• 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

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

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

Procreation is the natural end of sex, not of simply existing.

Visbek said:
Right. But using a condom on Tuesday does not require me to use a condom on Wednesday.



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.
Click to expand...

And that is why it is licit to kill Mosquitos.

Visbek said:
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.



I see no justification whatsoever for drawing this distinction.
Click to expand...

Such a couple does not do anything to impede procreation.

Answer the question.

Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is in the nature of man to protect his life.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Procreation is the natural end of sex, not of simply existing.
Click to expand...

So you admit you are for rape then, because stopping a rape would be impeding procreation. Thank you, that's all I needed to know about you. You're dismissed son.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Procreation is the natural end of sex, not of simply existing.
Click to expand...
It is a possible end. It is not universally true, nor is it required. Do you think it should be illegal for a married couple to have sex if they were infertile?


Such a couple does not do anything to impede procreation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Having sex for pleasure does not impede procreation. Therefore sodomy does not impede procreation.

It is in the nature of man to protect his life.
Click to expand...
And it is in the nature of man to have sex for fun.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

WorldWatcher said:
It takes the government out of the "creation" equation.

It does not take the government out of the "recognition" equation.



It last count there were 1,138 rights, responsibilities and benefits tied to legal recognition of Civil Marriage. Figure 300 or so per State and that's over 16,000 actions by government contingent on recognition of Civil Marriage.



>>>>
Click to expand...

A marriage contract, isuued and made legal by an attorney would have to be recognized by the government.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

Benefits are attached to marriage, not rights. Regardless, nothing about a marriage contract that people actually deserve can't be obtained through a private contract. If you want something bad enough there is no reason you wouldn't go through the work nessarcy to obtain it. There is no reason to involve government in something just because you want it for yourself.
 
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...

I agree, but at the same time I understand WHY there is a licensing procedure. What I'm suggesting is middle-ground.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

apdst said:
A marriage contract, isuued and made legal by an attorney would have to be recognized by the government.
Click to expand...


So this contract drawn up by the attorney would provide access to the same 16,000 rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage - the only difference is that instead of spending $35 for a State certificate people get to go spend hundereds, if not thousands, for an attorney to issue them the same thing. (Our Attorney charges about $300 an hour with a one hour minimum.)


Ya people will be happy with that.


apdst said:
A marriage contract, isuued and made legal by an attorney would have to be recognized by the government.
Click to expand...


In addition such a contract issued in Massachusetts would be equally valid in - say - North Carolina, right?


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

Henrin said:
Benefits are attached to marriage, not rights. Regardless, nothing about a marriage contract that people actually deserve can't be obtained through a private contract. If you want something bad enough there is no reason you wouldn't go through the work nessarcy to obtain it. There is no reason to involve government in something just because you want it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Again the compare the costs of doing this. Marriage for heterosexual couples - automatic benefits $50 marriage license. Benefits for SS couples lawyers, fees, papers drawn up for individual items, - thousands of dollars.

No, what's going to happen is SSM will be legalized and opponents will end up dealing with it like they had to with interracial marriage. No I'm directly comparing the two, only the results where the idiots had to deal with it.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

JasperL said:
That makes no sense from a market perspective. Marriages are standard contracts, often with extensive case law to resolve ambiguities that inevitably arise, so it's very easy for third parties of all sorts to know their rights and responsibilities when dealing with "married" couples. Your way, a creditor has to see, read, interpret, and/or modify his contract to comply with the 1000s of potentially unique contracts for 'married' couples. What's gained by that, except a LOT more work for attorneys?
Click to expand...

Married is married. The contracts would prove the one thing that anyone needs to verify; that the two people are married.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

apdst said:
I agree, but at the same time I understand WHY there is a licensing procedure. What I'm suggesting is middle-ground.
Click to expand...


Does this "middle ground" you suggest change how government recognizes Civil Marriage or does it only change who produces the "Marriage Certificate" (government entity or private attorney)?

In other words the 1,138 rights, responsibilities, and benefits (federal) and hundreds more in each State don't change. The only thing that changes is the initial license/certificate, right?


**************************************

If it does change accesses to rights, responsibilities, and benefits - no one will buy into it.

If it doesn't change anything, then why make people spend hundreds more to get the same thing a $35-$50 fee does?



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

apdst said:
Married is married. The contracts would prove the one thing that anyone needs to verify; that the two people are married.
Click to expand...


Does that "contract", which one assumes you mean applies to different-sex and same-sex couples, provide the same recognition for rights, responsibilities, and benefits that currently apply to government recognition?



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

WorldWatcher said:
Does this "middle ground" you suggest change how government recognizes Civil Marriage or does it only change who produces the "Marriage Certificate" (government entity or private attorney)?

In other words the 1,138 rights, responsibilities, and benefits (federal) and hundreds more in each State don't change. The only thing that changes is the initial license/certificate, right?


