North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[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?

[gaelic cowboy]

Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.

Basically if you want a ceremony in a catholic church it will be no more or recognised by law than one in a pastafarian church.

[rvg]

Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.

Yeah, but that's akin to using the guillotine to address a dandruff problem.

[Skullheadhq]

Simple soloution all concepts of civil marraige/union etc are banned end of discussion.

Basically if you want a ceremony in a catholic church it will be no more or recognised by law than one in a pastafarian church.

This is the best solution. If people want to do a piece of theatre and call it marriage I wont stop it, but no state recognition for any type of marriage whatsoever.

'Thinking Anglicans'?

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

Thinking anglicans? Are there non-thinking Anglicans as well?

I am really beginning to despise Christians.

What would have happenend if I'd typed that I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?
Anyway, you can despise me, but at least I won't despise you

[Fragony]

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?

I don't mind defending viewpoints I don't agree with if I understand where it's comming from. It is not my opinion, all is fine with me I don't mind gay marriage at all. Why gays WANT to be married kinda puzzles me though, it's a bit like demanding that everybody calls Horetore's house red when it's obviously green. What's it to me, nothing, but that house is still red no matter how many people say it's green

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

Yes they are.

Harsh I know, but as an emotional half-man I don't see why I should coddle people.

Here's something to consider - "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "Wife", and in any case what is really at stake here is, "father" and "mother".

We already have this nonsense in the UK where a child can have two "mothers" on their birth certificate, which demonstrates a lunatic view of procreation as an actual process - one which needs to be urgently rethought.

[Whacker]

Here's something to consider - "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "Wife", and in any case what is really at stake here is, "father" and "mother".

Utter tripe. The idea that two men or two women can't have the same loving, stable, normal relationship that a man and woman can have is beyond ridiculous.

[Sarmatian]

PJ, will make a communist out of you yet!

Completely agree, btw.

That pastor, preacher, or whatever the hell he is, needs to take a chill pill. Or to get slapped across the mouth.

Thing is, calling it marriage is kinda tresspassing, asking others to pretend something is something it's not is also disrespectful.

Thing is, Christians already did that when they added "in front of God, for better of for worse, till death do us part etc...".

[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]

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

Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want

That is really the only thing I have against it, why want it if you can have the same rights

[Sarmatian]

Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want

You're again ignoring that the what marriage is differed from culture to culture and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.

Personally, I don't care if it was called, civil union, legal union, same-sex union or marriage - I care about practical issues but acting like the Christianity has a patent on marriage is wrong.

[HoreTore]

Yes it's about words, words have meaning. No matter how many times you say a vase is really a skyscraper it's still a vase. Asking others to nod when you say that said vase is really a skyscraper, not so classy. Gay marriage is first and furemost recognition for the impossible in the end. Classy would be the civil union as rvg suggested. All the rights what more SHOULD you really want

That is really the only thing I have against it, why want it if you can have the same rights

Do you by any chance extend your principle to other groups? Like, say, muslims? Should we take care when speaking about muslims, to ensure that we do not use words that might upset a muslims feelings?