North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Vladimir]

If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.

You gotta make a thread. Please share.

Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?

[Whacker]

You gotta make a thread. Please share.

Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?

What, you mean you haven't tried it?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.

[Vladimir]

Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.

He's afraid of Black people. That's why he won't openly support it.

[rajpoot]

I feel that LGBT people should have equal rights as any other person. The state must recognise their marriage in the same way it does that of a heterosexual couple. I have nothing against them. I confess I probably wouldn't be comfortable around them, but that's just me, and that's my own problem. Nothing justifies causing them distress just because someone else is uncomfortable about how they live their life, as long as they're not actively causing anyone harm.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.

[Xiahou]

It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children.

Me too.

Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?

Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.

Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.

Really, I think all of this is a sideshow. Why is it relevant what culture x did in year y? Certainly in the US, state marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Some people want to change that. That's what the whole debate is about. It's not about love, it's not about rights.

Will my life or marriage change significantly if marriage laws are changed? No, not really. But that in itself isn't a reason to become a pro-gay marriage activist.

[Strike For The South]

I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.

If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.

I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function

[Strike For The South]

What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.

It's people like you whom give Christians a bad name. Your faith comes from a dark place in your soul. I am willing to chalk that up to you being a papist, beholden to your king in Rome, with all his pomp.

Or you could just be a depressed ass.

Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly. You on the other hand continue you to try to merge your nhilism with your catholicism claiming the latter validates the former.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly.

That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.

[Strike For The South]

That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. Sometimes I think the gay marriage argument to most people is just a kind of test case, a chance to push for or against some broader change in society. It would explain why people are happy saying such nonsense about it.

I meant against the pervailing opinion in the thread, which was a pro stance.

I am inclined to agree with the civil union in leiu of calling it gay marrige. Not that I personally care what we call it in legalese but I feel like taking the word marrige out would expidite things. I can not, in good concious give prefertiential benefits to two people becuase they can create a child. Compared to another couple who can not. But can still adopt and have a similar positive impact on society.

Not the child rearing is sole reason for a partnership but if we consider citizens to be the smallest unit of the state and families are responible for raising that unit I think the gov't has a vested interest in such things....or something like that.

The church most certainly does not have to perform a ceremony or even recognize the validity of thing but the government should

[Lemur]

That's not true, most of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage are terrible. [...] people are happy saying such nonsense about it.

It doesn't take a great deal of looking to find balanced, sane arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage.

Indeed, if the contra position were so logical, and the pro position so inane, why were the supporters of Prop 8 so epically unable to marshal arguments in favor of their ban? Why did they score endless own-goals when they actually had to produce something?

"Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."

This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' ”

[PanzerJaeger]

Me too.

Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.

If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.

[Lemur]

FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change.



Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.

[HoreTore]

North Carolina sounds like a very pleasant place to live.

Edit: and the math teacher in me is curious about how the Lemur calculated "94 years"..

[Vladimir]

FWIW, the last time NC amended their constitution re. marriage, it took the better part of a century to change.



Repealed in 1971. Let's hope the latest won't take quite that long.

Now THAT's good research.

[Fragony]

If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

The world only becomes ready by doing things it isn't quite ready for yet (taking your premise as true). There's always a trial by fire. Sometimes conservatives are too pessimistic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Welp, Obama just came out in favor of Same-Sex marriage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...545729926.html

[Strike For The South]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

ಠ_ಠ

[HoreTore]

Gay couples shouldn't have these various means to have children, sorry Panzer the world is not ready for that yet. Even if you would do a fine job.

Unless you propose taking children away from their parents and putting them in foster care, there is nothing you can do to prevent gays from having children. Sperm donations and such just makes life easier, it does not decide whether or not a gay couple has children.

[HoreTore]

It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?

Children is one aspect, but one would still need to regulate the relationship between the adults. Like who gets to pull the plug, for example.

And of course, there is no way to restrict babies to a lesbian, all we can do is decide whether to make it pleasant or force her to have a one-night stand with a male. As for gay men, quite a few come out of the closet after they've had children, and so they will have to care for children in their gay relationship.

Edit: also, epic lol @ the "morality can't exist without god"-argument above. Made my day, honest!