**************************************

If it does change accesses to rights, responsibilities, and benefits - no one will buy into it.

If it doesn't change anything, then why make people spend hundreds more to get the same thing a $35-$50 fee does?



>>>>
Click to expand...

Fine, abolish marriage licenses altogether.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

WorldWatcher said:
Does that "contract", which one assumes you mean applies to different-sex and same-sex couples, provide the same recognition for rights, responsibilities, and benefits that currently apply to government recognition?



>>>>
Click to expand...

Of course, thats part of the objective.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Would she still get the house?
apdst said:
Fine, abolish marriage licenses altogether.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

TheNextEra said:
Again the compare the costs of doing this. Marriage for heterosexual couples - automatic benefits $50 marriage license. Benefits for SS couples lawyers, fees, papers drawn up for individual items, - thousands of dollars.

No, what's going to happen is SSM will be legalized and opponents will end up dealing with it like they had to with interracial marriage. No I'm directly comparing the two, only the results where the idiots had to deal with it.
Click to expand...

I never argued that anyone should be legally married, so the cost of whatever they wanted would cost whatever the market rate was for it.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

mak2 said:
Would she still get the house?
Click to expand...

That would be an issue involving the house.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

The church should be able to perform SSM ceremonies, but the fact that their religion supports it doesn't mean the government should. If people don't want religion defining marriage then you have to have it both ways with it being left up to the people, not having a bias where religion is allowed to dictate government policy and recognition when it happens to be convenient for your views.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

apdst said:
WorldWatcher said:
Does that "contract", which one assumes you mean applies to different-sex and same-sex couples, provide the same recognition for rights, responsibilities, and benefits that currently apply to government recognition?



>>>>
Click to expand...
Of course, thats part of the objective.
Click to expand...


So if the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage are not going to change and this "contract" issued (at greater expense) will be recognized the same as the government issues $35-$50 Civil Marriage Certificate...


.................... Then the reason for such a change makes no sense. We aren't changing what the impact of what Civil Marriage is, we are only changing who issues the piece of paper.



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

mak2 said:
Would she still get the house?
Click to expand...

Is her name on the note?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

digsbe said:
The church should be able to perform SSM ceremonies, but the fact that their religion supports it doesn't mean the government should. If people don't want religion defining marriage then you have to have it both ways with it being left up to the people, not having a bias where religion is allowed to dictate government policy and recognition when it happens to be convenient for your views.
Click to expand...

It's not about convenience. It's about allowing religious freedom when it doesn't harm others.

Do try to grasp the actual distinction and leave the strawman at the door.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Not her maiden name...see where I am going here?

Really we have been happily married for 20+ years. Least I have.

I tell her all the time she is my favorite wife...so far.
apdst said:
Is her name on the note?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Visbek said:
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.
Click to expand...

It could easily be argued that what we did and still do with dogs and cats was and still is not justified. Do you really think it's right we fix animals to control their population, declaw them(basically cutting off the end of their fingers) because we don't like them clawing up our stuff or that we kill them because they are a bother? Do you think it's right that we messed with their genetic code and gave them all sorts of genetic diseases and other issues because of our selfish desires? I don't think you can use dogs and cats as an example here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

apdst said:
Is her name on the note?
Click to expand...


Under current Civil Marriage law it doesn't' have to be. A spouse inherits property with no tax consequences.


Something that exists as a function of legal recognition of Civil Marriage, you can't write a "contract" that performs the same function. For example Estate Tax law provides that a spouse that inherits a home can sell that home and still claim the $500,000 exemption on profit in the sale even though the individual is single and would normally only be able to claim $250,000 as an exemption.



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

ecofarm said:
It's not about convenience. It's about allowing religious freedom when it doesn't harm others.

Do try to grasp the actual distinction and leave the strawman at the door.
Click to expand...

Oh please... They are arguing that not allowing SSM is the state judging that "children of God" are unfit for holy matrimony. If you want to argue along the lines of religion one could also say that it does harm others, because it will reinforce a life of sin leading these people to be judged for it and spend an eternity in everlasting hell (which is my religious beliefs).

The ministers should be allowed to perform ceremonies, but the state is under no obligation to recognize those couples as legally wed because their religious denomination believes that they are as such in the eyes of their god.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

digsbe said:
If you want to argue along the lines of religion one could also say that it does harm others, because it will reinforce a life of sin leading these people to be judged for it and spend an eternity in everlasting hell (which is my religious beliefs).
Click to expand...

I'll amend my statement:

People support freedom of religion when it does not legally harm anyone. You are creating a BS strawman when you claim that the support is based on convenience and not that principle.

The ministers should be allowed to perform ceremonies, but the state is under no obligation to recognize those couples as legally wed because their religious denomination believes that they are as such in the eyes of their god.
Click to expand...

The state is under such an obligation, because the religious freedom does not legally harm anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom