[Cipherr]

He isn't, but I am.

Disappointing and very sad.

Agreed. I don't know how I convinced myself that we were probably past this sort of thing. Wake up call for real. This is a shame.

[Mammoth Jones]

One side is literally shitting on someone's civil rights. The other isn't. End of story.

This. I just have NEVER, EVER heard a logical, well thought out argument against it. It always boils down to: "I personally don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist."

[Neuromancer]

This will not end well for unomas.

A chilling prophecy.

[Alligatorjandro]

A chilling prophecy.

A blind man could have seen it.

[Ziltoid]

So we're backwards and disgusting because we don't believe the way YOU believe? Ok.

If you believe it's okay to limit the civil rights of a minority like this, then yes.

And before anyone comes with the "bubu my opinions!" -argument: I shouldn't have to add an "imo" at the end of each post to clarify that what I'm typing is indeed, my opinions.

[Matt]

Someone has to vote. If the pool isn't all registered voters, it will be elected legislators. And remember, without a constitutional ban gay marriage is still illegal. To make it legal requires a vote on a minority's rights. So there's going to be a vote. This particular vote isn't a milestone or a headstone. The vote itself isn't very important, because voters change, and one vote can be undone by another.

Not really. The courts can determine that protection for same-sex marriage is already in the constitution. So, no one needs to vote.

[InsaneZero]

A chilling prophecy.

Playing the victim card usually end up with predictable results around here.

[Roy G. Biv]

Very disappointing results. I went out and voted against, and I'm proud that at least my county was overall against the amendment.

[Matthew Gallant]

The idea that constitutional amendments can be passed by a simple majority cheapens the whole concept of a constitution in the first place. The U.S. Constitution can't be amended unless 2/3rds of Congress approve the amendment and 75% of the states ratify.

[key]

Because his opinion isn't denying someone their fundamental human rights?

He seems to be implying that his opponents have no right to their own opinion. I think there's something wrong with that, but that's beside the point. I just posted to say that a little bit of maturity would make this discussion at least somewhat sensible. I said that, so I'm done.

[Hootie]

He isn't, but I am.

[Alucrid]

He seems to be implying that his opponents have no right to their own opinion. I think there's something wrong with that, but that's beside the point. I just posted to say that a little bit of maturity would make this discussion at least somewhat sensible. I said that, so I'm done.

They have a right to their own opinion, but they can't force that opinion on others when doing so denies them a basic right. This should be overturned in court.

Also lines like that last one make you look pathetic and hypocritical.

[ivysaur12]

He seems to be implying that his opponents have no right to their own opinion. I think there's something wrong with that, but that's beside the point. I just posted to say that a little bit of maturity would make this discussion at least somewhat sensible. I said that, so I'm done.

Uh, no, that's not what I said. I said that the other side doesn't deserve any respect or "civility" because their hate and ignorance is appalling and has negative effects on others.

Maturity would be understanding the effects of your opinions and how shitty they really are.

[NullPointer]

Pretty damn ironic last words:

Seriously? Who are you to judge me exactly? Are you the judge of NeoGAF? Because my view doesn't match yours and were on liberal GAF I should accept a completely slanted challenge? Hmmmm......doubtful.

[D-Fens]

Not sure if anyone made this point yet, but isn't this amendment illegal simply because it infringes on the equal protection clause? I thought states can't legislate against rights protected by the federal government.

[Log4Girlz]

Civil rights should not be put up for a vote.

[2real4tv]

This. I just have NEVER, EVER heard a logical, well thought out argument against it. It always boils down to: "I personally don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist."

Well for one they can't pro-create.

[Mammoth Jones]

So we're backwards and disgusting because we don't believe the way YOU believe? Ok.

It's backwards and disgusting if someone has a problem with a man and another man minding their own business, choosing to fall in love with each other and live their lives together and want to deny them their civil rights because they don't approve of their lifestyles.

Listen man, there are a FUCKTON of lifestyles that one might not "approve" of personally but that doesn't mean that someone would have the right to deny ANY adult the right to live their own life. And no one certainly should have ANY right to dictate which legal protections some get over others.

How someone doesn't seem to comprehend that literally blows my fucking mind. Literally.

[Aaron Strife]

Oh southern states, you and your bullshit.

I hope my state (MN) doesn't fail this hard.

Well for one they can't pro-create.

You really wanna fucking go down this road?

[LegendofJoe]

Playing the victim card usually end up with predictable results around here.

As it should. He made some divisive comments and wasn't willing to engage in an honest debate with those that questioned his comments. Whether it's on the internet or in your daily life that sort of behavior should be discouraged.

