Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Marriage takes 1 man + 1 woman. Simple.

.

Mariage is just what it say, mariage. Why should it only take 1 man and 1 woman?
Because of tradition, because of culture?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Fish

Mariage is just what it say, mariage. Why should it only take 1 man and 1 woman?
Because of tradition, because of culture?

Yes, right that. Because cultures since a very long (and I mean very long) time found it very healthy to give special protection to the status of a social constellation that due to natural biologica evolution has followed the heterosexcual design of our species that needsa 1 male and 1 female to reproduce it'S genes in babies and thus is the only way by which a small community can ensure its survival.

The taboo against incest sexual rerlations has the very same reason. It is about minimising the chance for genetic defects or unwanted mutations. The health of ourt spoecies is better served, say Madame Evoltuioon, when our genes get constantly mixed, instead of freezed in generations of always the same clusters.

You can give homo couples equal rights regarding last wills and legal power to decide for the bother if he becomes temrinally ill, I have nothing against it. If they think their relation wins in quality if they get a paper with stamp anbd some cameraman's recognition, okay, give them a paper with a stamp and hope that makes them lucky.

But do not think that two men or two women living together in a relation is for the community in any way as important as the constralltion of a hetero couple that creates babies. The simpel truth is, their relations is as interesting and relevant for the communal inteewrst as is my relation to that brown cat that I sometimes meet in the garden.

I also do not see why homosexual relations should benefit from tax reliefs that were once meant to give special status and kind of protection and support to families (some states, like Germany, even have that in their constitution!). Our social communty and age structurses are terribly messed up, and that ahs somethign to do with families beign discouraged and materialsitically hindered to raise babies. Not to menmtion that in the eU it is seen as an offence if a mother actually is called a mother and a distinction between mother and father is beiong made, they should minstead be called parent 1 and parent 2. The deconstruction of this hated thing "family" is going on sicne many years.

I also do not see why homosexual couples should gain such tax benefits hat they do not qualify for, but singles like me should not. Now that is a discrimination of us singles.

Where have you been the past months and years? I think I have explained right these arguments four or five times in the past 12 months alone.

Yes, I am for maintaining a ban on incest sexual relations. I am also against rewriting culture history and deleting the traditional meaning of marriage as the constellation of 1 male and 1 female (potentially parents with children, that is the calculation behind that), and I am againmst claiming the homo couple is as important for the communal interest as is the hetero couple, potnetially, and often: really. Homosexual couples do not create babies, they do not raise future citizens of the community, they do not raise future tax payers (let'S face it, the whole thing last but not least if about trivial money), they do serve no biological function to support the future survival of the "tribe".

Scripture and religious insanity has nothing to do with my position, at least not for me (I cannot speak for some scripture-obsessed medievalists). It is simple economic sanity, and anger over just another lobby trying to push something down my throat, and recognition and acceptance of some vital biological facts that have consequnces for mankind and communties/societies whether we like it that way or not, and that will not just go away just because somebody wants it to be different. I want to fly by will's power or at least by wings, but I have neither the one skill nor the other feature, so heck, my only option is to get over it, be what I am and think I am okay the way I have come into this life.

I do care for the sexual preferance of people as much as I care for their precious relgions - not at all, as long as the community must not constantly take note of them, they do not interfere with communal vital interwsts, and do not try to play bongo with my intellect. Keep thy sex in the bedroom and thy faith in thy cabin, and we can be good friends, maybe. Notoriously bother me with the one or the other, and all I have for you is my boot.

[CaptainHaplo]

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

The fact is that government has no role in marriage at all - either allowing or denying it. Religions can make such a determination based upon their own theology.

The problem is that government is involved where it shouldnt.

Oh and Armistead - I pointed you to Romans 1 for where Paul talks about homosexuals being worthy of death. There is no use in having a discussion with you since you want to "pick and choose" what parts of "scripture" you want to have everyone apply. Either people should obey the Laws of God, or they should not. Make up your mind.

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship - many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible. They want to equate one set of laws for the laws of God. God provided 10 laws for mankind. Not a one of them advocates slavery, "ownership" of a wife, or any other such thing as many claim.

The rest were laws made by man or specific indications of things - such as homosexuality - that God finds unacceptable.

