• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

mak2 said:
I have to read more about that. No Church should ever be forced to conduct any ceremony it does not beleive in, nor prevented from performing a service it does. Why havent I heard about this outrage? I watch Fox all the time.
Click to expand...

Is Fox News the only news organization with an obligation to inform you?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Henrin said:
Marriage is just more of the same really. People feel as if they benefit from government being involved and feel that without it they would get abused. Of course, there is no reason to expect that any of that makes sense.
Click to expand...

In the case of SSM versus marriage they are correct on that too. Right now, there are many rights automatically granted to heterosexual couples that marry whereas SSM couples have to jump through hoops to get those rights through paperwork, witness fees, etc. and still don't get all the same rights.

I would have NO PROBLEM with the government getting out of marriage, but it simply isn't going to happen in the natural course of our system the way it is now.
 
It is just funny what they choose to be all outraged about. Really funny.
jmotivator said:
Is Fox News the only news organization with an obligation to inform you?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Visbek said:
Yeah, I don't see it.

There is no moral requirement to have sex exclusively for procreative purposes, or for everyone to have children, or to have as many children as physically possible.

"Natural ends" are irrelevant. Reproduction solely for the sake of reproduction is not an ethical principle. It is a choice that an individual can make, and a biological impulse, but there is no requirement to reproduce so that your children can reproduce, and their children can reproduce, and so on.

If I have sex purely to engage in pleasure, this in and of itself causes no harm. It does not stop me from having sex at some other time in order to procreate. It does not convince me not to have children at some later date. It does not change my neighbor's mental calculus about whether or not s/he should have children.

One of the problems that California's Prop 8 had in court, by the way, was precisely this issue -- its defenders were incapable of explaining how any straight marriages were actually harmed, let alone altered, by allowing same-sex marriage.

It's not a zero-sum game. The decision to pursue sex for pleasure does not prevent or exclude sex for procreation. No harm, no foul, no justification for regulation.
Click to expand...

When one deliberately impedes the natural end of an act, that is a moral deficiency, is it not?
 
mak2 said:
It is just funny what they choose to be all outraged about. Really funny.
Click to expand...

Well, so obviously there is outrage o'plenty on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, LAT and so on, right? You are just learning about this, I assume, because you only watch Fox News?
 
The hypocrisy is obvious and rich.
jmotivator said:
Well, so obviously there is outrage o'plenty on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, LAT and so on, right? You are just learning about this, I assume, because you only watch Fox News?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
When one deliberately impedes the natural end of an act, that is a moral deficiency, is it not?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

In fact, it is only your assumption that the "natural end" of the particular act in question should be pregnancy. In fact, the most natural end to that act is simply bonding between the two people. Pregnancy may or may not occur, but it certainly doesn't always occur. And it doesn't even take contraceptives to prevent it occurrence. Plenty of people simply use timing and/or "pull out" to prevent pregnancies. And they have been doing so since people first realized where babies come from.

And morals are relative. Just because you think it is morally wrong to prevent pregnancy, does not mean the rest of us do. Most people have no moral conflict with preventing pregnancies.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

roguenuke said:
No, it isn't.

In fact, it is only your assumption that the "natural end" of the particular act in question should be pregnancy. In fact, the most natural end to that act is simply bonding between the two people. Pregnancy may or may not occur, but it certainly doesn't always occur. And it doesn't even take contraceptives to prevent it occurrence. Plenty of people simply use timing and/or "pull out" to prevent pregnancies. And they have been doing so since people first realized where babies come from.

And morals are relative. Just because you think it is morally wrong to prevent pregnancy, does not mean the rest of us do. Most people have no moral conflict with preventing pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

You're saying that procreation isn't the natural end is sex? Really?

So it is your opinion that morality is not objective?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

danarhea said:
Why should there be a license at all? If 2 people want to marry, they should just do what our own forefathers did, and consider themselves married, and **** the attorneys, the government, and all the other vampires.
Click to expand...

OK, then who gets to make healthcare decisions for the child of that couple? Mom? Dad? Both? And the hospital knows the man standing there has rights how? He says he's married to the mother of the child, but how are they to know? If you buy a house, and live with your "wife" for 10 years in the house and die, what happens to the house? She can say she's married to you, but without a legal document to that effect, you can bet your last penny in a lot of cases the husband's family will sue for that house, claiming the woman was just a live in whore taking advantage of their son/brother. If there is a will, they'll challenge the will, allege any technicality to get it thrown out. Etc.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Yes it is.

You're saying that procreation isn't the natural end is sex? Really?

So it is your opinion that morality is not objective?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying that procreation is not the only natural end to sex, but rather a possible consequence of sex.