[Alligatorjandro]

Civil rights should not be put up for a vote.

Then why have a vote in the first place?

[ivysaur12]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

Neither can infertile couples. Next.

[Escape Goat]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

Oh man.

[giga]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

[Mammoth Jones]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

Neither can many heterosexual couples who are infertile for one reason or another....but no one is stopping them from marrying with statewide voting. So I'll go ahead and call bullshit on that.

[Matthew Gallant]

Not sure if anyone made this point yet, but isn't this amendment illegal simply because it infringes on the equal protection clause? I thought states can't legislate against rights protected by the federal government.

Yeah, it has a real problem since it went after civil unions and not just marriage. But that's going to take a while to resolve.

[Log4Girlz]

Then why have a vote in the first place?

For this issue in particular or the concept of voting in general?

[Alucrid]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

I know some gay guys who can create like pros. They're pretty good at design.

[Alligatorjandro]

For this issue in particular or the concept of voting in general?

Voting on gay marriage.

[Mumei]

Neither can infertile couples. Next.

I don't know whether people come up with that argument on their own, or if they heard it somewhere and thought it sounded good.

And I don't know what would be worse.

[Atramental]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

[Agnostic]

It's like a game of Whac-A-Mole.

[GaimeGuy]

I'm a Christian, and I'll be honest and say I'm not really sure how much control the government should have over gay marriage. But I will say that some of the replies in this thread are just pitiful. It's possible to discuss an issue without attacking your opponents and labeling them "stupid rednecks".

Do you know why you need to have witnesses at weddings, and why you sign all those documents? It's to make your marriage legally binding.

Marriage licenses are issued by the state. The states set up legal rights and privileges attached to marriage status. Private businesses also shape different policies and benefiits around marriages.

You may have a religious marriage ceremony, and you may or may not have marriage license issued by your religious institutinon, but you will always have a legally-binding marriage record maintained by the state.

As far as the government is concerned, it does not matter what institution marries you. If you are married in a mosque, a synagogue, a courthouse, it's all the same. As far as the government is concerned, your religion's role in your marriage ceremony is irrelevant.

By banning gay marriage (and any other form of domestic partnership other than heterosexual marriage) in the constitution, you are explicitely giving homosexual couples an inferior standing in the eyes of the law.

So no, people aren't overreacting. If you don't want your church to marry gays, fine. Enjoy your bigoted closeted church. But to say the state can't alllow homosexual couples to marry? Fuck you.

I am not christian. I am not gay. But didn't christ basically teach that you respect all persons regardless of their individual flaws, and that you not let someone's sins prevent you from treating them with the same respect and dignity as you would a total stranger whom you knew nothing about? To open your hearts to all others, and treat them with kindness even if they are wicked?

What the fuck is Christian about any of this?

[NullPointer]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

Thats the first one my mother told me.

Then followed that gays were narcissists, selfishly enrapt by their own image.

Then it was because this was a Christian nation.

Then she got upset.

[Sielys]

*sigh* I'm not surprised, but at least Durham pulled through. I'll continue to sit in my tiny pocket of sanity.

[snesfreak]

Civil rights should not be put up for a vote.

Exactly.

[Mammoth Jones]

I don't know whether people come up with that argument on their own, or if they heard it somewhere and thought it sounded good. And I don't know what would be worse.

I believe it's from the religious concept that marriage is for the purpose of a man and a woman coming together in order to create life. That's it. Sex should ONLY be in order to make babies. Masturbation is bad...etc

:(

But once again...what right would a religious person have to project their religious beliefs on someone else?

[speculawyer]

This. I just have NEVER, EVER heard a logical, well thought out argument against it. It always boils down to: "I personally don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist."

It is not a logical argument. It is a religious argument.

If you believe your god tells you that being gay is a sin then aren't you going against god if you vote to allow gay marriage?

I don't agree with the argument but if come with that premise, it is a strong argument.


Perhaps one of the the things gay rights campaigners need to do is get out there and talk about how Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuals. At all.

There is also a story where Jesus helped one of the roman soldier's helper boys. I dunno . . . roman soldier helper boy . . . I think Jesus may have healed a gay guy.

[Gentleman Jack]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

Please consult the Gay Marriage Debate Flow Chart and rethink the meaning of 'well reasoned and logical' before trying again.

[mavs]

Not really. The courts can determine that protection for same-sex marriage is already in the constitution. So, no one needs to vote.

