North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

The whole reason this is even debatable is that we have made the means(sexual activity, lust) and end in itself. Sex is just short for sexual reproduction, thus we have become obsessed with the act in itself more than what the whole thing is used for. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or Darwin, as both seek to explain the natural order of things, and in that natural order of things men and women come together to produce offspring.

Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. Even Justin Raimando from the American Conservative(who is openly gay) asked why did the gay community want to take on heterosexual hand me downs(marriage) in an article in one of the past issues. It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.

Not too long ago blacks and whites had separate bathrooms.

How stupid does that sound now?

I don't know if anyone heard of this but a band called Pussy Riot recently staged a protest at a cathedral in Moscow. The price of said protest was 2 years in jail for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred".

...

Needless to say I will be very interested to see how many people that supported Chick Fil-A on August 1st in the name of "free speech" will cry foul.

The fact that they were punished criminally for their speech is just wrong. To get a two year prison sentence for "religious hatred" demonstrates just how fragile freedom of speech is. Clearly, the sentence imposed on them was motivated by their anti-religious/anti-Putin message.

At the same time, they probably would have been arrested here too - just on different grounds. You can't burst into private property, whether it's a church, restaraunt of grocery store and disrupt their business in the name of free speech. Not sure they would have gotten two years but they might well have gotten six months and some heavy fines. Freedom of Speech is not an unlimited right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want.

[EDIT = How is what they did any different from flash mobs that break into businesses and disrupt/vandalize the business? How would you like it if, as your sitting in your home, 20 kids rush in and start a mini-house party scaring your kids and breaking your stuff?]

Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. Even Justin Raimando from the American Conservative(who is openly gay) asked why did the gay community want to take on heterosexual hand me downs(marriage) in an article in one of the past issues. It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.

Which marriage? Religious marriage is different than civil marriage although intertwined. Civil marriage (which is what we're really talking about) was created to provide a legally sanctioned union based on the religious notion of marriage. Why this is really even needed theoretically by anyone baffles me. My solution-figure out a way to get rid of civil marriage. We don't need it.

... It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.

Homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in the APA's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1) in 1952. There it was designated as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Viewing homosexuality as a mental illness was not controversial at the time as it coincided with prevailing societal attitudes. DSM-II, published in 1968, listed homosexuality as a sexual deviation, but sexual deviations were no longer categorized as a sociopathic personality disturbance. LGBT Mental Health Syllabus (http://www.aglp.org/gap/1_history/#declassification)

Sociopaths are usually defined as people displaying anti social behavior which is mainly characterized by lack of empathy towards others that is coupled with display of abnormal moral conduct and inability to conform with the norms of the society. People suffering from antisocial personality disorder are often referred to as sociopaths. Some of the other characteristics that sociopaths may display are stealing, lying, lack of remorse for others and towards living beings, irresponsible behavior, impulsive behavior, drug or alcohol abuse, problems with the law, violating rights of others, aggressive behavior and much more.

Sypmtoms:
◦Displays heightened levels of deceitfulness in dealings with others, which involves lying, conning others without remorse, or even using aliases
◦Inability to abide by the social norms and thus violating law
◦Displays aggressiveness and often tends to get into assaults and physical fights
◦Displays complete lack of empathy for others and their situation for which they are responsible
◦Displays no feelings or shallow feelings
◦Displays impulsive behavior which is indicated by the inability to plan for the future
◦Displays no concern for safety of others around them or self
◦Inability to sustain a consistent behavior that stems mainly from irresponsibility especially at work place or in other dealings
◦Displays promiscuous behavior
Sociopath – Sociopathic Personality Disorder (http://depressiond.org/sociopath-sociopathic-personality-disorder/)

The characterization of homosexuality as a "sociopathic disorder" stemmed from the fact that it wasn't considered acceptable to society. Not from some identifiable, treatable medical condition. It was more, "Your different, your - you must be a sociopath." Similarly, the idea that homosexuality was deviant behavior was tied to societal norms not some underlying medical condition.

As for the rest of your quote - please. When you say marriage was created for the purpose of creating a "family" ... that's a pretty loaded term. The "family", as we know it, in the modern creation (romantic love of two partners, freely entered into for the purpose of starting raising children) was not common before the 17th-18th century. Marriages were business arrangement and entered into for any number of reasons - tying two clans together, creating a beneficial land deals, etc. The fact that kids came into the deal was often an afterthought or simply unimportant to the marriage.

Which marriage? Religious marriage is different than civil marriage although intertwined. Civil marriage (which is what we're really talking about) was created to provide a legally sanctioned union based on the religious notion of marriage. Why this is really even needed theoretically by anyone baffles me. My solution-figure out a way to get rid of civil marriage. We don't need it.

I disagree. Their are so many legal ramifications to being married that to get rid of the legal form would be incredibly disruptive to business, contracts, estate and property law.

If someone dies intestate, their property goes first their spouse.
If a couple buy a house together, the a creditor may not take the house based on one spouse's debts.
Married individuals have historically lower individual insurance rates.
etc., etc., etc. ...

Civil marriage creates a host of legal short cuts that help organize property rights. Doing away with it would create a giant legal vacuum and make everyone's life more difficult.

I disagree. Their are so many legal ramifications to being married that to get rid of the legal form would be incredibly disruptive to business, contracts, estate and property law.

If someone dies intestate, their property goes first their spouse.
If a couple buy a house together, the a creditor may not take the house based on one spouse's debts.
Married individuals have historically lower individual insurance rates.
etc., etc., etc. ...

Civil marriage creates a host of legal short cuts that help organize property rights. Doing away with it would create a giant legal vacuum and make everyone's life more difficult.

Fully aware of that. I know it's a non-starter but in my imaginary theoretical proof test I always ask myself "Would I set this all up the same way in FRPLGlandia if I magically acquired land and could start a country on my own?"

and in this case the answer is hell no. In my imaginary FRPLGlandia the gov't wouldn't have the first damn thing to do with marriage. But I do realize the impracticality of the notion.

Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. .




edit: Revising this since I reread his statement. He's claimed this is what the opposition thinks. He worded that horribly...lol

Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. .


Really?Well shit ,I'm glad we cleard that up.:doh::stop:


So people who don't want any ..."offspring".....can't get married and what about people that can't have children,........I guess they need to be checked before getting married ,....according to you.:twocents:

i think you two should read the whole post again.