North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A. Nice false dichotomy.

But more importantly

B. If I could I would deconstruct marriage. The benefits of marriage should be given to any two or three or whatever people who file the paperwork with the gov.

Look. Ideally, I am a libertarian about this. Religious "Marriages" should be something that churches provide at their discretion everyone who actually wants their partnership to be recognized by the government fills out the same confusingly titled paperwork and are labelled the same as "Married".

But this isn't the world that any of us are going to live in. It's too big a change. The best thing to do is to start the deconstruction of this monstrosity of judeo-christian privilege by making gay partnerships equal.

Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?

No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.

It's much more wrong than the current situation. It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.

I prefer your clever trolls though.

[Montmorency]

It's like letting Methodists vote in England, but not Catholics.

So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Abolishing sexual prejudice by slices?

No, I don't accept that. If it's wrong it's wrong, preferencing homosexuals because they have a big media lobby against polyamorous groups, who potentially need the protection more because their living arrangements produce children naturally, is just even more wrong.

But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.

Oh, and nice sideswipe at my "monstrous" religion.

I prefer your clever trolls though.

I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So better for Anglicans to have the sole privilege?

More honest at least, more consistant. Anglicanism was the state religion, only letting Anglicans hold office was a political decsion about loyalty - letting in Methodists and Baptists but not Catholics was pure prejudice.

But this is ignorant of how people and society work. Change comes slowly in a culture. Everything has to be done in slices over time, or things start turning into social engineering or at least feel like it is.



I did not call your religion monstrous. I am calling the privilege it has monstrous.

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8) which I am told is actually not considered Christian in many parts of the country.

We banned slavery in one go.

The point is, allowing homosexual couples to marry and not other intimate grouping is no less prejudiced, you're just letting homosexuals into the prejudiced group. You are extending sexual prejudice by perpetuating the in-out group model of sexual morality.

This is one of the biggest criticisms of the Gay movement since the 1990's, it has become illiberal and essentially as bad as the Conservative movements it critiques.

[ajaxfetish]

Also, my anger (since I live in California) is mostly directly at the Mormon Church (who funded Prop 8)

Sorry about that

We banned slavery in one go.

I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry about that



I think a few people died in the process, though, at least in America. I wouldn't mind taking this one a little slower.

Ajax

Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?

Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.

[Lemur]

House Armed Services vote bans gay marriage on military bases

On the same day that President Obama threw the weight of the White House in support of gay marriage, defense lawmakers in the House banned the practice from taking place on U.S. military bases.

Members of the House Armed Services committee voted to include the measure by Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) into the panel's version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill late Wednesday night.

The measure, which prevents "marriage or marriage-like ceremonies" between same-sex couples from taking place at American military bases, was approved by a 37 to 24 vote along party lines.

Republican panel members also approved language to protect military personnel from reprisals for expressing "their moral principles and religious beliefs... concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality."

That amendment, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was approved by a straight party-line vote of 36 to 25.

[ajaxfetish]

Then maybe it's not worth making any change, eh?

Either it's a great injustice or it isn't.

I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm afraid I don't think the world is that simple. I think there's more to it than, on the one hand, issues of great injustice that can only be changed by catastrophic action, and on the other things that aren't worth changing at all. In many cases, gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects. Just because the revolutionary change could be bad doesn't make any change bad.

Ajax

In this case I think that the proposed change entrenches greater prejudice, if you believe the current situation is prejudicial. On the other hand, if you believe that change would not be prejedicial then neither is the status quo.

If we can have Gay Marriage I see no reason we can't have Polyamorous ones - I can't imagine mass pogroms.

From my point of view, the current argument is nonsensical. You are either talking about a seperate institution for homsexual unions with the lable "marrige" on the tin, or you are talking about fundamentally altering the heterosexual union of marriage so that is is compatable with homosexual unions, because Western marriage law is not be default.

Particularly in the case of say, annulment, which I believe would need to be wholly abolished.

I wonder if as many heterosxeuals would be in favour of "Gay marriage" if they considered this?

I personally feel that the current drive for homosexual marriage is currently held up by a general feeling that it is unfair to deny someone something they ask for -even if we think it doesn't make sense.

[Lemur]

gradual advances in keeping with the progress of culture can accomplish a lot of good, in situations where a sudden revolution would either fail or come with significant and undesired side-effects.

Sounds like someone has read him some Edmund Burke. Which is a good thing.