Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Why do "some" people - the small minority of extreme gay activists, insist that everyone else conform to their way of doing things? Why does that same small group have a problem with using the existing legal structure in place to give those couples the same rights without forcing their views on everyone else?

No, the small minority only ask for the same benefits as the majority. The majority say "No" and pat themselves on the backs for being better people. As to "everyone else", they're not being asked to "conform", just accept and stop denying equality to the minority. They oppress the minority and then blame the minority for trying to "oppress" them.

Your pool of actual couples who wish to marry is much smaller than you are led to believe. This is a very "loud" issue only because those who push for it are extremely vocal - the vast majority of the homosexual community (which is small in relation to general society) is not active on this. Don't be fooled into thinking its some massive push by some large part of society - its simply that the "squeeky wheel gets the grease" example of what gets attention in the media.

It doesn't matter if it's only one. Oppression is oppression.

And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.

So why are you cheering so loudly over the State's "correct" decision?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So why are you cheering so loudly over the State's "correct" decision?

I have not "cheered" it. I have problems with the amendment as it was written. However, I do support it over the worse alternative.

I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. The fact that it is however is reality - so if its going to be involved, I would rather see it protect what is a religious action as religion dictates it is rather than force religion to adapt to whatever standard is "fair, right and good" in the eyes of the state. Protecting religious freedom by NOT dictating what religion must say on this issue is more important to me than the "rights" of a few to get to call their shared lives by some term with a piece of paper.

[razark]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

...I would rather see it protect what is a religious action as religion dictates it is rather than force religion to adapt to whatever standard is "fair, right and good" in the eyes of the state. Protecting religious freedom by NOT dictating what religion must say on this issue is more important to me than the "rights" of a few to get to call their shared lives by some term with a piece of paper.

But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.


Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by razark

But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.


Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

This. No one is forcing any religious organization to conduct any services. This is about marriage at the courthouse.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by razark

But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.


Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

Hmm, this sounds like discrimination.

Here in Canada where same sex marriage is legal, there have been cases where Marriage Commissioners refusal to marry gays on 'religious grounds' ended up in court. Quote: "accommodating the religious beliefs of the commissioners could not justify what would amount to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...constitutional

Granted this is somewhat different than a church refusing as the commissioner is a public servant but it is discrimination none the less.

Possibly a church here in Canada is just one court case away from being forced to marry anyone who asks them to marry them.

I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

Which is where you are going hopelessly wrong.
Marriage is a legal contract that may or may not involve religion but certainly involves the state in lots of ways.
Despite everything shown to the contrary you still think it is a religious ceremony and nothing else.

Oh and the analogy is neither useless or irrelevant.

It was totally and utterly useless and irrelevant.

You only say that because it does not support your personal opinion.

Because it is so totally and utterly useless it certainly cannot support your opinion.
If it supported it then it couldn't have been shown as nonsense so easily in a single word