• 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

As already noted, yes.

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.

Dolphins and porpoises have been known to have sex using their blowholes.
 
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?

Yes pretty much all plant species don't have sex to reproduce.

Many species of fish don't have sex to reproduce, eggs are laid in certain place and then the male will deposit sperm over the eggs.

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


Humans have sex for purposes other than reproduction. As a matter of fact there are two conditions that support this: (a) those who can reproduce that use contraception and then have sex, and (b) those unable to reproduce who also have sex.


>>>>
 
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.

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.

You have it backwards. The state should not fail to recognize their legal kinship because your holy book says its bad.

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.
Sodomy doesn't impede procreation. You just said it's ok for a couple to have sex if it doesn't impede procreation. You are a hypocrite. You can't stand by your own statements. You're just trying, and failing, to make a distinction that puts gay sex in a different category that you can disapprove of. Sex in an infertile couple, by definition, can't produce children. It is inherently non-reproductive. But you're still ok with it. Sex between homosexuals, by nature, can't produce children. But you're against it.

Because your stated beliefs about the intent of the couple, or nature of sex, are complete bull****. You disapprove of gay sex, and that's the only basis of your belief. So be a man and just say that it's the only basis for your belief. Don't lie. God hates liars.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

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.

You people just wanna have your cake and eat it too.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I had no idea you were a vegan. :D

That's just no way to live. :D

Yes. The harm to the animal is minimal, and it prevents future dog and cat generations from suffering feral existences.

I don't consider castration a minimal harm. :/

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

I think some people really don't realize they can teach their cat what they are allowed to do and what they are not.

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.

There are several breeds that have health issues that were directly caused by how they were developed as a breed. There is also plenty of breeds that are completely incapable of living in the wild due to being breed for nothing more than to meet some selfish desire of people. For example, the entire toy variety of dogs are completely incapable of being anything other than a pet.

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.

Domestication of animals over generations of time will diminish and in time nullify the animals natural instincts to survive in the wild and make them dependent on having human owners. That is not even considering that many times we breed those instincts out of them on purpose. If you are arguing that unnatural acts are not harmful there is really no way you can use domesticated cats and dogs as an example.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriages are harmful to society.

Cars also are known to kill people, but the individual risk is so minimal that they should not be banned.

so you think the government should only act in support of bigotry...got it.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

You people just wanna have your cake and eat it too.

Why would I ever want to have a piece of cake and not also be able to eat it? That would be pointless, completely. So, yes, I do want my cake and to eat it too.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Why would I ever want to have a piece of cake and not also be able to eat it? That would be pointless, completely. So, yes, I do want my cake and to eat it too.

At this point you cant even have the cake.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I don't consider castration a minimal harm.
I do. It doesn't cause them pain, it doesn't shorten their lifespan, there is no indication that they suffer any emotional distress, the species isn't going to be harmed by reducing the population.


I think some people really don't realize they can teach their cat what they are allowed to do and what they are not.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that declawing is good or bad?


There are several breeds that have health issues that were directly caused by how they were developed as a breed....
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that many breeds are healthy, or that we can always relax breeding programs to improve the health of those animals, or that domestication has often resulted in mutual benefits.


Domestication of animals over generations of time will diminish and in time nullify the animals natural instincts to survive in the wild and make them dependent on having human owners.
So what? If the animal in question stays in a domestic environment, then they have not been harmed.

Nor is it clear what the survival and success rates will be of domesticated animals. It's not like "animal life in the wild" guarantees safety and good health for all animals.

Again, the problems we see with domesticated animals are not a direct result of doing something "unnatural." If that was the case, then almost everything every human does would be morally suspect, including using computers and participating in web forums. The ethical issues arise when our choices result in harm for the animals or other humans; and we do see many mutual benefits as a direct result of the "unnatural" domestication process.

Or, to state the obvious: If there is a moral imperative to do what is "natural," then you should get rid of your clothes, your house, your money, your car, move to Tanzania and try to live on the savannah, which is the environment in which humans evolved. You cannot grow crops, you can't use fire, all you can do is gather plants, hunt and eat raw meat. And no dogs allowed. ;)
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

At this point you cant even have the cake.

Sure they can. In many places in the US, same sex couples can legally marry and all same sex marriages in those states are also legally recognized by the federal government. The only thing now is those states that ban same sex marriage, which is going to come much more quickly than your proposal.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

As already noted, yes.



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.

But are there species with asexual reproduction, that have sex?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I do. It doesn't cause them pain, it doesn't shorten their lifespan, there is no indication that they suffer any emotional distress, the species isn't going to be harmed by reducing the population.

Weird. I guess you wouldn't mind it then. lol.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that declawing is good or bad?

Bad. What I'm saying is that cats can be taught where they are allowed to use their claws.

Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that many breeds are healthy, or that we can always relax breeding programs to improve the health of those animals, or that domestication has often resulted in mutual benefits.

Pretty much all breeds have health issues related to their breeding.

So what? If the animal in question stays in a domestic environment, then they have not been harmed.

The point is you can't remove them from human care. Sorry, but that is a problem considering that before we meddled we were not required for them to survive.

Nor is it clear what the survival and success rates will be of domesticated animals. It's not like "animal life in the wild" guarantees safety and good health for all animals.

