not that i think anyone cares.

aircooled wrote: (map of the counties I posted with education thrown in)

Another interesting thing about those same areas is that they have a very high number of transplants from other areas, too. I've been in NC since 1996, but I spent the first 25 years of my life in New York.

There really is a HUGE culture shift if you get out of those areas. I still feel I stick out a little bit when I open my mouth down in Richmond County, where my in-laws live.

In regard to that map, is that where the big cities are located?

bludroptop wrote: Marriage is both a religious institution and a legal institution. That's why the whole civil union thing doesn't carry water, because it is not 'equal' to marriage. I am surprised by the tolerance exhibited in this thread, given the neanderthal chest-thumping that characterizes too many social/political discussions here.

Anti-stance wrote: Polygamy doesn't bother me. If everyone is consenting adults and not consenting out of fear or intimidation.

Here's where it gets weird. As pinko liberal as some think I am I have to say that if you're a polygamist you damned well better be able to pay for all those kids and wives. If you can't, only procreate to the point of your financial ability to take care of said monstrous family.

I could care less how, who, or to what number you marry but take care of your responsibilities. If you can't afford two wives, stick to the one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anybody read Robert Heinlein in his later years? He talked a lot about the evolution of family into the future. It seemed that ol'Bob thought that eventually we would have marriage contracts wherein two people could be married for 5 years, 10 years, life, etc. He also thought that families would evolve into group families wherein groups of people are married to each other as opposed to individuals being married to individuals. Interesting ideas especially considering the conversation we're all having.

btw - It's pretty funny seeing us all talk about his, expecting an argument, and getting none.

In reply to Xceler8x:

I have to think some people are just staying out of it. When it is a hypothetical situation, it is easy to go on the attack. But the OP is one of us and this situation pertains to her.

i didnt expect an arguement at all with this. as with the(womens) football thread previously and some other ones. yall have shown to be very progressive and open.

Who you callin' a progressive? WTF did I ever do to you?

Salanis wrote:

KATYB wrote: and wow so did not expect a response like this to me posting these 2 lil things.

Of all my friends since high school, the most loving couple is a pair of lesbians. One is MtF. They stayed together through her transition. That's berkeleying love. They recently got "civil unioned". That is bullE36 M3. They should have gotten married. If my friend were not MtF they would be able to. It is only that one little identification preventing them. This is further bullE36 M3. They love each other as much as any two people I've ever seen (probably second only to my grandparents). They've been together for almost 13 years. Their relationship has survived all kinds of crazy things. They can't get married because both of their identifications say "Female". berkeley that.

salanis this makes me sad to hear. truly. my spouse and i met and got married prior to my transition and coming out. we have stayed together and believe me we had to work at it there were some very rough times. but right now things are better than ever. now on that note almost all my documentation does day female. not all but most. i am worried of our marriage being "voided" after it all does. whenever we put down married on anything we get these looks like umm u cant legaly be married. well ummm yes we can heres our marriage license ect ect ect. cudos to your friends tho good to see other couples similar to me and my spouse stay together.

Several reasons why this happened.

1. Obama is in alot of trouble http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

2. Obama needs money.
   http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120511barack_obama-george_clooney_event_raises_nearly_15_million/srvc=home&position=recent

3. Obama needs the media to run stories to cover his record.

He has fooled the LGBT to open up their checkbooks.

In reply to Fletch1:

despite this i am not voting for obama based on this. infact not a single candidate that i do like.

i will not vote for obama however.

Anti-stance wrote: In reply to aircooled: So, is that saying that if you have a bachelors degree and you live in NC that you are more likely to not support gay marriage? ...okay

I think you got that backwards. It says that the higher educated areas did not support the marriage amendment, which was the ban on gay marriage.

In reply to Fletch1:

All those LGBT Romney supporters are switching their allegiance now? All none of them?

An interesting aspect of some of the discussion here and other places is that the discussion many times regards "what people support".

I believe (as many others do of course) that this really is not an issue of what people want but rather a basic right that is beyond what people think about it. Someone may not support women voting, blacks being citizens, or people being allowed to speak freely, but that is irrelevant, because those are basic rights. It's not really something you vote on.

The idea of divorcing (!) the word Marriage from the "Legal Union" that it is in the eyes of the law is also almost essential. Marriage is just too tied to the religious ceremony so using the same name implies a religious tie which really isn't true (legally).

Changing the word will also help with the strange obsession that some religious people have with associating these Legal Unions with the assumed ability to have a Union with almost anything if non-hetero Unions are allowed. Realistically this should not even be an issue. If someone want to have a Legal Union with their dog, turtle, car, or bowl of fruit, who cares? It's not like most of the rights of these unions would have any relevance and would thus void (add you dog to your company provided healthcare plan, I think not).