On the issue of homosexuality being a biological requirement rather than a choice...... I specifically stated ACTION as the key. While biologically there may be reasons a person would be attracted to the same sex, God does not find this reprehensible. He created people uniquely - with unique struggles in this life. It is the person's choice to ACT on their desires (or dwell on the the thoughts) to have sex with someone of the same gender that is sinful. God knows full well that he places challenges in front of every person - and they have the CHOICE to act rightly or wrongly. It is that choice which defines whether a person sins against God or not.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It goes on from there, but the point is that while governments are created for many reasons, not all of them altruistic, good government is created for that very reason. This is the purpose for which the United States was created in the first place. While we have never followed that purpose as well as we should have, "liberty and justice for all" is and should ever be our guiding light.

No contradiction to what I say. I am just more precise in detail, since there is consequences from that differentiation I made. Because other people may think other things are more desirable than those you mentioned.

With what you quoted, you would not win a golden pot in many countries of the ME, for example. Heck, even many europeans find the pursuit of happiness strange, romantic, vague. While you and me would not want the state to serve what many people there think should be the basis of the state: Shariah. Or take the German Basic Law, where your constitution mentions a pursuit of happiness, the Grundgesetz says that the dignity of man is untouchable. What if the pursuit of happiness is claimed to be able to be realised only at the price of allowing something that somebody else claims to be violating the dignity of man? And take the German article to the ME now, and see how it also fails to be implmemented there in the meaning it was written down in germany under the impression of the war and the demand of the allies. What to their Sharia would be the dignity of Muslim man (women and infidels is something different), to us is the total abolishement of human dignity both in males and females, Muslims and non-Muslims.

[yubba]

The democrats couldn't have picked a better weapon, to use in the war on women, than having a man have the same rights and benifits as a married women, that is married to a man. I didn't know we had found a cure to aids, to promote gay marriage, no body said they couldn't get married, we don't have recgonize it.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...reproduce it'S genes in babies...
...hetero couple that creates babies...
...protection and support to families
...raise babies...
...potentially parents with children
Homosexual couples do not create babies...
...biological function to support the future survival of the "tribe".

If we go by that rationale, then why do we allow marriage to infertile couples or couples that do not intend to have children? There's a lot more to marriage than making babies.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by razark

If we go by that rationale, then why do we allow marriage to infertile couples or couples that do not intend to have children? There's a lot more to marriage than making babies.

Ok tell me some, and tell me why we should subsidize it, why should we take away from one group to give to another, and why is this issue more important than the economy and the dept, this is nothing more than a distraction to both of them, because they, and you have no answers for any of it.

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

Prove that there was no government oversight, some bloke saying that the princes of his government should become involved in the deal proves absolutely nothing either way.
Or does it?
Can it be that it proves it was always a goverment issue and since NC is in a place where there is a seperation of church and state the political administrators of the church shall have no role whatsoever in marriage

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship

Yeah right, as yeah verily it is written, only be nice to "christians"
Biblical scholarship delivered way back in the early pages of this topic when liitle St. Paul jumped up to say you were talking bollox on law.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

The fact is that government has no role in marriage at all - either allowing or denying it. Religions can make such a determination based upon their own theology.

The problem is that government is involved where it shouldnt.

Oh and Armistead - I pointed you to Romans 1 for where Paul talks about homosexuals being worthy of death. There is no use in having a discussion with you since you want to "pick and choose" what parts of "scripture" you want to have everyone apply. Either people should obey the Laws of God, or they should not. Make up your mind.

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship - many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible. They want to equate one set of laws for the laws of God. God provided 10 laws for mankind. Not a one of them advocates slavery, "ownership" of a wife, or any other such thing as many claim.

The rest were laws made by man or specific indications of things - such as homosexuality - that God finds unacceptable.

On the issue of homosexuality being a biological requirement rather than a choice...... I specifically stated ACTION as the key. While biologically there may be reasons a person would be attracted to the same sex, God does not find this reprehensible. He created people uniquely - with unique struggles in this life. It is the person's choice to ACT on their desires (or dwell on the the thoughts) to have sex with someone of the same gender that is sinful. God knows full well that he places challenges in front of every person - and they have the CHOICE to act rightly or wrongly. It is that choice which defines whether a person sins against God or not.

