North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?

Yes, masturbation was a bigger sin, still that does not mean that sex generally is not a sin.

I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.

I don't happen to dissagree with you, but that doesn't mean there isn't a sin in there.

I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.

I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.

Ever read the 7 Deadly Sins? They are all virtues in moderation. If you see Sin as an integral part of life, you accept it as part of the tapestry of existence. As to the childless couple, I refer you to Genesis.

Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that - if you mean the theory of £emergant properties" then I would counter that it's about as likely as a God-given soul.

Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.

There aren't as many Polyamorous couples however: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iage-polyamory

There are people. The Marquis of Bath has "wifelets", but he had to marry one of them to legitimise his heir, I can't imagine the others appreciated that.

Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process.

Ajax

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

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

Pretty recently - John and Luke tend to dissagree. In John and Matthew the disciples are called in a different order. Is that the sort of thing you were getting at?

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.

Don't equate me with TuffStuff, we are not the same, we do not hold the same beliefs of objectives.

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.

I know you don't understand it - it isn't about the precise words, it's about the ideas they express, and its about the living Christian community which has existed uninterupted since the beginning. It doesn't matter if the words are exact and inscribed on gold tablets, human being will still misinterpret them.

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.

I don't want to ban it, you want to create it; this is not a case of prohibiting something. I've already said I have no problem with a ceremony, even a religious one - but that doesn't make it a marriage.

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.

Unless the Sheepherders were right. The fact is, if it was right then it's right now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag

[Strike For The South]

You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag

Show me where in the gospels it condems homosexuality

I do like your willingness to just wing it

[rory_20_uk]

Link

Few in the gospels, but a fair few spread elsewhere.

[Strike For The South]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

Nary a peep!?

[Whacker]

Nary a peep!?

http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/products/easter

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise

What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

[The Stranger]

What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

yes he means that you dont accept that either :P

although i dont see why its funny that adultery is on there because most people dont accept it (when happening to themselves anyway XD)

[Strike For The South]

Nary a peep!?

I'm pretty sure I've said that divorce is too available - and that adulterers should be prosecuted for perjury.

What do you mean? I don't accept those things either.
Also, I mis-wrote. I meant the new testament, not gospels. There don't seem to be any references in the gospels to homosexuality.

Within the law, yes. The pulpit is another matter entierly. Plenty of God fearing Christians get divorces and cheat. Not that I judge them, to err is human of course. But to claim to that we need to adhere to Gods moral code within our laws does not mean you can pick and choose which of those laws you wish to apply to the civil code. Being gay is a minority lifestyle and it is much eaiser to claim moral high ground, applying Gods law, when the group is small.

PVC and TuffStuff are not the bulk of people pushing against this, and in my view should be pushing harder for tougher laws against divorce and audultery as the two things are certainly more damging and pervelant to the traditional family

[Catiline]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yuh sure?

Ask the 19th Century anti-slavery protestors, or perhaps the levellers.

[ajaxfetish]

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

Then I'm not sure what more to say to you. If you don't see any negatives for gay couples in the current American system, then your position makes perfect sense. It's just somewhat inconceivable to me that all the legal rights and protections involved in inheritance, child support, visitation, end-of-life care, and so forth don't seem to be registering at all.

Ajax