Besides, I think the people that complain about people marrying their dog (or whatever) are somehow assuming that that means they will be having lawful sex with them. That of course is already illegal (I would hope).

aircooled wrote: Besides, I think the people that complain about people marrying their dog (or whatever) are somehow assuming that that means they will be having lawful sex with them. That of course is already illegal (I would hope).

It's more an indication of those people's view of homosexuality being some type of abhorrent, revolting behavior.

fritzsch wrote: In regard to that map, is that where the big cities are located?

Yes, the areas that did not support the Amendment are by the bigger cities.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Fletch1: All those LGBT Romney supporters are switching their allegiance now? All none of them?

LOL. People at my work place are talking about how it is going to hurt Obama and I am just sitting here laughing as if anyone who is against gay marriage is a Obama support.

Ya know, it's funny. Here I am an atheist and I got married in what could best be described as a civil ceremony. I did not have to pledge a religious affiliation, etc.

But I was most definitely married, not only in the eyes of the state (got a license, signed the certificate, all that stuff) but also in the eyes of the religious members of my family. But marriage is considered a church institution? Weird. I suppose that's why I have no problem with gays getting married.

16vCorey wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: In reply to aircooled: So, is that saying that if you have a bachelors degree and you live in NC that you are more likely to not support gay marriage? ...okay

I think you got that backwards. It says that the higher educated areas did not support the marriage amendment, which was the ban on gay marriage.

Yeah, I did read that backwards. Makes a lot more sense now.

While I've been vehemently PRO gay marriage...or rather...anti-anti gay marriage, the polygamy thing tripped me up a bit. And I really like arguments that defy logic or dogma. I'm still not sure where I stand on it, and it threw a wrench in my "life, liberty, property" line of thinking. Following the same line of thinking, I came to the incest thing. While it's easy to say "your kids will have birth defects, so no," does that mean we should not allow two mentally handicapped people from marrying?

Interesting responses from you guys too.

Seems like the reason behind polygamy is large families. And the world is already over populated so in part thats why I think its a bad idea

I think the polygamy/incest thing doesn't play into gay marriage.

We currently allow any two consenting legal age non related adults (of oposite sex) to enter into a government recognized exclusive relationship allowing unique property, visitation, and inheritance rights that are inaccessible through any other means. The question is by denying same sex couples access to those rights granted to opposite sex couples are we discrimnating and violating our constitution. I think undeniably yes.

Correcting this injustice by extending marriage to same sex in no way paves the way for polygamy, incest, or toaster marriages any more than those types of "marriage" have support today. It is a fear mongering red herring argument that is designed to make people on the fence about the issue at hand think... Hmm if I correct this injustice and redefine marriage we have started the slippery slope to people marrying their father, goat, and favorite tshirt and I am absolutely against that so no gay marriage for me.

It is sadly a very effective argument that I fear will help keep us discriminating against a minority group in this country for far to long. I 100% as a Christian married father of soon to be 2 support legislation to change all government recognised relationships including my own to be civil unions defined as a relationship between 2 consenting non related legal adults of any sex and afford this union every right and privilege granted by the previously utilized marriage definition.

My son stops in a country corner store for breakfast in the mornings on the way to work. There are 4 black ladies that run the place and over the years he has gotten to know them well. To say they are LIVID about Obama's announcement is an understatement. They told him that there was no way they could vote for him now. It will be interesting to see what the poles say over the next few weeks and his response to them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If the government has no power over marriage we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's none of my or anyone's business who people want to marry. As far as I'm concerned if any couple or group of people say they are married, they are. The government should be the same way.

look i am not an obama supporter (infact i think the man sucks as a president) however having the president say that he thinks gay marriage should be legal. well that means something within my community. is it going to sway the lgbt vote his way? maybe but doubt it. is it going to hurt him probably yes. lets face it we live in a nation where alot of people think gay men are pedofiles. lesbiens are jaded women and transwomen are gay men trying to trick men into sleeping with them. on that note it messes with people when they find out im trans and gay. they dont get it if i dont like guys

KATYB wrote: on that note it messes with people when they find out im trans and gay. they dont get it if i dont like guys

it doesn't have to make sense to them, just as long as it makes sense to you. Nobody seems to understand making a 1930's Japanese streetrod out of used appliances, either.

KATYB wrote: look i am not an obama supporter (infact i think the man sucks as a president) however having the president say that he thinks gay marriage should be legal. well that means something within my community. is it going to sway the lgbt vote his way? maybe but doubt it. is it going to hurt him probably yes. lets face it we live in a nation where alot of people think gay men are pedofiles. lesbiens are jaded women and transwomen are gay men trying to trick men into sleeping with them. on that note it messes with people when they find out im trans and gay. they dont get it if i dont like guys

To me it seems like he punted though.

"I'm for gay marriage, but I'm not going to do anything about it" is essentially what he said by saying it's a "state" issue.

I agree with what was said earlier that this is definitely a federal issue because it deals with denying rights to a certain group of people.