You seem to miss the points of Romans 1. The people Paul were talking to were probably former Christians and heterosexual. In Rome many hetero married men preferred other men, even boys. The point Paul was making that under Levitical law, these were sins that equaled death because they broke the law

Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

However, you never see Paul gathering a mob, trying to kill them, bring them into courts, anything. Paul often compared the law or qouted it because many still lived by it, he did so mostly for comparison, law vs grace. These people were condemned because they were going against their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. If you read the chapter you'll see a host of sins being commited other than homo behavior. No doubt under jewish law many of these acts would have deserved death. that was Pauls point. However, we are no longer under those laws and no where will you find any the apostles preaching people should be put to death because of sin. Sure, several verses stating it would be better to die than do this or that, but none of the apostles sought the physical death for sinners, they sought salvation.

Your theory that God would make some attracted to the same sex, but it would be sinful for them to engage in that attraction is silly. Why would God place an impossible burden on someone, sexual attraction is probably the strongest force known, did he think it would be funny. It never ceases to amaze me what some fundies will come up with to support bias. Did God also give the Pedophile, alcoholic, etc....the same burden?

God gave 10 commandments, laws for the jewish people, who also claimed their many cultural laws were God given, many OT saints wrote that God gave them the laws, about 700 total, laws on marriage, sacrifice, war, punishments, etc...These laws insured women were property, allowed polygamy "most all Saints had many wives", etc...The bible claims God gave these laws, although myself I believe they're cultural laws that the Jews of course said came from God. God replaced this system with grace, but many, including jewish christians still lived by many of them. Jews and Gentiles Christians often argued about differing cultural laws, this was dealt with by the "Royal Law" of love others and do no harm. Paul often tired of arguing with Christians that had different customs and basically said..live and let live, love each other and do no harm..why he often referred to jewish law for reference, he preached grace, love, etc..

We have many more commandments by the apostles, you stated
"many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible." This doesn't even make sense, we seek to overthrow the bible by stating what those in the bible said, what else are we to do, do you ignore the 100's of apostolic commands?

I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it should only enforce civil rights to insure marriage

I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it should only enforce civil rights to insure marriage

Good point, as haplo pointed out Iggy started it all, as was written in his pistle on the postle he turned round and said ....."oi ceasar no, you ain't having your govenments laws on marriage and its rights and finacial implications here in the roman empire, this is our patch so get your government out of the old marriage business as I am starting it now."

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Prove that there was no government oversight, some bloke saying that the princes of his government should become involved in the deal proves absolutely nothing either way.
Or does it?
Can it be that it proves it was always a goverment issue and since NC is in a place where there is a seperation of church and state the political administrators of the church shall have no role whatsoever in marriage


Yeah right, as yeah verily it is written, only be nice to "christians"
Biblical scholarship delivered way back in the early pages of this topic when liitle St. Paul jumped up to say you were talking bollox on law.

Hard to say government wasn't involved in marriage when religious Priest ran the government and made the laws and inflicted punishments. If Priest and Popes decide the law and punishments, that's theocratic governing......something haplo seems to endorse.

Enforced religious law is theocracy, a form of government, been around since man, simply government in one form or the other has always been involved in marriage, cept where government didn't exist you could just jump over a broom and say " I'm married."

Honestly though Armistead, his efforts are getting so lame you could almost feel sorry for him.
I mean seriously antioch in the first century??????? that was part of the roman empire whose government had created a huge pile of marriage laws in the preceeding couple of hundred years, and the romans were only developing further on from marriage laws that the greek states had been using in their governments.

cept where government didn't exist you could just jump over a broom and say " I'm married."

Even then though, it would still usually involve the head of some sort, top dog will always want his say and his cut.(which is probably why Iggy wanted his boys to get in on the action too)

[Wolfpack345]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.

Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.

I agree why should it realy matter any way....people

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

So, who was running the marriage game before that?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

With what you quoted, you would not win a golden pot in many countries of the ME, for example. Heck, even many europeans find the pursuit of happiness strange, romantic, vague.

And so would many Americans, including our Founding Fathers themselves. "pursuit of happiness" is only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution English Law is followed in the injunction "No man shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law."

While I disagree with your take on social causes behind marriage your arguments are good ones and deserving of consideration.