North Carolina Passes Amendment Banning Same-sex Unions

[The Stranger]

Fragony, I'm sorry but you are being absolutely pointless today. Enjoy your beer :)


:O isnt it a bit early for beer?

[Fragony]

Fragony, I'm sorry but you are being absolutely pointless today. Enjoy your beer :)

Classical mistake, you can't just decide that I'm being pointless, it really has to be true that I am pointless. Otherwise it is not real.

[The Stranger]

I can, I am a subjectivist. XD anyway, in my opinion, this is going nowhere, so I'll leave it at this.

[Sir Moody]

something relevant to the original thread that should hopefully give some hope for future sanity...

The last time North Carolina amended its consitutions on marriage It was to ban interracial marriage.

edit - damn someone beat me to it I see... knew I shouldnt have skipped a few pages in the thread

[Fragony]

I can, I am a subjectivist. XD anyway, in my opinion, this is going nowhere, so I'll leave it at this.

Adieu

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

something relevant to the original thread that should hopefully give some hope for future sanity...

The last time North Carolina amended its consitutions on marriage It was to ban interracial marriage.

edit - damn someone beat me to it I see... knew I shouldnt have skipped a few pages in the thread

Except - oh never mind!

What's the point anyway?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except - oh never mind!

What's the point anyway?

It's the kind of non-argument that is really just people showing what side they are on. That's also why most political humor is unfunny to people who don't have an interest in doing that.

human empathy?

Why should I respect other peoples feelings just because I understand them? And if I also have a natural urge to spurn outsiders, empathy will have led me to observe that others people do as well.

[Sir Moody]

It's the kind of non-argument that is really just people showing what side they are on. That's also why most political humor is unfunny to people who don't have an interest in doing that.

Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?

Your sexual preference are not the same as your race. One is a matter of outward appearence - the other is a mattert of how you choose to act. I say choose because despite your preferences your actions are choices.

Your example doesn't compute - especially in places where homosexual couples have access to all the same rights as heterosexuals, but the contract has a different name, like in the UK.

[Sir Moody]

Agreed but we aren't talking the UK - the UK pretty much HAS Gay Marriage in all but name - the US doesn't and more specifically its North Carolina that has banned it

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Id disagree here - bad political humour is unfunny because it just parrots the party lines - good humour like above has a deeper message of underlining the stupidity of some arguments - in this case the same Arguments being used now to protest Gay Marriage were used 100 years ago to protest interracial marriage - something which is now generally accepted (in the West at least) - it didn't prove true then and so why will it now?

"deeper message" seriously? Same arguments? It's a facile joke. A counter "joke" might be setting it 20 years in the future and having the same setup but having it turn out to be that the dad married one of those japanese robots. After all "same arguments"!

[Sir Moody]

and that would be just as funny - and hey if it makes the Dad happy and the robot was consenting who cares?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agreed but we aren't talking the UK - the UK pretty much HAS Gay Marriage in all but name - the US doesn't and more specifically its North Carolina that has banned it

I think if you look you'll see that the "marriage" bit is the problem in the US - and Gays are pushing for it over here too.

I say "Gays" because "gay" has become an identity, there are quite a few homosexuals who actively don't want homosexual marriage for a variety of reasons - including believing as Frags and I do that it's just word play to support fantasy.

[Vladimir]

and that would be just as funny - and hey if it makes the Dad happy and the robot was consenting who cares?

I like this.

[Sir Moody]

I think if you look you'll see that the "marriage" bit is the problem in the US - and Gays are pushing for it over here too.

I say "Gays" because "gay" has become an identity, there are quite a few homosexuals who actively don't want homosexual marriage for a variety of reasons - including believing as Frags and I do that it's just word play to support fantasy.

there's a nice phrase for this "If it quacks like a duck..." - what we have over here in the UK IS Gay Marriage - trying to pretend otherwise simple because it isn't actually called Marriage is silly - so why not call it Marriage? (basically that is the Prime Ministers stance on this matter)

Now trying to force Religious institutions to preside over such Marriages is going a bit far (they are trying that here) but that's a different matter entirely

[The Stranger]

cant it all be solved by having everyone who wants to have the social benefits and legal status etc that the state provide get a civil union.

and everyone who wants to be married infront of the eyes of god gets a marriage at whatever religious institution they want.

marriage imo doesnt have to be a civil right but then they shouldnt get all kinds of benefits that are denied to others for no reason except of not fitting in within that church.

so civil union for every one (who wants legal status and social benefits) and marriage only for those who want something extra in the eyes of god.

[Sir Moody]

and who defined Marriage as a specifically Religious thing?

Marriage was around long before the Catholic Church and it will almost certainly out live the Church (Religions come and go...)

