North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Kralizec]

Call me silly

You're silly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're silly.

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

[Lemur]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, but it seems Thinking Anglicans dissagree: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/...es/005436.html

'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

It was recently suggested by certain Canadian parties that they might like their own Royal Family, starting with King Henry I. I'm all for that, Harry to Canada, Andrew to Australia, Edward of Kent to New Zealand, Michael of Kent to.... etc.

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.

'Thinking Anglicans'?

Choosing a name like that for themselves puts me off reading anything they have to say.

That would be to your loss.

[Lemur]

If the Americans rejoin the Commonwealth they can have the Earl of Wessex.

Counter-offer: Britain can become the 51st state. We'll even throw in two senators. It's a bargain!

-edit-

If Scotland and N. Ireland want to be their own states, I guess we would allow that. Might ask N. Ireland to be a territory, like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, until they get themselves sorted out. Gibraltar does not get statehood, neither do Maldives/Falklands.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Counter-offer: Britain can become the 51st state. We'll even throw in two senators. It's a bargain!

You guys take your religion far too seriously.

"God Bless America"?

What?

Nooooo. Couldn't stick that.

Counter-Counter: We'll tell you which bits of your country HM Queen already owns if you opt in, and we won't even send any Redcoats to New York - the infantry wear blue serge now.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That would be to your loss.

If you didn't like the tone of the article on the Dali Lama, surely you got to be offended by what they are implying by deeming themselves to be the "thinking Anglicans"?

[Lemur]

Counter-Counter: We'll tell you which bits of your country HM Queen already owns if you opt in, and we won't even send any Redcoats to New York - the infantry wear blue serge now.

REPEAL THE THIRD AMENDMENT!

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Counter-counter-counter offer: We'll take Wales off your hands.

[Whacker]

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

You mean that really important piece of toilet paper that the past few presidential administrations have wiped with?

[Kralizec]

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

Sounds like fun. Bring it on

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

REPEAL THE THIRD AMENDMENT!

C'mon, you'd get access to all the guns you can eat, and a real, written constitution. Mmmm. Just think about it. A constitution that is written down someplace. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Counter-counter-counter offer: We'll take Wales off your hands.

I can already have guns, and longbows, just not handguns - and we have a real wrtitten Constitution, it's just easier to amend than yours. Not necessarily a bad thing given the Health Care nonsense you have.

Also, we have socialised medicine.

Fourth Counter: We'll give you a medical system you can use without filing for bankruptcy, and I'm 1/16th Welsh, so watch it!

[Conradus]

If Scotland and N. Ireland want to be their own states, I guess we would allow that. Might ask N. Ireland to be a territory, like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, until they get themselves sorted out. Gibraltar does not get statehood, neither do Maldives/Falklands.

Last time I checked the Maldives weren't part of the UK. The Malvinas, now they were :p

[Papewaio]

I don't mind New Zealand being a monarchy. I think Australia needs to have a directly elected president to heap the blame on rather then a no fault figurehead.

Counter Offer:
The Commonwealth of Australia requires a new small state to balance out the two drive economy. We propose that it is Texas as it is about the right size for one of our smaller ones.

Also we will take on South Wales so that we have the complete set to go with New South Wales.

[Sarmatian]

Favorite way to enrage Canadians and Ozzies: Ask them how their queen is doing. Tell them you think it's lovely they are subservient to a royal family a hemisphere away. (Then watch subject turn red and stammer.)

I don't know... Have a friend, his family left for New Zealand when he was 12, he came back to live in Serbia when he was 25. When he got back, he was all "queeny"... "Oh, I'm her majesty's favourite subject"... "Look in my passport how the queen asks every country in the world to let me in cause I'm her subject".... Basically, he came back a monarchy lover and soooo happy to be a subject. And that's from a Serbian, and Serbs like monarchs only slightly more than French...

They do something to people there. It's not normal...

[The Stranger]

they let them have sex with sheep :P

[Fragony]

Yeah?

Fancy the Constitutional collapse of the Dutch State?

End of the monarchy? Gladly they are a bunch of thugs. Shave them French style.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't mind New Zealand being a monarchy. I think Australia needs to have a directly elected president to heap the blame on rather then a no fault figurehead.

Counter Offer:
The Commonwealth of Australia requires a new small state to balance out the two drive economy. We propose that it is Texas as it is about the right size for one of our smaller ones.

Also we will take on South Wales so that we have the complete set to go with New South Wales.

BAH! Your nation has always been scysmatic, Pape. Where's your family loyalty?

For God's sake man, we're arguing with Americans.

[rvg]

Personally, I'd leave the British monarchy alone. It's not harming anyone and is generating lots of money as a tourist attraction. If anything, I'd like to see British monarchy endure long after Saudi Arabia becomes a republic.

[Papewaio]

BAH! Your nation has always been scysmatic, Pape. Where's your family loyalty?

For God's sake man, we're arguing with Americans.

Americans are family. In my case one of my Welsh great grandmothers was born their to Welsh immigrants.

