Couldn't help but cry when watching this.

[Thrilla]

I'll let Gipper do the speaking for me here... we're on the same page ( and share a habit of being blunt about it)

 

[Jerry]

So is that your argument against heterosexual marriage too?

In fact, yes, it is.

 

[Lakryte]

In fact, yes, it is.

Ok. And is that an argument against the social institution of marriage or the legal marriage license?

 

[Jerry]

Ok. And is that an argument against the social institution of marriage or the legal marriage license?

Not that I'm aware of. Are you mistaking me for someone who opposes SSM, simply because I mock OP's propaganda?

 

[Lakryte]

Not that I'm aware of. Are you mistaking me for someone who opposes SSM, simply because I mock OP's propaganda?

Well you said it was an argument against heterosexual marriage so I took you at your word for it.

 

[Jerry]

Well you said it was an argument against heterosexual marriage so I took you at your word for it.

I don't think anyone should be getting married unless and until they complete comprehensive personal and financial pre-marital counseling. I make no exception for any group, be they gay, straight, interracial, mixed religion/culture, or otherwise. You're the one highlighting different groups, not me.

 

[Lakryte]

I don't think anyone should be getting married unless and until they complete comprehensive personal and financial pre-marital counseling. I make no exception for any group, be they gay, straight, interracial, mixed religion/culture, or otherwise. You're the one highlighting different groups, not me.

No, the government is highlighting different groups, and the video in this topic showed such highlighting on display. And a better word for "highlighting" is "discrimination." Your argument about pre-marital counseling isn't relevant to the topic.

 

[Jerry]

Your argument about pre-marital counseling isn't relevant to the topic.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement.

 

[Texmex]

Well, I hope the law stays the same, but I doubt it will. Hopefully those two old hags will die before the sodomites win this assault on family values. It would be a small victory.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Especially at the sweet old ladies.

It is illogical to shed a tear. If God wanted gays to marry, he would have given them the ability to have children.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Well, I hope the law stays the same, but I doubt it will. Hopefully those two old hags will die before the sodomites win this assault on family values. It would be a small victory.

Wise words.

 

[roguenuke]

It is illogical to shed a tear. If God wanted gays to marry, he would have given them the ability to have children.

First of all, God has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Second, no US marriage laws require the ability to have children as a prerequisite to entering into marriage.

 

[Texmex]

First of all, God has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Second, no US marriage laws require the ability to have children as a prerequisite to entering into marriage.

You know what was meant by this posting. Stop playing dumb.

 

[AGENT J]

First of all, God has nothing to do with civil marriage.

Second, no US marriage laws require the ability to have children as a prerequisite to entering into marriage.

once again FACTS destroy nonsense

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is illogical to shed a tear. If God wanted gays to marry, he would have given them the ability to have children.

This demonstrates that you lack education on this issue. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage.

Also, I do enjoy banning sock puppets... so be gone.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You know what was meant by this posting. Stop playing dumb.

I know. What it meant was that he doesn't understand the facts of the matter. Now two posters have corrected him. I hope he appreciates it. Of course being that I have banned him for being a sock puppet, demonstrating that he doesn't even understand the rules around here, I doubt he will understand anything.

 

[roguenuke]

You know what was meant by this posting. Stop playing dumb.

I know what was meant by it, and that is why I responded how I did. The poster made a comment unsupported by logic.

It is illogical to make a comment about US marriage laws based on God. It is illogical to make a comment on US marriage laws based on the ability to procreate. Neither of those two things have anything to do with US marriage laws and US marriage laws are what are in contention here. If you want to be specific, we can say that this is about NC marriage laws, but even then, they are not based on God (no matter what many North Carolinians may believe), nor are they restricted by a couple's ability to procreate with each other.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

It is illogical to shed a tear. If God wanted gays to marry, he would have given them the ability[/] to have children.

You're argument is illogical. I was in a heterosexual marriage for 15 years. The first 8 of those were spent trying to conceive, due to myself being diagnosed as infertile.
Later down the road, after adopting a child, that was found to be false.

However. There are thousands of heterosexual couples that cannot have children. Conversely, being heterosexual doesn't automatically make someone a good parent.

Your statement doesn't hold water,

 

[justabubba]

unfortunately this is too true
we now have a state government dominated by republicans - and it now appears that i was a fool to have voted for the republican governor
he was a decent mayor but has become a puppet for the neocons

 

[Slyfox696]

While I absolutely support equal rights and same sex marriage, I cannot support this video, as I generally don't support videos which are little more than political ambushes of (what I assume to be) unsuspecting and innocent people. I have to say I was most thrilled with the responses of the state workers in how they denied the application with such kindness. Again, I'm assuming they were unaware what was going on, but they acted in an incredibly decent and human manner.

So I don't care much for the political statement (how about you make that statement to someone who can do something about it?), but I was very impressed with the caring way the licenses were denied.

 

[Gipper]

While I absolutely support equal rights and same sex marriage, I cannot support this video, as I generally don't support videos which are little more than political ambushes of (what I assume to be) unsuspecting and innocent people. I have to say I was most thrilled with the responses of the state workers in how they denied the application with such kindness. Again, I'm assuming they were unaware what was going on, but they acted in an incredibly decent and human manner.

So I don't care much for the political statement (how about you make that statement to someone who can do something about it?), but I was very impressed with the caring way the licenses were denied.

I pretty much agree with you here, on every aspect. I don't have a problem with SSM either, but the video was just a bunch of partisan crap. That's why I laughed at the video before - if you "shed a tear" over this, you're all heart and no brain. Idiots who soapbox on these kinds of videos are the ones that keep Michael Moore's 15 minutes going.

 

[NoC_T]

Especially at the sweet old ladies.

I shouldn't think it'll be too much longer before this particular phantom is exorcised. I tend to view orientation as being perhaps the least pernicious of our enduring figments. It carries nothing like the historical backwash or potential for political profit of either race or gender. This nonsense should be laid to rest any time now. Don't sweat it.

 

[rhinefire]

How do I get a job in that office? They say when you love your job you never work a day in your life.

 

[AGENT J]

How do I get a job in that office? They say when you love your job you never work a day in your life.

What would be the best part about that job you love?