Sorry wish, didnt see your last post. I am not from North Carolina.

"But I suspect that the interest of gays in gay marriage is economic."

This is an incorrect assumption.

I think the safe assumption is that they want the respect, and to be treated as equals. Money is not even an afterthought.

I live in North Carolina for one week per year, so I'll comment in a minor way. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I also don't think our government has a right to make laws on the matter. The constitution was written in a manner to ensure that all people were treated equally, irregardless of their lifestyle choices.

Basically, the Ron Paul stance of, "I've got my personal faith/beliefs, but I don't bring them into proper American politics."

Sorry, maybe that opinion was too long for a Nags Head enthusiast.

Ryan: Who cares?

Ryan: Shit happens.

This is the extent of my care on this subject. If gays want to marry, let them. If a farmer wants to fuck a sheep....kudos. As long as peoPle with differing lifestyles don't flaunt it in my face I'm OK with it.

I know all of you were anxiously awaiting my opinion...

the TL;DR - No one else lives in NC, and states rights ftmfw

Here Wish:

Family Breakdown:

Against:
Aunt and Uncle
Grandmother and Grandfather
12 assorted 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins

For:
Aunt and Uncle
8 assorted 1st and 2nd cousins

One of the funny things between the two groups who voted for it and against it in my family, is that those voting against the amendment all have college degrees of bachelors or better, those voting for it are all high school educated besides my Aunt and Uncle who have a BA and a PhD respectably. There you go Chris, that's my family's cross section of those voting for/against the measure.

really, hoe is talking about 4 people total. southern inbred families ftw!

Right Skrum, what about visiting rights at hospitals?

Marriage was a social institution before it was ever a religious one in western civilization -- and it was primarily used to determine who inherited your wealth/legacy/dowry.

It was only during the confusion of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity that it became a religious institution too.

Damn it, if only the religios institution of marriage had occured before the fall of the roman empire and the adoption of christianity we wouldn't be having this conversation!

I don't really care to know if this accurate or not, but damn it, 2000 calendar years isn't enough! Let's go deeper in to the annals of history for Veta's point!

wishbone: you're not funny and you're not even good at cheating.


skrumgaer wrote
at 3:34 PM, Wednesday May 9, 2012 CDT
Kehoe:

Because of transactions costs. It's easy to determine who the mother of a child is. Not so easy to determine who the father is. Hence the invention of marriage with its fundamental rule: "forsaking all others".

I was responding to this, which brought up the invention of marriage. Not being a know-it-all, I went to catholic school so I actually have a pretty apt understanding of this.