North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?

Yes, masturbation was a bigger sin, still that does not mean that sex generally is not a sin.

I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.

I don't happen to dissagree with you, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sin in there.

I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.

I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.

Ever read the 7 Deadly Sins? They are all virtues in moderation. If you see Sin as an integral part of life, you accept it as part of the tapestry of existence. As to the childless couple, I refer you to Genesis.

Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that - if you mean the theory of £emergant properties" then I would counter that it's about as likely as a God-given soul.

Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.

There aren't as many Polyamorous couples however: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iage-polyamory

There are people. The Marquis of Bath has "wifelets", but he had to marry one of them to legitimise his heir, I can't imagine the others appreciated that.

Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process.

Ajax

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

Yes. When was the last time you read the actual gospels?

Pretty recently - John and Luke tend to dissagree. In John and Matthew the disciples are called in a different order. Is that the sort of thing you were getting at?

Reading your and TuffStuff's responses in this thread, I cannot help but be reminded of the biblical depiction of Pharisees - arrogant, self-righteous, and obsessed with man-made understandings and interpretations of divine law, so concerned with the letter of the law that you've missed the spirit.

Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.

I just cannot understand, knowing all we know about thousands of years of biblical alterations and translations, how people can be so confident in their knowledge of what is god's will in regard to very specific circumstances, especially considering how inconsistent the biblical god seems to be about his own will. If the bible ever was divinely inspired, the constant reinterpretations have certainly lost something in translation.

I know you don't understand it - it isn't about the precise words, it's about the ideas they express, and its about the living Christian community which has existed uninterupted since the beginning. It doesn't matter if the words are exact and inscribed on gold tablets, human being will still misinterpret them.

Further, I just cannot understand how someone can read the gospels, the words of Jesus, and go to bed at night dreaming of banning gay marriage, which is essentially a desire to legitimize the love and devotion two people feel for each other in the eyes of society and, yes, many times their god. It seems so contrary to the way Jesus lived and the message he taught to attack the discriminated and vulnerable in society, to keep people out instead of including them. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that... Of course I am just an outsider looking in. I'm sure it all makes sense to the initiated.

I don't want to ban it, you want to create it; this is not a case of prohibiting something. I've already said I have no problem with a ceremony, even a religious one - but that doesn't make it a marriage.

It is just a shame that the archaic view of morality practiced by a backwater group of sheepherders thousands of years ago still has a significant impact on public policy today. We've come so far, and yet, we haven't.

Unless the Sheepherders were right. The fact is, if it was right then it's right now.