I'm Welsh, Swedish, English, Irish, Scottish and French by heritage.

Born in Fiji, raised in New Zealand, higher education in Australia.

So to totally confuse my kid he's got a Taiwanese mum.

Alloys and positive hybidisation are trump.

[rvg]

Americans are family. In my case one of my Welsh great grandmothers was born their to Welsh immigrants.

I'm Welsh, Swedish, English, Irish, Scottish and French by heritage.

Born in Fiji, raised in New Zealand, higher education in Australia.

So to totally confuse my kid he's got a Taiwanese mum.

Alloys and positive hybidisation are trump.

Time to move to America to complete the circle.

[The Stranger]

Africa you mean...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Archbishop of York on why he thinks we should not have same-sex marriage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...e-sex-marriage

Remember - in the UK homosexual couples have access to all the rights heterosexual ones do under the law.

I particularly like his question, "what injustice is corrected by allowing homosexual marriage" - his point being that, unlike "mixed-race" marriages nobody (in the UK) is proposing stopping a homosexual couple from being together or living together.

[Fragony]

Must say I have little to throw against it. I secretly agree with those who are against homosexual marriage but I will still support it. Why they want it I don't know but they surely should be able to do so. I just wish they didn't want to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I secretly agree with those who are against homosexual marriage but I will still support it.

I used to be like that with a lot of things. I guess I then started to wonder why I should feel guilty for feeling what I do. I feel liberated now.

[Fragony]

I used to be like that with a lot of things. I guess I then started to wonder why I should feel guilty for feeling what I do. I feel liberated now.

I don't feel guilty, I am open to arguments and the pro-crowd convinced me. It still feels wrong to me but maybe that's just me, I am not religious but I still think it's unnatural and a mockery of the way of things. They have my support not my agreement, I will never see it as anything else other than a parody and they will just have to live with that in return.

[The Stranger]

that makes so little sense... but I guess its the Frag way of doing things

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't feel guilty, I am open to arguments and the pro-crowd convinced me. It still feels wrong to me but maybe that's just me, I am not religious but I still think it's unnatural and a mockery of the way of things. They have my support not my agreement, I will never see it as anything else other than a parody and they will just have to live with that in return.

That really makes no sense. I see no reason to be complicit in this if I disagree with their rationale as narrow minded and I have an opposing Religious view. I have been convinced, however, that the government may have no legitimate interest in it's current understanding of marriage, which takes on a metaphysical, sexual, and quasi-religious quality (areas that I wish that the government would stay out of). I would now much rather see a single parent receive a tax break on income equal to the break given to married couples, or two platonic best friends or family members leave one another their social security benefits, etc. This wouldn't affect my religious marriage at all and it would not require me to be complicit in relationships which I view as an abomination. It would let people strengthen the relationships that are most important to them (irrespective of type) and secure their chosen families without requiring me to recognize their chosen family as "special". It would just be a given that these federal/state allowances are applied on an individual basis rather than an arbitrary and/or religious basis.

I have been convinced that this is the right way to go and I will say "good riddance" to this kerfuffle about gay marriage when we get past it and on to the meat and bones of our understanding of the types of civil contracts that the government should be facilitating for its citizens, now that we can no longer agree on what marriage is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

that makes so little sense... but I guess its the Frag way of doing things

I think that what Frag means is that when you look at Western society in general "Gay Marriage" fits in that frame, but he still doesn't really buy into it on an intuitive level.

Gay-Rights campaigners simply scream "homophobe" at all anti- arguments, which doesn't help. There's an awful lot of emotional blackmail coming from both sides and very little careful consideration of the issue.

For my self, I will continue to oppose it unless or until it is made law - when they then try and force the Churches to do something against their conciences I will oppose that on principle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that what Frag means is that when you look at Western society in general "Gay Marriage" fits in that frame, but he still doesn't really buy into it on an intuitive level.

Gay-Rights campaigners simply scream "homophobe" at all anti- arguments, which doesn't help. There's an awful lot of emotional blackmail coming from both sides and very little careful consideration of the issue.

For my self, I will continue to oppose it unless or until it is made law - when they then try and force the Churches to do something against their conciences I will oppose that on principle.

I agree with your understanding of the situation. I had a friend of mine say "this issue is EXACTLY like slavery", he went on to say, simply, that all who oppose this move are religious bigots who are out of touch with the American people. I disagree with every point that he made, but the emotional argument is a powerful one, as always.

I try to argue as a citizen who holds religious beliefs. I try not to impose my religiously held beliefs on others, and would ask the same of the opposition. There is a workable solution and, as always, I believe that government should be a blind arbiter with the lowest common denominator in mind. A simple contractual agreement between 2 (or more) parties for the financial security benefit of the citizens is something I would be willing to discuss and come to an agreement about. I know what marriage mean to me and most of my loved ones and the governments involvement in it will not change that one way or the other. The governmental institution of marriage is relatively new one and I believe that the government has no business in it, as I have stated ad nauseam.