[Crazed Rabbit]

An opinion that can't be supported by science? What?

There is no scientific proof of gods existence, which means that there is no god.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I mean, really now.

Also, I can understand how and why people are atheists.

CR

[The Stranger]

i didnt say it was specifically catholic.

[Sir Moody]

i didnt say it was specifically catholic.

I know but its one of the easiest Religions to name - and one of the most Vocal groups claiming Marriage should be a Religious thing.

[The Stranger]

well as it is organised in many "western" countries, marriage is a religious thing. let it stay that way. there is the civil union.

since state and church are seperated, disentangle the legal status + benefits from the church marriage and make this exclusive to the civil union. marriage by church then becomes a religious ceremony/tradition specially for those that want it.

[ajaxfetish]

Then I fail to see how homosexuals are harmed by the status quo.

Then I'm not sure what more to say to you. If you don't see any negatives for gay couples in the current American system, then your position makes perfect sense. It's just somewhat inconceivable to me that all the legal rights and protections involved in inheritance, child support, visitation, end-of-life care, and so forth don't seem to be registering at all.

Ajax

[Sarmatian]

Your sexual preference are not the same as your race. One is a matter of outward appearence - the other is a mattert of how you choose to act. I say choose because despite your preferences your actions are choices.

Your example doesn't compute - especially in places where homosexual couples have access to all the same rights as heterosexuals, but the contract has a different name, like in the UK.

Well, to Michael Jackson both issues were a choice.

[Sir Moody]

well as it is organised in many "western" countries, marriage is a religious thing. let it stay that way. there is the civil union.

since state and church are seperated, disentangle the legal status + benefits from the church marriage and make this exclusive to the civil union. marriage by church then becomes a religious ceremony/tradition specially for those that want it.

accept it isn't and has never has been a uniquely religious insinuation - you don't have to be married by a priest - there are a whole bunch of people who can legally marry someone (ships captains for example)

Who decides who can marry who? Government

Marriage has always been a state endorsed and enforced institution - the church is but one group who can perform them

[Kralizec]

This is where the "civil rights" argument falls apart for homosexual marriage. On one hand, it what race you were born with, on the other, it's what gender you prefer to have sex with. There's no equivalence.

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.

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.

Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

[The Stranger]

accept it isn't and has never has been a uniquely religious insinuation - you don't have to be married by a priest - there are a whole bunch of people who can legally marry someone (ships captains for example)

Who decides who can marry who? Government

Marriage has always been a state endorsed and enforced institution - the church is but one group who can perform them

this all doesnt matter, you can add ship captains to the extra list. the state should provide for all and the other groups, may it be satanic sects, the religions of the book, shipcaptains etc can exclude or include whomever they please and have their own ceremonies as long as they keep it within the boundaries of the law.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They're not entirely analogous, to be sure. But if refusing to allow a gay couple to marry is not a form of discrimination, as several people have argued, then banning interracial marriage isn't either. Under the latter, everybody's entitled to marry someone within their own racial grouping but not from outside. I.E. whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks and so on.




Except that homosexuality doesn't fall into the same catagory as polyginy or polyandry. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality is, while being partial to group love isn't. Homosexuality has been convincingly shown to be biologically determined- a fairly large part of the population quite simply is homosexual. Also the changes required in legislation, fiscal regulations and whatnot to make gay marriage possible are minimal; while the same can't be said for polyamorous groupings.

Bull. This was bull years ago and is bull today. The verdict is still out on the Born that way assumption. Its still just a guess and most studies just mark their results and allow you to determine what is likely. I do like your willingness to just wing it, though.

[Strike For The South]

You're morality comes from somewhere. If it comes from the Bible as one of your sources you have a responsibility to temper your ideals with biblical law. Not just Leviticus which could be argued is a law for Jews only, but the Gospels, the epistles etc, all of which refer to this activity as abomination and marriage as between man and woman. This is the Religious side of the arguement and in no way should it be the be all of government policy my problem is the complicty. Nothing about the Bible says that marriage must be recognized by the state and i dont believe it should be, particularly if we can no longer agree as to what it is., we This is why i must reject your arguements, and look elsewher for a solution. We live in a societywhere you must live with me and i must live yout, although we may just wish each other away, we must find workable solutions between citizens. I hate mobile org and i dont understand why they cant figure out basic text without lag

Show me where in the gospels it condems homosexuality

I do like your willingness to just wing it

[rory_20_uk]

Link

Few in the gospels, but a fair few spread elsewhere.

[Strike For The South]

Funny most of those thing condeming homosexuality also condem adultery and divorce.

Yet, nary a peep.

One must learn to seperate his religous morals from his secular ones. A society is built upon compromise