Clearly, whoever is responsible for disseminating information on it did not do a good job.
What's the frequency Kenneth?|In case of war.Reminds me of that study where they thought 10% of those polled were Holocaust deniers, until they realized that 10% of those polled didn't understand double negatives.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulAnd then there's the popular petition to end women's suffrage...
The horrific amounts of background noise make it annoying to watch, but it's an amusing idea. Reminds me of the "dihydrogen monoxide" hoax.
It's not really quite as shocking as it sounds. The wording "voters support legal recognition 51% to 45%" is a little misleading, as of the 51% who support some recognition half still think marriage should be illegal. For many of these, this bill's prohibition on marriage (which they support) might outweigh the prohibition on civil unions (which they oppose).
The level of ignorance is bad, but it's par for the course in our society on pretty much any issue.
<><FTFY.
Obviously a lot of people don't like homosexuals, but the more reasonable arguments in favor of it tend to fall along these lines:
1) Homosexual unions are purely personal, and don't contribute to society in the same way family-forming heterosexual unions do, and therefore they shouldn't be treated the same way legally (aka the tax argument).
2) Homosexual households are harmful for children to grow up in. If homosexuals were allowed to obtain the same legal marriages that others do, they would be able to adopt children the same way other couples do, and therefore they should not be allowed to do so.
3) All of the legal benefits of marriage are already available to homosexuals through contract law. Therefore, allowing homosexual marriages would be merely a token recognition of their legitimacy. This argument then splits into two camps, one saying that the government should not be involved in advocating for certain personal moral issues like this, and the other saying that it should, and that furthermore homosexuality is immoral and should be discouraged not encouraged.
All of these arguments are obviously extremely controversial and debatable, but none of them are inherently self-contradicting or necessarily bigoted.
edited 30th Mar '12 4:09:57 PM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><>North Carolina and Southern US in general
There's your problem right there.
Tropers watching moviesNot to mention the fact that heterosexual =/= producing children. Should the infertile be banned from marrying as well?
edited 30th Mar '12 8:59:12 PM by Haldo
‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.![]()
...So, you think the only people who should marry are those who are doing it to produce children?
*shakes your hand for being logically consistent*
Now, I think it's okay if your church wants to follow that, but marriage isn't technically a purely religious institution, and even if it were, what if not all religions believe that recreational sex is a sin? (see: separation of church and state)
edited 31st Mar '12 7:32:42 AM by Haldo
‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.My last post was sarcasm.
I will quote the wisdom of Garfield author Jim Davis on this issue of fun in general. He was speaking about Puritans, but the broader point still rings true.
edited 31st Mar '12 7:56:50 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/north-carolinians-support-but-dont-understand-marriage-amendment.html
TLDR: There is a proposed North Carolina state constitutional amendment set to hit the ballot in six weeks. The amendment would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. Voters support legal recognition (i.e. marriage or civil unions) of gay couples 51% to 45%, but also support this amendment 58% to 38%.
*facepalm*
And then there's this gold-plated silliness:
what
edited 30th Mar '12 12:01:37 AM by GlennMagusHarvey