North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[NonServiam]

The fact of the matter is that the United States has a secular government, whose laws are not – and are not allowed to be – based on the doctrines of a particular religion. While Catholics are free to believe that marriage should only be defined as an institution between a man and a woman – and while the Catholic Church is free to marry only heterosexual couples, which is in line with their doctrines – Catholics don’t have the right to enshrine a belief that like into the law of a secular government.

Indeed, the reason that it would be wise for the government to recognize same-sex marriage has nothing to do with doctrine of any kind: it’s simply pragmatic. Whether you personally like it or not, there are lots and lots of gay couples, and it’s convenient for a society to extend marriage rights (and the resulting benefits of marriage, which are essentially like a whole lot of contracts at once) to a significant minority of relationships.

It just makes it easier for everybody, and it harms absolutely no one. Whatever it is you want to do with your life – whatever “pursuit of happiness” might mean for you – you can be pretty darn certain that homosexuals getting married isn’t going to hamper you one bit.

So that means that the only reason people could have for opposing gay marriage is some notion they’ve gotten intheir heads, rather than anything in reality that compels their opposition to it.

The first few posters on this thread – who suggested that in 50-100 years this will be looked back upon with great shame, in the same way that we today look back in shame on racism (and, in fact, opposition to interracial mariage) – are probably right. It’s interesting that so many people are blind to it.

 

[parable1]

Times are getting tough people. The ability to practice our faith is becoming steadily harder and harder. Its tough when a president backs same sex marriage and is supposed to be christian. Its time that as Christ believers that we all take a stand. We have to choose the lesser of two evils with Romney and vote obama down to the ground. This country is becoming the new babylon and sodom and gomorah. Lord Jesus Christ look down upon us and save us fro the evil that lurks within.

 

[fix]

The fact of the matter is that the United States has a secular government, whose laws are not – and are not allowed to be – based on the doctrines of a particular religion. While Catholics are free to believe that marriage should only be defined as an institution between a man and a woman – and while the Catholic Church is free to marry only heterosexual couples, which is in line with their doctrines – Catholics don’t have the right to enshrine a belief that like into the law of a secular government.

Indeed, the reason that it would be wise for the government to recognize same-sex marriage has nothing to do with doctrine of any kind: it’s simply pragmatic. Whether you personally like it or not, there are lots and lots of gay couples, and it’s convenient for a society to extend marriage rights (and the resulting benefits of marriage, which are essentially like a whole lot of contracts at once) to a significant minority of relationships.

It just makes it easier for everybody, and it harms absolutely no one. Whatever it is you want to do with your life – whatever “pursuit of happiness” might mean for you – you can be pretty darn certain that homosexuals getting married isn’t going to hamper you one bit.

So that means that the only reason people could have for opposing gay marriage is some notion they’ve gotten intheir heads, rather than anything in reality that compels their opposition to it.

The first few posters on this thread – who suggested that in 50-100 years this will be looked back upon with great shame, in the same way that we today look back in shame on racism (and, in fact, opposition to interracial mariage) – are probably right. It’s interesting that so many people are blind to it.

Friend, those that are blind think morality is relative and that the only evil is direct physical harm.

 

[Bookcat]

(in fairness I ought to note that he says his position is evolving …that was the vice president that said he was fine with it–I am not of course a supporter of either me…but just for charity)

 

[sw85]

The fact of the matter is that the United States has a secular government, whose laws are not – and are not allowed to be – based on the doctrines of a particular religion.

That’s false. The First Amendment prohibits formal religious establishment. It doesn’t follow that people can’t vote their consciences, unless those consciences are formed according to the informally-established state religion of utilitarianism.

It just makes it easier for everybody, and it harms absolutely no one. Whatever it is you want to do with your life – whatever “pursuit of happiness” might mean for you – you can be pretty darn certain that homosexuals getting married isn’t going to hamper you one bit.

Surely you’re not that ignorant of why we oppose gay “marriage” – because we don’t, in fact, see it as just a bunch of contracts all in one, because we don’t see it as a means of making life easier for people (i.e., for giving money to people), and because we don’t accept your radically reductionist definition of “harm.”

The first few posters on this thread – who suggested that in 50-100 years this will be looked back upon with great shame, in the same way that we today look back in shame on racism (and, in fact, opposition to interracial mariage) – are probably right. It’s interesting that so many people are blind to it.

I direct you to my response to that sentiment here. The ones who are “ashamed” of this are the ones who aren’t having kids. The ones who voted for it are having large families. Do the math.

(One minor correction to that post, “doubling every year” should read “doubling every 15-20 years” – sadly I cannot edit the post now).

 

[ASimon]

(in fairness I ought to note that he says his position is evolving …that was the vice president that said he was fine with it–I am not of course a supporter of either me…but just for charity)

Obama just affirmed his support for gay marriage. The evolution, as it were, is complete.

 

[cjmclark]

Obama just affirmed his support for gay marriage. The evolution, as it were, is complete.

Of course he did. It just became politically expedient to do so, as Romney appears to be trying to paint himself as more conservative.

It is worth noting that despite early indicators of his “support” for gay marriage during his last campaign, Obama managed to do not a single thing in four years to help that particular cause.

 

[matthau21]

Exactly.

In the US, marriage falls under contract law. It is a legal contract, and as such, the State retains regulatory power over who can, and cannot, enter into specific contracts.

