North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[GusFrerotte]

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

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?]

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

... 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

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

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

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

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

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.


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.

[mlmdub130]

i think you two should read the whole post again.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

i think you two should read the whole post again.

I did and revised my post. Damn he worded it horribly, but I see the "This is what the opposition's take on it is".

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

That sounds to me like a sneaky way to intertwine church and state.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think you're taking it way too far. If I am understanding you, you wish to destroy/obliterate the right of two people to enter into a government sanctioned contract that permits the pooling of resources, promise of mutual lifetime support and the resultant sanctioning of that contract by the State. As with corporations and the laws relating their creation, existence and dissolution, the laws relating to the creation, operation and dissolution of the marriage "contract" are an essential part of our civil society and have evolved over the course of time distinct from the sacramental rite of marriage. To say that this form of contract can no longer exist is far too simplistic. To remove this form of contract creates a legal void contrary to the evolution of our legal system and, further, represents a radical change to our fundamental legal philosophy [In a far, far too simplistic nutshell, Marxism espoused the concept that such contracts were bourgeous creations to be disposed of so that any artificial "familial bonds" would go the way of capitalism].

Nope, not at all. In fact, I'm allowing everybody and anybody the right to enter into a government contract, regardless of reason. There just would be gov't contracts based on whatever it is you would like for it to be; i.e., wanting to place someone on his/her health insurance in which this person is not blood relative..currently that's just spouses and dependents (children.)

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

There is great societal value in allowing two individuals the ability to provide mutual support such that they turn to each other, rather than the govt., for their primary support and for civil society to say what legal rights, liabilities and benefits should govern such contracts. Rules governing the formation, operation and dissolution of such contracts exist b/c, generally and from a societal point of view, the underlying nature of the contract creates a benefit for all members of the society not just the parties entering into the contract.

Why does the contract have to be a marriage? Why can't two people, gay or straight, enter into such a contract of support for each other? Why can't I just support a friend in such terms, without having to be married to that friend?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

My point has always been simply that the traditional contract of marriage has, within our civil justice system, diverged from the sacramental rite of marriage and different concepts and principles now govern each. As such, the form of the contract should remain but it should be clearly delinated from the religious sacrament which developed along with it. Such contracts would still require a State sanction (just like the fomation of a corporation) and be appropriately witnessed - just not by a priest/minister.

Not everybody feels marriage has moved away from its religious aspects, so I'm not sure making it solely a legal contract would solve anything. Moreover, you're still leaving out those who would also like to have these "rights" without having to be married. For instance, I don't want to marry my best guy friend just to help him get health insurance or something. I would be helping him out so that he would not have to rely on the go't for assistance.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Also, you say "Only extending these 'rights' to gay people is still discrimination." Sorry, we must mean different things when we say "discrimination". Extending the right to enter into the civil marriage contract and providing benefits based on the contract is only "discriminatory" when some are allowed to do so and others are not. Further, it is only illegal discrimination when the denial is based on race, religion, gender or some other immutable characteristic recognized at law as a "protected class". Thus, it is perfectly constitutional for the law to prohibit polygamous marriage contracts as long as no one is allowed to enter into them. The fact that people who enter into a particular type of contract receive particular benefits, however, is not a form of discrimination against those don't enter into the particualr contract and don't receive the benefits.

I understand what you're saying, but you're stuck on marriage being the only vehicle to receive certain benefits or rights. And I'm saying, why?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

i think you two should read the whole post again.

I reread it and admit to ...misreading it the first time.Yet my opinon stands ,really with everything else going on worldwide and here at home,....this is the fight some of these people want to make?
People everywhere in the world want us dead for just being Americans,yet people here are making a "Holy war "out of same sex marriage.If 2 people of the same sex want to be together and it's not hurting anyone .....I say fine leave them alone.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

....I understand what you're saying, but you're stuck on marriage being the only vehicle to receive certain benefits or rights. And I'm saying, why?

You can call it a "banana" as far as I am concerned. I have used to the term "marriage" b/c that is the traditional way this type of contract has been identified.

In my original post on this particualar topic, I suggested that the term "marriage" be removed from the government's dictionary and be replaced by the term "civil union" to describe the particular contract that has evolved to shorthand the multiple property rights that are created when two people join into contract of mutual lifetime support.

As an example, no insurer would permit and most (if not all) State's prohibit taking out an insurance contract on someone you don't have an insurable interest on - i.e. a spouse, child or blood relative. This prevent's "gambling on someone's life. (I can't just take out a 400K life insurance policy on NC Skins and then hope he dies a horrible death to my benefit). Without a spousal relationship created by the "Marriage Contract", I simply could not take out a life insurance policy on my wife.

The "Marriage Contract", as it is currently known, creates a bundle of property rights and liabilities some of which are obvious, some not so much. You can use whatever term you want but to eliminate this form of contract would be incredibly disruptive to the estate planning, property transfers, tax liabilities, etc. etc.

It would be similar to saying "From now on, no one can incorporate."