North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[Contarini]

In principle, you’re correct, that marriage need have nothing to do with love. In practice, though, it has everything to do with it

Not from a legal point of view, which is the issue here.

and nobody would argue that society would be better off if we made decisions about whom to marry on bases that were completely divorced from questions of love.

No, but we would be better off if romantic love were not seen as the only/primary basis for marriage.

And we would certainly be better off without an unrestricted right to divorce, in my opinion and the opinion (I’m pretty sure) of many folks on this forum.

Your side rattles on endlessly about the damage that would be done to “families” if gays were allowed to marry. Which is incredibly insulting, presumptuous, and demonstrably false, but leave that aside for a second. Ask yourself - how well would the family unit be served if people were marrying each other for reasons having nothing to do with love?

False dichotomy. There are many kinds of love, and love of one sort or another is certainly an important part of marriage.

Look at it this way: do you think it should be illegal to marry someone you do not love? Should the government give people “love tests” before allowing them to marry? If love is the basis for a legally valid marriage, as your argument implies, then that’s the logical consequence.

Or, to apply the argument more directly to the present issue: do you think that a marriage between a gay person and a person of the opposite sex (or, where/when gay marriage is legalized, between a heterosexual and a person of the same sex) should be legal? Is it the government’s business to declare who is gay and who isn’t?

The fact is, love is an integral part of the decision to marry in 21st century America. The withered old chestnut that “Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like straight people” is a bad punchline to a stupid joke.

Not if you’re making a legal argument about rights.

If you want to argue that it’s the purpose of marriage law to facilitate romantic love, well then you have a case. And many folks do think that’s the purpose, no doubt, which is the basic problem.

That’s certainly not the conservative view, however.

I try to stay out of this, because I know this issue is deeply hurtful to you and many other folks. I don’t think that the referendum in NC was a good idea–it doesn’t actually seem to have changed anything except to make gay folks feel that the society as a whole is against them, and it bans any kind of civil union as well as gay marriage–a position that I think is both harsh and irrational. But I simply don’t find the language of “marriage equality” persuasive from a rational point of view.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In order to see what’s wrong with your argument, plug in a belief from some other religion. For example, Hindus hold cows to be sacred. The Constitution would not allow a law to be passed that banned people from eating cows on the ground that cows are sacred.

The Constitution would prevent that from being cited as the explicit basis for the law, sure.

But there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about banning the eating of cows, even if the only folks who want to do this are motivated by religious concerns.

If a majority of people in this country were vegetarians, quite probably the eating of meat would be outlawed or at least heavily restricted. And even if this were because of “religious” motivations (whatever the heck that means anyway–there’s no agreed-on neutral definition of religion, which is actually a problem with the First Amendment as I see it), that wouldn’t make their actions unconstitutional.

It’s hard to know exactly how to respond to this without pointing at you and laughing.

Well, I feel the same way about your argument, to be honest.

It’s hard to believe that there are people who really think that it’s somehow unconstitutional for people’s political actions to be motivated by religion.

Edwin

 

[NonServiam]

Males and females are the only ones in the Animal Kingdom that can reproduce - two males or two females produce no offspring. This fact does not require a belief in God - just a belief in the obvious. So what does that have to do with whether a secular government should allow marriage?

The secular government allows two people who are infertile to marry, so clearly “having children” isn’t a requirement of secular marraige. Thus, suggesting that we ought to prevent homosexuals from having a secular marriage on the grounds that they aren’t going to produce children is completely off-base.

 

[livingwordunity]

So what does that have to do with whether a secular government should allow marriage?

The secular government allows two people who are infertile to marry, so clearly “having children” isn’t a requirement of secular marraige. Thus, suggesting that we ought to prevent homosexuals from having a secular marriage on the grounds that they aren’t going to produce children is completely off-base.

Whether or not a man and a woman are fertile or infertile doesn’t change the fact that the male sex organ is made for the female sex organ. This is basic Biology, and for all of human history up until now was common sense. Do you believe in incest, pedophilia, and bestiality? If the state can change the definition of marriage based on a whim then there’s nothing to stop the state from changing the definition of marriage later to include these sexual perversions, too.

