North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[HoreTore]

It's not about religion. Like PVC mentioned, throughout human history marriage was defined as a union between aq man and a woman. While the same-sex relationships are nothing new, a legally recognized same-sex union is a completely new phenomenon that warrants its own definition and regulations. There's absolutely no good reason to shoehorn homosexual unions into traditional marriage.

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

[rvg]

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

Civil unions come to mind.

[HoreTore]

Civil unions come to mind.

A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?

[rvg]

A gay marriage needs a rule about civil unions in addition the laws of marriage?

The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.

[HoreTore]

The gay marriage as a definition is an oxymoron. Homosexual relationships should be covered by the civil union legislation.

And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?

[Fragony]

And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?

Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.

[Lemur]

Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.

Two thoughts: One, "marriage" is a legal condition, as well as a religious concept. Nobody is seriously suggesting that the religious concept be changed, just the legal condition.

Two, there are plenty of hetero couples who either cannot or do not produce their own biological kids. Are they a dead end as well?

[rvg]

And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?

For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.

[HoreTore]

Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful. You are kidding yourself if you see gay marriage as real marriage, it's not. You can't have kids it's a dead end.

So, we are concerned about the feelings others may have when we use certain words, are we frags?

For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.

Then it will be marriage.

[Fragony]

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.

[HoreTore]

If it was the exact same thing you would just call it marriage, but you as well call it gay marriage. Should it be allowed, yeah. Do I have to see it as the real thing, well I don't, I
think it's a farce.

I may call one a "red house" and another a "green house", but that does not change the fact that I'm talking about two houses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.

Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?

The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.

[HoreTore]

It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.

Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.

Thinking that gay marriage is a "fantastical concept" is all good. The problem comes when you wish to apply your own thinking on the lives of those who disagree. Then it turns into a restriction of their liberty. It will not affect you in any way, hence you have no right to interfere with it.

Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?

The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.

Yes, I do wish to enforce my view that ones private life is not the business of anyone else and that one should have full access to freedom when it comes to actions which do not affect anyone other than myself. I'm a hardcore tyrant, I am.

You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.

lol.