, or even many people, think it's archaic.

Well I can't not agree with that! Everyone will agree with that. Everyone's idea of a bad law is different though - and your country is so large, and vastly divided (you had a war between two parts of your country BECAUSE they are so different - most countries split up after that) that it's nearly impossible for your entire country to come to a majority decision on anything.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of the legislative and amendment process. If you can't gather a large majority of public opinion, you can't remove the rights of the individual, and this is especially true of those rights protected in the bill of rights. This is also why state's rights are important. So are federal rights, but one does not need to eliminate the other.

It's like comparing guns to suffrage, or slavery. Same shit, different era.

Even though I'm not gay or Republican, and my country already allows them to get normal-married - I assume it's not about tax benefits.
It's about the word.
One side is saying "What's the big deal? It's just a word. You're still treated pretty much the same" and the other is saying "Exactly. So let us just use that fucking word."

So slavery and women's suffrage movements are the same as arguing over semantics/the use of a word? Of course they aren't. This is why I favor a more natural, society based resolution to the gay marriage issue. In the end, this IS about the use of a word, and I don't think that argument (as anemic as it is) is worth the political and cultural strife it would cause to force a new cultural norm on a population that doesn't want it.

Again, we both agree on the heart of this issue, but forcing it could potentially cause violence and even murder in our more backward areas. Not only that, it could give enough political will to attempt an amendment defining marriage, and I think that would set the entire cause back for decades, potentially.