North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're again ignoring that the what marriage was different in different cultures and changed a lot during the centuries. Just because Christians imprinted their definition last, it doesn't make it correct or sancrosanct.

Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.

[HoreTore]

Find a definition that isn't "one man, one woman" and then we'll talk - otherwise the appeal to historical varience has no relevance because there has never been any varience on the issue under discussion.

Uhm....

The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.

[Sarmatian]

Uhm....

The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.

Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!

[rvg]

Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!

Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uhm....

The arab world with multiple women and India with multiple men should get you started.

I shall repeat myself from post 18 viz:

At no time in history has "marriage" meant anything other than "one man, one woman" even in cultures that allowed Polygamy the man contracted separate marriages with each wife and could dissolve each contract separately.

I will not claim to be an expert on all marriage law across time, but no culture I have studied allows for "marriage" between two people of the same gender - including the Christian cultures which allowed explicitly sexual same-gender unions.

This is why American marriage-law is so vague, it assumes that the gender question is not up for debate because it would not have occurred to American jurists 200 years ago that two men might even want to get married.

If you're going to respond to my question you might want to, I don't know, actually read my posts?

There's nothing specifically banning a Christian from having multiple wives by the way, that's a "secular" hang-up or Roman Law.

Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.

They aren't plural marriages, they are simultaneous marriages.

Why is this such a hard point for people to grasp?

[Sarmatian]

Irrelevant, as those plural marriages were still heterosexual.

Doesn't matter cause the point was that there were/are marriages that aren't "one man, one woman".

[HoreTore]

Damn you, that was supposed to be my line!

In the end though, that something is "traditional" is not argument one way or another, it's simply an observation, kinda like what colour something has.

[Fragony]

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.

You don't care, neither do I. But gay activists do

[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?