 

[mitex]

The Vatican says differently. Who you gonna trust?

I’m not beholden to the Vatican or the teachings of the Roman Church. I am beholden to the teachings of my denomination in the Protestant Church.

Of course that may be hard for you to understand. If I were in the Roman Church I would have to follow the teachings of the Roman Church. But since I’m not… Well you get the picture

 

[NonServiam]

If a majority of people in this country were vegetarians, quite probably the eating of meat would be outlawed or at least heavily restricted.

While I agree that there are similarities between nutty groups of vegetarians and nutty groups of religionists, keep in mind that I wasn’t talking about a group wanting to use the law to modify meat production because of unsanitary conditions, abuse of animals, and health threats to humans or whatever other reasons they might propose.

I’m talking about a law that prohibits people from eating cows – and only cows – because cows are sacred.

I’m not arguing that people can’t allow their religion to influence their politics. For example, a Hindu who believes that it’s wrong to eat cows might very well support a vegetarian movement to clean up and improve the conditions of meat producing companies, motivated by his religious beliefs. But what he doesn’t get to do is impose his doctrine of not-cow-eating on everyone else.

He can tell people about his belief. He can support modifications to existing meat-producing laws. He can encourage healthier lifestyles so that people start consuming less cow, but he can’t legislate his nutty position that’s based on nothing but unsubstantiated religion.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m not beholden to the Vatican or the teachings of the Roman Church. I am beholden to the teachings of my denomination in the Protestant Church.

Of course that may be hard for you to understand. If I were in the Roman Church I would have to follow the teachings of the Roman Church. But since I’m not… Well you get the picture

Protestants base which denomination they are in based on their personal opinion of things which means that you basically follow your own opinion and join whoever agrees with you. It’s the spiritual equivalent of “cooking the books”.

 

[NonServiam]

Whether or not a man and a woman are fertile or infertile doesn’t change the fact that the male sex organ is made for the female sex organ.

Well, duh, but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not marriage should only be allowed for a male/female couple.

Do you believe in incest, pedophilia, and bestiality?

I believe they exist.

If the state can change the definition of marriage based on a whim then there’s nothing to stop the state from changing the definition of marriage later to include these sexual perversions, too.

Nothing except the fact that nobody in the entire country wants that, except for maybe literally one or two wackadoos.

 

[livingwordunity]

Well, duh, but that doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not marriage should only be allowed for a male/female couple.

Do you believe that the definition of gravity should be changed, too? Some people might think the current definition of gravity is unfair.

 

[NonServiam]

Do you believe that the definition of gravity should be changed, too?

Gravity is a word for a force of nature, Marriage is a word for a social construct.

Spot the difference between the two, and then explain why your ham-fisted attempt at an analogy fails (10 points).

 

[livingwordunity]

Gravity is a word for a force of nature, Marriage is a word for a social construct.

If you believe marriage is only a word of no importance, why do you believe so strongly that the definition has to be changed?

 

[NonServiam]

If you believe marriage is only a word of no importance, why do you believe so strongly that the definition has to be changed?

I didn’t say it was “a word of no importance.” I said – and I thought I was pretty clear – that “marriage” is a word that denotes a social construct.

Social constructs, unlike natural forces, can change over time – hence my pointing out what was wrong with your analogy.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nothing except the fact that nobody in the entire country wants that, except for maybe literally one or two wackadoos.

50 years ago no one in the entire country (or the world) ever wanted to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. Anyone who would have suggested such a ridiculous thing would have been called crazy. So the fact that at this time no one wants to change the definition of marriage to include incest, bestiality, or pedophilia does not mean that it won’t happen in the future if all it takes is a few loud protesters with a lot money and media propaganda to change the law. There isn’t even a precedence for “same-sex marriage” in all of human history. There is precedence for things such as incest and polygamy being called marriage which makes them the most likely to be next.

 

[livingwordunity]

I didn’t say it was “a word of no importance.” I said – and I thought I was pretty clear – that “marriage” is a word that denotes a social construct.

