• 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

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.

Eliminate the estate tax. Does that solve the problem?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Eliminate the estate tax. Does that solve the problem?

If you eliminate it for everyone.

One down -- one thousand one hundred thirty-seven left to go. Just at the federal level.


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

Because my wife is my legal spouse, she can be treated for illness or injury at military hospitals and clinics or if we need to see a civilian doctor we can through TRICARE.

Should we eliminate medial care for the spouses of service members defending out country?



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

But it is a natural end, is it not?

Is that objectively true?

It is a natural consequence, but a much more frequent one is bonding. And there is no necessity that sex must be for or result in procreation.

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective? Because it does not seem like you do. Objectivity requires some proof, evidence, facts. Subjectivity is opinion, beliefs. Morals are subjective because it is a personal opinion of what is right or wrong, which is why so many people have so many differing beliefs on what is right or wrong.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

People used to have more children than they do now. Those aren't intended to obstruct procreation.

They had more children out of necessity. For one, the infant mortality rate was much higher before. For another, more children were needed to help around the farm when we were a more dependent on individual farms being the main source of food.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Contraception impedes procreation in the specific instance.

Is the person doing this by abstaining or by contracepting?

Doesn't matter, both have the same result and both are the person's individual choice.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

A marriage contract, isuued and made legal by an attorney would have to be recognized by the government.

And would cost more and be much more inconvenient than it is now.

And the laws could still just as easily restrict recognition (especially full recognition) of those contracts for individuals as they currently do for the marriage contract now. The difference would be less protective laws against discrimination when it comes to marriage. Plus, it would cost a whole lot more for no benefit.
 
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.

No you don't. The people are variant on their views. It only takes looking at the very institution of marriage as a legal contract to see this, given all the changes we have seen over time in regards to marriage. That is why the base majority's opinion when it comes to marriage must be limited by the US Constitution. Currently, laws that restrict marriage based on sex/gender violate that Constitution.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

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.

Rape is illicit, so stopping it at any point is justifiable, even if it will result indirectly in a contraceptive effect.

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?



Exactly. Having sex for pleasure does not impede procreation. Therefore sodomy does not impede procreation.


And it is in the nature of man to have sex for fun.

An infertile couple is not intentionally impeding or procreation, or doing anything that is inherently non-reproductive.

Sodomy is, by nature, incapable of producing children.

No.

It is a natural consequence, but a much more frequent one is bonding. And there is no necessity that sex must be for or result in procreation.

Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective? Because it does not seem like you do. Objectivity requires some proof, evidence, facts. Subjectivity is opinion, beliefs. Morals are subjective because it is a personal opinion of what is right or wrong, which is why so many people have so many differing beliefs on what is right or wrong.

But procreation is the reason, biologically, why sex exists, is it not?

Just answer the question.

Doesn't matter, both have the same result and both are the person's individual choice.

It does matter.
 
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.
what you have proposed is a Christian version of sharia law
where the religious beliefs of the majority are imposed upon the minority
think about it
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Rape is illicit, so stopping it at any point is justifiable, even if it will result indirectly in a contraceptive effect.



An infertile couple is not intentionally impeding or procreation, or doing anything that is inherently non-reproductive.

Sodomy is, by nature, incapable of producing children.

No.



But procreation is the reason, biologically, why sex exists, is it not?

Just answer the question.



It does matter.

Sex has many purposes. We could easily have developed to reproduce like some other species such as birds or fish without sex. Sex though encourages bonding and relationships, which in turn gives our species an evolutionary advantage. Bonding is truly the main purpose of sex. Procreation can easily occur without sex (as is proven through other species). But intercourse encourages bonding, which encourages stronger family ties.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Telling a minister they cant perform a ceremony in their own church is also a violation. Everyone else covered by the law is irrevelant because a violation of Freedom of Religion is what the lawsuit is about.
This lawsuit is about creating a religious right to legalize marriage. The church is asking for a special right, to join church and state. If the church wants to perform illegal weddings then they can surrender their legal ability to solemnize any marriage just like everyone else.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Sex has many purposes. We could easily have developed to reproduce like some other species such as birds or fish without sex. Sex though encourages bonding and relationships, which in turn gives our species an evolutionary advantage. Bonding is truly the main purpose of sex. Procreation can easily occur without sex (as is proven through other species). But intercourse encourages bonding, which encourages stronger family ties.

But procreation is the purpose, biologically, why sex exists, is it not?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

This lawsuit is about creating a religious right to legalize marriage. The church is asking for a special right, to join church and state. If the church wants to perform illegal weddings then they can surrender their legal ability to solemnize any marriage just like everyone else.

No, they are not. They are asking that they be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies like any other state that doesn't have SSM as being legal.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

But procreation is the purpose, biologically, why sex exists, is it not?

No that is not the ONLY purpose. She explained it above as well.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

But procreation is the purpose, biologically, why sex exists, is it not?