For example, I could not contract with a plumber to provide medical services. It does not matter if we are both consenting adults and we both feel that his skills as a plumber qualify him to perform heart surgery on me. The contract would not only be invalid, but the plumber would be guilty of criminal activity for attempting it.

There is no unjust discrimination involved in restricting the contracts between individuals.

Likewise with marriage. In NC, a person people may enter into the legal contract of marrige with another unmarried, consenting, non consanguinous, human person of the appropriate age and of the opposite sex.

That law applies equally to all, with no discrimination.

Metaphysical concepts such as ‘love’ do not enter into it, as far as the state is concerned, it is a contract between two people, and the terms of the contract apply equally to all.

I understand what you are trying to say - however this would mean that in the past miscegenation laws were fine. This type of law applies to all people equally like you have stated above, however to (most) people it is inappropriate for the government to limit someone’s ability to marry another person outside of their race.

You are also saying that if for some reason the government and its people decided to make it illegal to marry under a certain income level or if a person has a pre-existing illness or if they are over a certain weight limit – then this is perfectly fine and is not discrimination because it is just the law restricting a contract.

Now I am not saying restrictions are bad and are not necessary. I am saying we must all carefully think about what restrictions to this contract need to be in place to benefit our society.

That is where the controversy begins: someone believes homosexuality hinders society - another person believes homosexuality does not hinder society.

 

[sw85]

I understand what you are trying to say - however this would mean that in the past miscegenation laws were fine.

No, it just means that they’re not fine for some other reason. The reason they aren’t fine is because the race of the person you’re marrying has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage. The sex of the person you’re marrying does.

 

[Midwest88]

Click on the link to get a higher resolution of the picture.
comicbookalex.tumblr.com/post/22724830623

You know where this is going. The left will bring up the educational gap between those for same sex marriage and those against it. Names have already been thrown around towards these counties such as hillbillies and uneducated.

• Oh, and I like how there are new posters here. Seems like certain topics arouse them from their slumber.

 

[ASimon]

Of course he did. It just became politically expedient to do so, as Romney appears to be trying to paint himself as more conservative.

It is worth noting that despite early indicators of his “support” for gay marriage during his last campaign, Obama managed to do not a single thing in four years to help that particular cause.

In his last campaign, he said he was against gay marriage and for civil unions. And while I agree that he may have feigned his opposition for strictly political reasons, I wouldn’t say that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” counts for nothing.

 

[matthau21]

The difference is the sex of the person you “marry” is relevant to the purpose of marriage, whereas that race isn’t.

Mwap mwap. Try again.

I think you are saying that marriage is completely based on reproduction then - however, a woman or man could have a condition in which they cannot conceive. If that is true there are many marriages that are unlawful.

I know you have said “relevant” which means that there are some situations where reproduction does not have to be sole purpose of marriage? What are the other purposes outside of that? Love? Friendship?

 

[mitex]

This whole thing will be repealed in 20 years… Mark my words.

And a Republican senator who voted for the amendment said that as well.

 

[matthau21]

No, it just means that they’re not fine for some other reason. The reason they aren’t fine is because the race of the person you’re marrying has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage. The sex of the person you’re marrying does.

I believe the only role gender has within marriage is sex towards reproducing, which would mean that a couple of the opposite gender who cannot have sex and/or reproduce would fall outside of this purpose as well?

 

[Ronald_E]

You cited St. Paul in order to berate posters on this threat that are happy with the way the vote in North Carolina came out.

 

[Ronald_E]

Then perhaps you shouldn’t be so judgemental of those you are accusing of being judgemental.

Peace

Tim

I don’t think you understand what I mean by sensitive.

 

[matthau21]

Excellent post! On top of that Loving v Virginia addressed a specific law that said whites and blacks couldnt marry because of race. There is no law in any American state or on a federal level that says a gay person can not marry someone of the opposite sex because they are gay.

Very true. Homosexuality was not address in Loving v Virginia.

However, you are saying that there is no law that says a gay person can’t marry someone of the opposite sex. Although this is true, at the time of Loving v Virginia there was no law stating a black person couldn’t marry, or a white person couldn’t marry. They just couldn’t marry each other (marry a race other than their own).

I think what people are saying is this situation seems very similar, just replacing race with gender.

 

[Orogeny]

That is uncharitable and slanderous.

It was neither. You obviously don’t understand what either of those words mean.

What does it mean that “God will judge those outside…”?

Who is judging? Those of us who like the outcome of the vote are siding with the Church. Is the Church wrong?

The way we live our faith will determine how God is perceived by those outside the faith.
1Cor13 seems to say it all. I will dismiss myself from this discussion with you unless you make amends for the slander you stated above.

Run away if you like. While you are running, get a dictionary and look up slander.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t think you understand what I mean by sensitive.

So?

Peace

Tim

 

[cjmclark]

In his last campaign, he said he was against gay marriage and for civil unions. And while I agree that he may have feigned his opposition for strictly political reasons, I wouldn’t say that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” counts for nothing.

I could’ve sworn Congress repealed that…all he had to do was not veto the repeal act. Not exactly a strong statement, but it is something, I suppose.

Let’s face it…unless his party enjoys a supermajority in Congress, what the President does or does not espouse has relatively little effect on what actions are actually taken by the government. Unless he’s going draft an executive order mandating that states recognize gay marriage (and imagine the backlash from that), his current stance amounts to little more than political posturing, which is of course to be expected in an election year.