North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Fragony]

It's a crying shame. Religious right should stop meddling with other people's affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

Every dominant religion appears to behave in the same way in enforcing their views on everyone else. Their belief that they are saving others by transiently oppressing them appears to be a pay off that is accepted.

If the Church could concentrate its efforts on catching paedophiles rather than worsening the lives of others that woulc be nice.

[Papewaio]

I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've never understood why church goers have so much against gay people getting married. Heck if they think they are going to go to hell for being homosexual why not let them have a preview and let them get married.

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

[Vladimir]

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

Agreed. Look at all the hateful comments from people denouncing hatred. It looks like we're all the same.

[rory_20_uk]

If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.

[Whacker]

Sorry guys, I voted. Looks like it wasn't enough.

[HoreTore]

I could try explaining it to you, but you wouldn't be interested.

It's not about hating Gay people or Gayness for most Christians.

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

[Fragony]

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.

[HoreTore]

That works both ways though, it kinda stopped but when gay marriage was first allowed here a lot of gay couples made a mockery of the institution itself. Now that it's normal they act normal.

John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...

The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.

[Vladimir]

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

Which side are you referring to? The same comment can be applied to both sides. Changing "behave" to "believe" makes it even more true.

That's not anything against you. I'm just glad the world is such a safe, secure, and prosperous world that gay marriage is one of the most pressing issues of the day.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If this was a tiny minority, laws wouldn't be passed to prevent marriage.

Marriage pre-dates Christianity, Islam and probably almost all current religions. They should not assume they have ownership of it. They have their views, which thankfully are not shared by all.

At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.

I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.

This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.

No, it's about forcing your own way of life on other people. It's about a complete lack of respect for other people.

In essence, it is the notion that "I know what works best and everyone else should behave like I do".

How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?

Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.

That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.

[Fragony]

At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.

I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.

This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.



How is it any less of an imposition to change the definition of marriage to something some people don't agree with?

Lets not pretend this is a question of "freedom", this is about which social paradigm is dominant and which will be suppressed. Currently we have a highly individualistic paradigm in the ascendancy which values individual choice over corporate well being or communal structures.

That does not make it necessarily the right paradigm, just the one preferred by a general majority - though not a local majority in every case, as we see here.

Perfectly valid point. I don't agree with not allowing gays to marry (anymore) but I can understand the argumentation