No, it isn't. As I've said, other species exist without ever having sexual intercourse. They reproduce differently than us. And those species thrived long before mammals came along, and many still do. Bonding is the reason sex exists.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

And would cost more and be much more inconvenient than it is now.

And the laws could still just as easily restrict recognition (especially full recognition) of those contracts for individuals as they currently do for the marriage contract now. The difference would be less protective laws against discrimination when it comes to marriage. Plus, it would cost a whole lot more for no benefit.

It would be more inconvenient for a same sex couple to get married, than it is now? More discriminatory?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

No, it isn't. As I've said, other species exist without ever having sexual intercourse. They reproduce differently than us. And those species thrived long before mammals came along, and many still do. Bonding is the reason sex exists.

Here are two questions:

Are there any species which reproduce by means other than sex?

Are there any species which have sex for a purpose other than reproduction (i.e. they reproduce some other way)?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It would be more inconvenient for a same sex couple to get married, than it is now? More discriminatory?

Yes. It would be much more inconvenient for everyone. And there would be no laws in place that would guarantee that they wouldn't still have to go through these same lawsuits that would ensure that their contracted marriages are treated the exact same as opposite sex ones.
 
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.

I think that's the point. I don't believe this court case is suggesting that NC has to make same sex marriage legal. It's arguing that the state can't punish a church, or make it illegal for a church, to have a private religious same sex marriage ceremony.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Here are two questions:

Are there any species which reproduce by means other than sex?

Are there any species which have sex for a purpose other than reproduction (i.e. they reproduce some other way)?

Many species reproduce asexually. And the vast majority of fish lay their eggs, then the male comes to fertilize the eggs after they are laid. (No sex.)

External fertilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was mistaken about birds. But even many amphibian species have external fertilization. Again, no sex. And many species have sex only to make babies. We, like many other mammals, especially those with the highest identified mental capacities are not among them. We don't require "being in heat" to want to have sex.

And sex is about bonding for us. It in facts naturally gets us addicted to the oxytocin released by having sex with the same person, creating a bond with that person.

Sex and the Brain: How Neuroscience May Soon Change All Our Relationships | Mark Turrell – Changing the World…

"Life without a partner can be significantly more stressful than life with one."

For most of us, sex is needed for many reasons, especially bonding. Heck, given our current technology, we do not need sex to reproduce. We have IVF and other methods to reproduce that require no sexual intercourse.
 
Last edited:
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.

My wife's maiden name waa on the note, when we had a note. She never changed her name.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It could easily be argued that what we did and still do with dogs and cats was and still is not justified.
I had no idea you were a vegan. :D


Do you really think it's right we fix animals to control their population
Yes. The harm to the animal is minimal, and it prevents future dog and cat generations from suffering feral existences.


declaw them
I do not support declawing cats, no matter how many times they shred my couch.


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 do not support it when it harms the animals.

In many (but not all) cases, though, the changes are mutually beneficial. A dog bred to shepherd animals will, as best we can tell, enjoy shepherding animals; a dog bred to like human beings will enjoy being around human beings. Cats often live a much better life when domesticated than when feral.


I don't think you can use dogs and cats as an example here.
I'm quite confident I can. To be clear, the keys are mutual benefit, and harm.

When we domesticate an animal, and the benefits are mutual, then the domestication is justifiable. When we take care of our dogs, and they enjoy the tasks for which we have bred them, then it is ethically irrelevant that domestication is an "unnatural" process.

If our actions harm an animal, then we have an ethical issue. The problem lies not in that we did something "unnatural" by domesticating the animal, it's that our choices have harmed that animal.

So, even if we believe that "domestication is unethical," this is not based on doing something "unnatural." It's based on doing harm.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Yes. It would be much more inconvenient for everyone. And there would be no laws in place that would guarantee that they wouldn't still have to go through these same lawsuits that would ensure that their contracted marriages are treated the exact same as opposite sex ones.

Its much easier for a same sex couple to get married, now?

Then, what the hell's the problem?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Its much easier for a same sex couple to get married, now?

Then, what the hell's the problem?

It is in many places than it would be to change everything. Which would take more time to implement? A SCOTUS ruling that says that it is unconstitutional to restrict marriage based on sex/gender or a complete revamp of the marriage and spousal recognition laws that would completely change how society deals with marriage and the kinship rights/privileges/responsibilities that go with it? Pretty sure it is the first one, the SCOTUS ruling.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Are there any species which reproduce by means other than sex?
As already noted, yes.


Are there any species which have sex for a purpose other than reproduction (i.e. they reproduce some other way)?
Many species do, in fact, exhibit homosexual behavior.

Many primates (and, I'm guessing, lots of other animals) engage in sexual acts for pleasure, as well as to establish social connections and hierarchies, and are not thinking too much about the reproductive aspect. For example, bonobos are well-documented as using sex for a wide variety of purposes, such as stress relief and conflict avoidance.
 
Back
Top Bottom