The North Carolina courts can determine that if that protection is already in the North Carolina state constitution. That doesn't seem to be the case, however. Even if it were, there isn't any constitution in the United States that is unamendable, federal or state. Perhaps we could amend all constitutions so that rights could only be given, not taken away.

But that would require a vote.

[Alucrid]

It is not a logical argument. It is a religious argument. If you believe your god tells you that being gay is a sin then aren't you going against god if you vote to allow gay marriage? I don't agree with the argument but if come with that premise, it is a strong argument. Perhaps one of the the things gay rights campaigners need to do is get out there and talk about how Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuals. At all. There is also a story where Jesus helped one of the roman soldier's helper boys. I dunno . . . roman soldier helper boy . . . I think Jesus may have healed a gay guy.

oh shit did he use hand condoms?

The North Carolina courts can determine that if that protection is already in the North Carolina state constitution. That doesn't seem to be the case, however. Even if it were, there isn't any constitution in the United States that is unamendable, federal or state. Perhaps we could amend all constitutions so that rights could only be given, not taken away. But that would require a vote.

I find it disingenuous to put rights currently available to the majority of the population up to vote.

[Marius_]

I believe it's from the religious concept that marriage is for the purpose of a man and a woman coming together in order to create life. That's it. Sex should ONLY be in order to make babies. Masturbation is bad...etc :( But once again...what right would a religious person have to project their religious beliefs on someone else?

I guess it comes back to homosexuality being a sin and if you allow same-sex marriage you are promoting the sin

[SquiddyCracker]

This is really sad, what right does the majority have to stop two adults from engaging in a type of relationship (marriage) that does not harm them one single bit?

Shame on those of you who voted this through, if there are any here on NeoGAF.

[NullPointer]

But once again...what right would a religious person have to project their religious beliefs on someone else?

Christian nation. Its always the same answer. Denying the authority of Christianity means trying to undermine the American way.

I guess it comes back to homosexuality being a sin and if you allow same-sex marriage you are promoting the sin

I'll never understand how "allow" becomes "promote" in people's minds, especially in a country that believes itself to be the "land of the free".

[PhoenixPause]

Oh man.

He just blew your mind didn't he

[SquiddyCracker]

Please consult the Gay Marriage Debate Flow Chart and rethink the meaning of 'well reasoned and logical' before trying again.

This is awesome, you got it in a larger version?

Edit: Found a larger version:

[Mumei]

I believe it's from the religious concept that marriage is for the purpose of a man and a woman coming together in order to create life. That's it. Sex should ONLY be in order to make babies. Masturbation is bad...etc :( But once again...what right would a religious person have to project their religious beliefs on someone else?

And why don't they think about the fact that we allow infertile couples to marry? It's such a basic leap of logic to make.

[Air]

It is not a logical argument. It is a religious argument. If you believe your god tells you that being gay is a sin then aren't you going against god if you vote to allow gay marriage? I don't agree with the argument but if come with that premise, it is a strong argument. Perhaps one of the the things gay rights campaigners need to do is get out there and talk about how Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuals. At all. There is also a story where Jesus helped one of the roman soldier's helper boys. I dunno . . . roman soldier helper boy . . . I think Jesus may have healed a gay guy.

I believe it's from the religious concept that marriage is for the purpose of a man and a woman coming together in order to create life. That's it. Sex should ONLY be in order to make babies. Masturbation is bad...etc :( But once again...what right would a religious person have to project their religious beliefs on someone else?

I'm sure you can make the religious argument (not saying there isn't), but there are countries like Japan or Australia that are far more liberal and don't have gay marriage. It's not always a religious thing. Sometimes it can be a cultural thing, though when this specific state is mentioned you'd probably be right.

EDIT: The "I'm not religious, but still need a category of people to look down upon" argument seems to be the prevalent one in some countries.

[Sielys]

Well for one they can't pro-create.

So what? There are so many orphaned children in the US. Allowing gay couples to marry one another and adopt would do a load of good for those kids. Our foster system is far from ideal.

[Mammoth Jones]

It is not a logical argument. It is a religious argument. If you believe your god tells you that being gay is a sin then aren't you going against god if you vote to allow gay marriage? I don't agree with the argument but if come with that premise, it is a strong argument. Perhaps one of the the things gay rights campaigners need to do is get out there and talk about how Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuals. At all. There is also a story where Jesus helped one of the roman soldier's helper boys. I dunno . . . roman soldier helper boy . . . I think Jesus may have healed a gay guy.

But once it's a religious argument...which it almost always boils down to: What *right* does the state have to impose the religious belief of some onto others? Once again, I have never ever ever heard a well thought out, logical argument to justify this either.