North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

John Stuart Mill talks about the religious fanatic who does not want to respect other peoples faith, because they do not respect his. After all, if they did, they would stop being infidels and convert to his faith...

The belief that choosing to live a certain way is limiting the liberty of others is illogical and ridiculous. Saying that allowing gay marriage restricts the liberty of those who do not believe in it is nonsense.

It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.

Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.

Who is talking solely about religion? As I said, this is about enforcing your views and way of life on others. The only reason religion is brought up is because most of the oppositon to this comes from christians. Some people do not like the idea of two people of the same gender loving each other, thus they want to ban it. It's no different from someone who doesn't like chocolate and wants to ban chocolate.

Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?

The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.

And pray tell, what kind of different regulations does a same-sex marriage need? What new rule is needed, or what rule is not needed to regulate it?

You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.

[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.

[rvg]

And that brings us again to the question: how then will the civil union law be different from the marriage law?

For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.

[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.

[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

[HoreTore]

It has nothing to do with "restricting liberty" it has to do with thinking that "Gay marriage" is a fantastical concept.

Your first bit applies to atheists as well. Christians must be evil because they don't believe Gays should get married.

Thinking that gay marriage is a "fantastical concept" is all good. The problem comes when you wish to apply your own thinking on the lives of those who disagree. Then it turns into a restriction of their liberty. It will not affect you in any way, hence you have no right to interfere with it.

Right, you want to enforce your view - don't you?

The opposition comes from across the religious spectrum, not just Christians. Religious people are generally socially conservative and not inclined to radicalism. Same-Sex marriage is possibly the most radical social proposition ever.

Yes, I do wish to enforce my view that ones private life is not the business of anyone else and that one should have full access to freedom when it comes to actions which do not affect anyone other than myself. I'm a hardcore tyrant, I am.

You need an explicit list of sex acts to define when a marriage has been consummated and when not, and you need to decide whether anal sex counts for a heterosexual couple too.

lol.

[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.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

So, we are concerned about the feelings others may have when we use certain words, are we frags?

For practical purposes it'll be virtually identical, however, new definitions will circumvent a lot of confusion: definitions like "husband" and "wife" can be replaced with "partner", issues dealing with children and child custody will need to be addressed slightly differently since it is not physically possible to have two biological fathers or two biological mothers, etc.

Then it will be marriage.

[Vladimir]

I know you're not. But quoting multiple posts is a hassle on an iPad, so I left out vladimir and pvc.

They are not monsters, no, they are simply against other peoples freedom, something quite a few humans are. They see things differently, no problem. The problem comes when they want their view to control the actions of others. Gay marriage will not affect them in any way whatsoever, and so they have no valid grounds to deny it to others.

No problem. It's still good to read your thoughts.

Well thank you.

Exactly.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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?