And morality is not objective. You cannot prove morality. You cannot provide any facts that you are "right", that your views are what everything should be based on. You cannot quantitatively prove morality, specifically an absolute morality for everyone, so that makes it subjective. It is your opinion that something is right rather than wrong or wrong rather than right.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Yes it is.

You're saying that procreation isn't the natural end is sex? Really?

So it is your opinion that morality is not objective?
Click to expand...

Morality may be 'objective' but what isn't is who exactly gets to declare the objective standard, because that standard certainly isn't written down in THE book (there are many books claiming the guide to objective morality) and happens to change, from society to society, and from time to time, and generally corresponds to some form of societal advantage, which also changes as man has evolved.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

roguenuke said:
Yes, I am saying that procreation is not the only natural end to sex, but rather a possible consequence of sex.

And morality is not objective. You cannot prove morality. You cannot provide any facts that you are "right", that your views are what everything should be based on. You cannot quantitatively prove morality, specifically an absolute morality for everyone, so that makes it subjective. It is your opinion that something is right rather than wrong or wrong rather than right.
Click to expand...

But it is a natural end, is it not?

Is that objectively true?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
When one deliberately impedes the natural end of an act, that is a moral deficiency, is it not?
Click to expand...
No, it is not.

Again:
1) Non-procreative sex does not actually impede anyone, in any way, from subsequently choosing to engage in sex-for-procreation.
2) There is no moral obligation for humans to reproduce.

For example, if we allowed dogs to pursue their "natural ends," they would have still be wolves. Instead, thousands of years ago we domesticated them, and have tuned their abilities to a phenomenal extent. It is not immoral to raise dogs to be pets, to assist the blind, to herd sheep or to protect a building on the basis that doing so somehow "impedes" their "natural end."

Similarly, it is not immoral to spay or neuter dogs, because one of their "natural ends" is to reproduce. In fact, we generally regard it as more compassionate and humane to spay/neuter dogs and cats, because so many of their offspring end up unwanted and abandoned.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
But it is a natural end, is it not?

Is that objectively true?
Click to expand...


My wife and I have been married going on 30 years. So Conservatively speaking, assuming sex once a week for 30 years we get 52*30 = 1560. We have two children.


If pregnancy were the natural end of sex, then we should have a lot more children than 2. Not all children result from sex (with IVF and sperm donation) these days. Some men have had testicular cancer and had their testies removed, some women have hysterectomies - preganancy will never be the natural outcome for them.



>>>>
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Visbek said:
No, it is not.

Again:
1) Non-procreative sex does not actually impede anyone, in any way, from subsequently choosing to engage in sex-for-procreation.
2) There is no moral obligation for humans to reproduce.

For example, if we allowed dogs to pursue their "natural ends," they would have still be wolves. Instead, thousands of years ago we domesticated them, and have tuned their abilities to a phenomenal extent. It is not immoral to raise dogs to be pets, to assist the blind, to herd sheep or to protect a building on the basis that doing so somehow "impedes" their "natural end."

Similarly, it is not immoral to spay or neuter dogs, because one of their "natural ends" is to reproduce. In fact, we generally regard it as more compassionate and humane to spay/neuter dogs and cats, because so many of their offspring end up unwanted and abandoned.
Click to expand...

Contraception impedes the natural end of the specific sex act.

Animals exist for the benefit of mankind. So the things you mention are not against their natural end.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
You're saying that procreation isn't the natural end is sex? Really?
Click to expand...
It is one of many purposes. And there is nothing immoral or harmful about engaging in sex for those other purposes.

Nor have you demonstrated, in any reasonable way, how non-procreative sex somehow "impedes" sex-for-procreation. Neither did the defenders of California's Prop 8; in fact, they spectacularly failed to prove that SSM caused any harm whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage.


So it is your opinion that morality is not objective?
Click to expand...
I believe universal ethics can be developed. However, I reject the idea that "sex must be for procreation" or "thou shalt not impede a natural end" are valid universal maxims. Nor do I see any necessity for such a claim.

Or, to turn this around: Are you actually saying that it is immoral for a healthy adult to consciously choose not to reproduce? And if so, why shouldn't the state be empowered to compel me to have a child?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

WorldWatcher said:
My wife and I have been married going on 30 years. So Conservatively speaking, assuming sex once a week for 30 years we get 52*30 = 1560. We have two children.


If pregnancy were the natural end of sex, then we should have a lot more children than 2. Not all children result from sex (with IVF and sperm donation) these days. Some men have had testicular cancer and had their testies removed, some women have hysterectomies - preganancy will never be the natural outcome for them.



