North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[gaelic cowboy]

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

Well the christians have only themselves to blame

they want to deny same sex marraiges the legality of civil unions they way I see it exactly what reason is there to recognise there unions.

[rvg]

Well the christians have only themselves to blame

they want to deny same sex marraiges the legality of civil unions they way I see it exactly what reason is there to recognise there normal unions either.

Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.

[Whacker]

Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.

If you're going by the christian religious definition, then sure. I honestly don't give a rat's butt what people want to call it, the issue boils down to the fact that homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. This includes things such as inheritance, estate, medical, insurance, etc laws. It's a very common and oft repeated flat out untruth that any or all of these issues can be remedied with legal instruments. Some federal and quite a few state laws have "trump" clauses that override anything that could be put together with a lawyer. Inheritance laws at one that comes to mind, quite a few states have clauses that state that "blood" or "legal" relatives have so much of a right to a deceased's estate, irrespective of what their wills may say.

[rvg]

If you're going by the christian religious definition, then sure. I honestly don't give a rat's butt what people want to call it, the issue boils down to the fact that homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. This includes things such as inheritance, estate, medical, insurance, etc laws.

This is what I'm calling for. Create the institution of the Civil Union, grant it the same protections and right as a marriage, and call it a day. There's no reason to call it marriage though.

[gaelic cowboy]

Same sex union is by definition not a marriage.

But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.

[rvg]

But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.

It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.

[gaelic cowboy]

It doesn't, at least not in America. In fact, it's the other way around: I know for a fact that a Catholic priest will not perform a marriage ceremony on a couple if they have not obtained a marriage license.

I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I aint arguing about the ordering of civil and religious ceremonies merely the fact civil marraige shold be scrapped as I see it.

Here is a man who can be reasoned with.

With regard to slavery, do I believe that the idea of slavery - as it existed the time - contravene's God's law/natural law? No. The Bible writes about regulating relationships between slave and master, Paul calls on slaves to be treated as "brothers" by their master. Do I believe that slavery as we were practicing it was, as a race based institution, an affront to natural law? Yes. Just because the Bible allows something doesn't mean it favors it - but when it specifically condemns something, as a believer my obligation to condemn that thing is greater than my obligation to fit in with popular culture.

The Bible has reference to a specific abolition of slavery as part of God's will too, as you may recall. Just because something exists as it did in the Bible doesn't meant that we cannot deviate from a practice, we have free will and choice in how we live our lives and I think our system works better without slavery, but you may suggest that global working conditions are no better than slavery, so we have a long way to go.

But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.

My understanding of Natural Law comes partly from my faith, partly from my perceived innate human characteristics, but I have numerous arguments for and against something when I think about it long enough.

In summary, abolishing the civil institution of marriage is not against my Religion, but recognizing homosexual unions as equal to male/female marriage is, and it flies in the face of the things that I believe about natural order. There is an option that establishes civil fairness that is agreeable to me and winnable to you, but you don't push that one because it would be harder to convince people to give up tax breaks than it would be to confuse them about their Religion. That is a cynical move if I've ever heard one.

[PanzerJaeger]

But when the Bible, old and new, refers to something as abomination I heed that. The "surely shall be put to death part" seems to have been scrubbed in the new testament, and I'm ok with that because I believe that we are called not to kill. I'll take my revelations on biblical interpretation from the second coming, rather than funny or die, Bill Maher, or Brad Pit and Angleine Jolie, for example.

Does the bible actually say that?

Have you read the Church fathers or later theologians? Wyclif, Luther, Calvin? Pope John Pail II?

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

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. 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. 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.

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.

[Fragony]

But it would be recognised by law in civil union yes/no if such civil unions were allowed, clearly the question must be WHY does religious union also need recognition before law.

Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.

[HoreTore]

Why want it in the first place? imho gays are more intolerant than christians when it comes to this. It should be more than enough to be equal by law, why demand anything more? Very big boot that crushes everything hat doesn't suit them, christians have a right to live their lives as they see fit as well.

You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.

This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.

[rvg]

This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.

The problem is that gays instead of demanding to be equal to us demand to be the same as us.

[Fragony]

You seem to be speaking from a dutch perspective frags, one where gay and straight couples are equal by law.

This thread, however, is set in America, where gay and straight couples are not equal before the law.

No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.

[HoreTore]

No I understand that, and that is a disgrace, But a civil union would cover all that. You just can't have everything you want and especially not everything you want right now. Give it some time attitudes never changed because someone tells you not to think something.

The argument over a word seems irrelevant to me, and I find it highly unlikely that it can explain the rage we see from the christian right.

Also, it is of course completely irrelevant in this case, as the case here is a ban on all unions except the marriage between one man and one woman. So, civil unions go out the window.