North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

'I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?' would have been displayed on your monitor, assuming that your keyboard is plugged in.

More Christian charity from North Carolina. I would have thought that since the bill passed they would have transfered their righteous judgement to another topic. Guess not.

[Fragony]

Title on that video is misleading, but there sure is a long way to go

[Skullheadhq]

'I'm beginning to despise jews or muslims?' would have been displayed on your monitor, assuming that your keyboard is plugged in.

More Christian charity from North Carolina. I would have thought that since the bill passed they would have transfered their righteous judgement to another topic. Guess not.

Of course, one pastor represents the whole of Christianity. Anyway, does it surprise, or bother, you that not all people hold your opinions?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Of course, one pastor represents the whole of Christianity. Anyway, does it surprise, or bother, you that not all people hold your opinions?

I liked you better when you were a naive Communist.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Where did I say otherwise?

I said "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "wife" - then pointed to the fact that in the UK we have a system now where someone other than the birth parents can be on the birth certificate, thereby creating the situation where you do not know who your biological parents are.

Can you not see how that might be troublesome in, say, twenty years when all these fatherless children themselves want to procreate.

As someone who comes from a close knit community where many people are related I can tell you that we have enough problems.

[Whacker]

Where did I say otherwise?

I said "partner" does not mean the same as "husband" or "wife"

You said it right there. I called bollocks.

- then pointed to the fact that in the UK we have a system now where someone other than the birth parents can be on the birth certificate, thereby creating the situation where you do not know who your biological parents are.

So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.

Can you not see how that might be troublesome in, say, twenty years when all these fatherless children themselves want to procreate.

So you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You said it right there. I called bollocks.

How many bollocks? Two or four.

"Partner" is not a linguistic equivalent to "husband" any more than "husband" is a linguistic equivalent to "wife", nor are they the same legally.

Stop being a bigot and actually read.

I have absolutely no concern with the quality of relationship between homosexuals, or the "sinfullness" or otherwise of their lifestyle.

So what? If adopted children want to go back at some point and try to find their biological parent(s), nothing is stopping them. That's a red herring argument. A birth certificate isn't a genetics document, it's to indicate who the one or two lawful parents of a child is.

You are legally incorrect - in a case where a man sues for paternity and wins the birth certificate must be altered, regardless of the social situation. It does not matter who the child thinks "daddy" is, the father is the man that sired them. There was a legal case in the UK about six months ago reaffirming this fact - the Judge ordered that the two children's birth certificates be altered immediately. The fact that such a case is resolved in this way whilst two Lesbians are writing their names on birth certificates shows how absurd the situation is.

The correct course is to have the mother and father's names on the birth certificate and then have the mother's partner/lover/wife/whatever adopt the child. That reflects reality, anything else is an indulgence of fantasy.

So you're making one of the argument points about potential incest?

There are cases where faulty adoption papers have resulted in siblings marrying - there is a known case in the 1970's in the UK, and it may not be the only one. It is a valid point about

[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...".

[Vladimir]

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

Again.