North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Whacker]

But is it really "emotions" to ask ourselves "does marriage need the children to come from coupling with each other? It's clearly the case that adoptive parents love their children just as dearly (or close enough if you insist). I don't think all of the specifics of how marriage has typically been done are central to marriage. And in legal arguments you have to consider what was merely incidental don't you?

People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.

Yes, we aren't going to test them to see whether they are are going to have children or not. But people shouldn't get married if they aren't going to have children, or they should at least adjust the wedding vow accordingly: "in sickness and in health, through good times and bad, for better or poorer, till death do us part, or until we really just don't like each other anymore and aren't happy at all"--because if that last bit is true and there are no kids, people do break up, they should break up, and it's not really marriage. There should be some other route to getting some of the legal benefits. Our system is kind of a mess because it's based on assumptions that don't really hold in modern society. We aren't stuck in a certain conception of marriage just because people need to have hospital visitation rights.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

People seem to have a hard time accepting that it's not just about children. Children and the legal responsibilities and priviledges that come along with that are indeed an important part of it for people who wish to reproduce. The simple fact is that there are thousands upon thousands of happily married couples who have zero desire to have children. They aren't a minority anymore by any means, I know quite a few personally, and some of the Orgahs here also fall into this category. Why get married if it's not for the children? It's pretty damn obvious actually. Legal benefits and protection, medical coverages and benefits, life insurance, power of attorney type authority in life or death situations for your partner, tax breaks (we take what we can get), the list goes on and on. So yeah, it's not primarily, just, or even mostly about children.

Married couples who do not intend to have children are still very much the minority, and those that do not intend to have children are basically taking advantage the benefits designed to encourage marriage for procreation (the tax breaks especially).

[Whacker]

Married couples who do not intend to have children are still very much the minority, and those that do not intend to have children are basically taking advantage the benefits designed to encourage marriage for procreation (the tax breaks especially).

You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have no way whatsoever of knowing what's in the minds of every single married (and unmarried) couple out there.

No, but as the population is increasing more people are obviously having children than not, ergo deliberately childless couples are a minority, being less than 50% of the married population.

[Papewaio]

Greek logic and thought predate the bible...

[Jack50]

The Bible is not the legal but moral base for the Western world. From about the 3rd Century to the 9th Century Greek logic and thought were marginalize if remembered at all. The only thing that we still cling to the Greek on would be medicine and the ideas of democracy. Most of our laws come from the Roman Empire and this was held togather by early Roman church and the incorporation of the Germanic ideas on equality no less.

[Jack50]

You know as a Christian male that is not afraid to bring that forward in front of face to face groups, I want to bring something up that happens quite a bit in these "Arguments". First off you shouldn't be attacking the Christians on this except for the word "marriage". The real culprit is the legal system and government. As a Christian I "beleive" that gay unions are immoral. However, since I don't want to be judged lest I judge others, I'm fine with gay unions. Please don't use the word "marriage". If homosexuals would concentrate on overturning the LEGAL shortcomings of unions versus marriage, they would have some surprising allies on their side.

I agree that anyone that is willing to spend their life with another is entitled to some benefits of the union. Healthcare, abilities to make decisions for their loved ones, tax benefits I'm all for. The injustice isn't Christians see us as evil, it is that those that are in power are unwilling to see the justice and neccesity of doing away with the "legal" term for marriage. I beleive that each couple that wants to get married be consuled and then once that has happened, a license to marry is given. Those that do this in a Church are given a "marriage" license, those that do it by other legal means have a "union" or "bonding" or whatever name you like license. Means the same, with attached rights and benefits as we currently have for marriage. Just doesn't throw the Christian meaning of "Marriage" up into everyones face.

As for those that despise the lunatic ravings of a madmen in the desert 2000 years ago, sorry Civilization is borne upon his back. If you would rather not have him in the picture, then you should look upon those religons in the East that espouse other ideas. As for anyone from the middle east to the US this is your reality. and if you are an antichrist then you are only hurting what has aloud you to have your temper tantrums.