North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[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.

[ajaxfetish]

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.

Is there a notable movement for the recognition of polyamorous unions in our society currently? There are surely some fringe groups, but I don't think there's enough will to push such a thing through, and I don't think the society we live in is ready to recognize them. On the other hand, societal attitudes towards homosexuality have been changing a lot and continue to do so at a reasonably fast pace. There are also many homosexuals who desire the legal and cultural benefits of marriage and are willing to make a sustained effort to achieve them.

Your position seems to be that granting these benefits to homosexuals should not happen because it fails to grant them to other groups, but I fail to see how the other groups are harmed in the process. If their lifestyles and communities build to the level of pervasiveness and acceptance that homosexuality has, then things will gradually change for them, too. In the meantime, I suspect that nothing can be done for them. Something can be done for gays, and in many places, it is being done. I expect the rest of the country will eventually catch up, but NC for one is working hard to stay behind the times. Will the recognition of homosexual unions result in a perfect world where everyone is treated equally and we all can dance and sing together without any care? No. Will it result in a better world? I think so.

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

Actually, I must confess my ignorance of the man, though perhaps I should be reading up on him. Thanks for the link.

Ajax

[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.

[Papewaio]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

All sex is a sin, because it is partley selfish.

Meh.

The Bible says that God permits ex within marriage solely because it produces children, so your argument holds no water.

Love of God is considered superior to all other forms of love, Faith is an expression of Godly Love, so that bit doesn't hold up either.

[Papewaio]

Having joy of something is not selfish. Selfish is not sharing the joy. So wouldnt masturbation outrank consensual sex as a sin?

I think I is far worse to approach sex as a chore or procreation activity then to approach it as a sharing, caring commitment between two people. A hug inside and out.

I can't really see it as a sin when it is a physical expression of the emotional love I have for another and the desire to build a future with them and a family too. But my love for my wife would not be diminished if we could not have children. If sex is just for procreation then it seems harsh to cast a childless couple as worse sinners then ones who have kids. Not the type of God that I would look up to, nor consistent with a loving, caring father figure. I'd be a failure as a dad if I prized being a grand dad over commerisating with a child of mine who could not have children yet was in an otherwise loving caring relationship.

I thought we were all sinners to start with, might as well keep the most practical and caring sins then.

Anyhow my 'belief' is in emergence.

[Xiahou]

So it's a sin to have sex out of marriage.

It is also a sin to make someone sin. Entrapment, foul play, mockery, deceit etc

Love outranks Faith and Belief.

So Christians denying homosexuals the ability to be married are denying them the right to have sex in marriage. They are denying them from declaring to society their commitment.

Aren't these people ignoring Corinthians and pushing homosexuals to sin by denying them marriage? Aren't these Christians casting the first stone yet creating the sin by denying love and marriage?

=][=
Government should not be able to make religions have marriage ceremonies they disagree with. Religion should not be interferon with the State in treating all adults the same regardless of race creed or orientation.

Uh-huh. And, therefore, it's also a sin to force people to steal things. You're entrapping them by not willingly giving them whatever they want beforehand.