Being able to survive in the wild only means they have the necessary tools to do it. Some domesticated animals lack the instincts, while others lack the physical capability for it.

Again, the problems we see with domesticated animals are not a direct result of doing something "unnatural."

Actually, every last problem you see with domesticated animals is a result of human intervention.

If that was the case, then almost everything every human does would be morally suspect, including using computers and participating in web forums. The ethical issues arise when our choices result in harm for the animals or other humans; and we do see many mutual benefits as a direct result of the "unnatural" domestication process.

Or, to state the obvious: If there is a moral imperative to do what is "natural," then you should get rid of your clothes, your house, your money, your car, move to Tanzania and try to live on the savannah, which is the environment in which humans evolved. You cannot grow crops, you can't use fire, all you can do is gather plants, hunt and eat raw meat. And no dogs allowed. ;)

I wasn't arguing that unnatural acts are bad, but just that your example to show that they are good was poor.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

But are there species with asexual reproduction, that have sex?

Why does that matter? They are further back on the evolutionary chart, but they are also less advanced species. The point I made to begin with was that sexual reproduction developed more and more toward bonding rather than simply to make children in order to encourage relationships between the parents of children, which gives the offspring a higher chance of survival, especially important in species that have fewer offspring at a single time.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

But are there species with asexual reproduction, that have sex?
There is no question that some animal species engage in sexual behavior for reasons other than reproductions. I'm not here to give you a zoology lesson, do your own research.

In the meantime, and to repeat....

• There is no question that engaging in non-procreative sex has no effect whatsoever on the overall reproductive abilities and preferences of humans. Wearing a condom on Tuesday does not make you sterile on Wednesday.
• You have completely failed to demonstrate any moral imperative to behaviors that do not meet "natural ends."

Again: A woman is only fertile for a few days of the month. A woman can engage in sexual activity on the other days without having any effect whatsoever on her ability to reproduce. Is it thus immoral for a wife to engage in sex with her husband, with the intention of generating mutual pleasure, on days when she is not fertile?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Why does that matter? They are further back on the evolutionary chart, but they are also less advanced species. The point I made to begin with was that sexual reproduction developed more and more toward bonding rather than simply to make children in order to encourage relationships between the parents of children, which gives the offspring a higher chance of survival, especially important in species that have fewer offspring at a single time.

Name one such species.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Bonobos.

Also, chimpanzees, and many other socially-oriented primates.

Those species don't reproduce asexually.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Name one such species.

Our own species has sex mainly for bonding. The average adult human has sex around 100 times per year. Yet the average person only wants 2-3 children if any. My own family had 6 and despite my mother being Catholic, she insisted she was done after my youngest brother and they could no longer have children by their choice (via an operation). My parents certainly didn't stop having sex after that. My husband and I have 2 and are pretty much done (we have talked about adopting however, despite being more than capable of having more of our own). In fact, pretty sure even older couples have sex after they can't make babies any longer. Sex is mainly about bonding. It feels good, and therefore is likely to eventually result in offspring, particularly if the couple involved chooses not to use any prevention methods. Most couples do use prevention methods though more often than they don't.

Most primate species have sex for bonding purposes. The same is true for many cetaceans. These are considered more advanced and in fact some of the smarter species of animals.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Those species don't reproduce asexually.

Irrelevant. You already admitted that non-procreative sex does not inhibit procreation. By your own standard, sodomy does not inhibit procreation.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Irrelevant. You already admitted that non-procreative sex does not inhibit procreation. By your own standard, sodomy does not inhibit procreation.

It would be really helpful if you actually read the thread.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Those species don't reproduce asexually.

Again, so what? You apparently are not comprehending my point. The point was that sex developed, particularly for more advanced species more to encourage social pair bonds than it did to procreate.

And again, we don't even currently need sex to procreate. We could be considered semi-asexual due to that fact (eventhough our primary method of reproduction is through sexual activity, we still have a choice).
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It would be really helpful if you actually read the thread.

I have. You've said that sex between an infertile couple, or a fertile couple where the woman isn't ovulating, is acceptable. It is 100% certain that neither of these couplings are capable of producing children. The same is true of a same-sex couple. You have yet to differentiate what procreative basis distinguishes an infertile couple from a homosexual one. An infertile couple can never produce children, by definition.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

You have yet to differentiate what procreative basis distinguishes an infertile couple from a homosexual one.

The end result is the same in BOTH cases. The fact you don't like it is not our problem it's YOURS. Good thing when SSM is legalized people such as yourself will have to deal with it being legal. I've put you on the list of people I will toast when that happens.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Animal channel porn?
Dolphins and porpoises have been known to have sex using their blowholes.
 
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.

Just as an FYI, I'm about 99% sure this is President Obama's former denomination made famous by Pastor Jeremiah Wright. From what I think I understand but I could be wrong, Wright thinks homosexuality is Biblically sinful but the national level left him alone since his church was one of the most important in the denomination. Its also unusual for the denomination that its a predominantly black congregation. After Wright retired the national level issued orders that all their churches had to be gay friendly. Somewhat controversial because Trinity in Chicago has(had) closer ties with churches outside of the denomination and shares guest speakers from those churches, a big part of their MO. Many if not most of those churches believe homosexuality is sinful.
 
Back
Top Bottom