Social constructs, unlike natural forces, can change over time – hence my pointing out what was wrong with your analogy.

Stop contradicting yourself. You are trying to downplay the importance of marriage while being determined to change the definition of it. I know that “Non Serviam” means “I will not serve”, and it’s what the devil said when he rejected God. You might not realize it but if you aren’t serving God you are serving Satan especially when you reject God’s plan for marriage and encourage a perverted view of human sexuality.

 

[seattle99]

Very, very sad. In 50-100 years everyone will look back on this with the same distaste as racism.

Oh, well, just another state that I’m never visiting if I can help it.

Also, OP; really? A DANCING EMOTICON? Yes, you can still get married in NC, just like you could before. The only thing this accomplished is banning marriage between two people of the same sex. I find it very… sad? I can’t even think of a word - deplorable that you can be so overjoyed that you beat back those icky gays and their agenda.

Again, it wasn’t your rights in question, it was those of gays. And you’re overjoyed you were able to deny them marriage rights.

You make me sick.

Very nice sentiment there…I think you would be more at home in the MSNBC and CNN forums.

 

[Bookcat]

“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ.”

-Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[presidentjlh]

Someone earlier on this thread derided sw85 for saying he was a monarchist. But to be honest (which is to move in the direction of love and compassion ), being a monarchist is more conducive to a truly Catholic and Christian worldview than one might think…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I understand your point here, but, I, for one, greatly fear monarchs much more than a modern liberal state, due to the fact that humans themselves are fallible. The only king I could accept is God, because His decisions are flawless on ALL matters. I acquiesce to the Church on matters of faith and morals, however, I would be very against a Catholic-based monarchy, due to the fact that the Church, to be quite honest, does not have a good record when it comes to running political matters. Corruption, violence, and sin were often the result of direct participation by the Church in government affairs.

This is the crux of my problem. I do not believe classical liberalism and the Catholic faith are necessarily incompatible. I just think we have not found the right way yet.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rossum,

One doesn’t have to leave the country to feel slighted - just look at the US Tax Code - domestic partners can not claim, “Married Filing Joint”.

The real issue is that the US Government has found that married couples caring and nurturing and education children actually furthers the ends of society specific to continuing it on. Actually, societies around the world have made the same conclusion - children are our future - guys with guys and gals with gals isn’t.

Even a casual look at how societies around the world have consistently responding to reproducing their own kind - they have not gone the generalized sodomy route.

God bless

By marrying your opposite sex foreign partner, you gain immigration rights for them. By civil partnering your same sex foreign partner, you do not gain immigration rights for them.

That is the different treatment.

rossum

 

[exnihilo]

Even if it did (and, again, it doesn’t), that would simply be an argument to change the Constitution. As I’m a monarchist and in favor of scrapping the Constitution entirely, it hardly interests me either way. Your argument’s irrelevant to me even if it were true. It just isn’t, is all.

Good to run across a fellow monarchist. As a NC resident one of the most entertaining claims the pro-homosexuals put forth regarding this amendment was that the average voter didn’t understand the amendment and when properly explained what the amendment meant the majority was actually against it. Of course the pro-homosexual crowd wants democracy to rule the day only so long as the people are properly informed of what they vote on. I examined the ‘true meaning’ of the amendment as presented by the pro-homosexuals and it was truly absurd and almost completely wrong. Granted the average voter is uninformed about most issues he has an opinion on. But it is funny watching people who are always advocating for universal suffrage admitting the average voter is a dolt.

How can we have any laws without telling other people what to do and what is right?

How can we have a society without telling other people what to do and what is right?

Excellent and actually simple questions that the average person seems to have not considered or if they have to have gotten completely wrong. Every law is based on a claim of morality. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m not beholden to the Vatican or the teachings of the Roman Church. I am beholden to the teachings of my denomination in the Protestant Church.

Of course that may be hard for you to understand. If I were in the Roman Church I would have to follow the teachings of the Roman Church. But since I’m not… Well you get the picture

Funny. I thought that Protestant were not bound by Tradition, anyone, Catholic or Protestant!