>>>>
Click to expand...

People used to have more children than they do now. Those aren't intended to obstruct procreation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Visbek said:
It is one of many purposes. And there is nothing immoral or harmful about engaging in sex for those other purposes.

Nor have you demonstrated, in any reasonable way, how non-procreative sex somehow "impedes" sex-for-procreation. Neither did the defenders of California's Prop 8; in fact, they spectacularly failed to prove that SSM caused any harm whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage.



I believe universal ethics can be developed. However, I reject the idea that "sex must be for procreation" or "thou shalt not impede a natural end" are valid universal maxims. Nor do I see any necessity for such a claim.

Or, to turn this around: Are you actually saying that it is immoral for a healthy adult to consciously choose not to reproduce? And if so, why shouldn't the state be empowered to compel me to have a child?
Click to expand...

Contraception impedes procreation in the specific instance.

Is the person doing this by abstaining or by contracepting?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Contraception impedes procreation in the specific instance.
Click to expand...

So what? Impeding procreation is not evil. A girl refusing to have sex with a guy is also impeding procreation, so that must be evil to you as well. Guess rape is good in your eyes cause then it doesn't impeded procreation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Contraception impedes the natural end of the specific sex act.
Click to expand...
Right. But using a condom on Tuesday does not require me to use a condom on Wednesday.


Animals exist for the benefit of mankind. So the things you mention are not against their natural end.
Click to expand...
Animals certainly do not exist for the "benefit of mankind." Mosquitos, lions, jellyfish and thousands of other species that are hostile or harmful to humans offer no real "benefit" to humanity.

There is also no question that dogs evolved from wolves, due to selective pressures exerted by humans on individuals from that species. By domesticating dogs, we have subverted the "natural ends" of wolves.

In fact, if it is justifiable to subvert the "natural end" of an animal in order to suit a purpose of our choosing, then it ought to be justifiable to subvert a human's "natural end" to serve a purpose of our choosing.
 
danarhea said:
Very interesting lawsuit. So the question is this? If the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, is not allowed to perform gay marriages, then are their first amendment religious freedoms being violated? They have certainly opened up a can of worms with this lawsuit.

Discussion?

Article is here - United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage.

Note to mods - Title would not fit, so I had to take a couple of words out to make it fit.

Second note to mods. The source changed the title, so now it doesn't match at all. LOL.
Click to expand...

Boy, the Church of Christ certainly has changed. They used to have very high sphincter tone.

Seems to me like they can perform the religious sacrement of marriage even if the civil authorities won't recognise it. This is a good argument for seperating the religious sacrement from the civil function as is the case in some other countries -- a couple goes to the church to get married and then to the court house to get married again.

The fact that we in the US do have religious officials performing civilly valid marriages is left over from the days when states had official religions I would guess. That rationale is obviously no longer valid. The civil marriage, which entails special privileges and obligations for a couple under the law, should be severed from the religious sacrement.
 
There is a very big difference in Church of Christ and UCC.
LowDown said:
Boy, the Church of Christ certainly has changed. They used to have very high sphincter tone.

Seems to me like they can perform the religious sacrement of marriage even if the civil authorities won't recognise it. This is a good argument for seperating the religious sacrement from the civil function as is the case in some other countries -- a couple goes to the church to get married and then to the court house to get married again.

The fact that we in the US do have religious officials performing civilly valid marriages is left over from the days when states had official religions I would guess. That rationale is obviously no longer valid. The civil marriage, which entails special privileges and obligations for a couple under the law, should be severed from the religious sacrement.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Contraception impedes procreation in the specific instance.
Click to expand...
So what? Either it is a "natural end" for human beings to reproduce, or it isn't.

For example, let's say a married couple chooses to have a child. We know, for a fact, that a woman can only get pregnant when she is ovulating. If the married couple chooses to have sex for pleasure a week before she is ovulating, is that "immoral?" No. Does it prevent that couple from having sex while she is ovulating, for the specific purpose of having a child? Surely not.


Is the person doing this by abstaining or by contracepting?
Click to expand...
I see no justification whatsoever for drawing this distinction.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
When one deliberately impedes the natural end of an act, that is a moral deficiency, is it not?
Click to expand...

Uh, no? The natural ends of contracting polio is death or permanent disability, so I think I'll go ahead and impede that by being vaccinated.
 
mak2 said:
There is a very big difference in Church of Christ and UCC.
Click to expand...

Do tell. I'll have to read up on that one day.

The Church of Christ and I inhabit different orbits. My mother, God rest her soul, used to hate the Christers with the intensity of a thousand suns. Her worst fear was that I might end up married to one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom