It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


North Carolina to consider banning same sex marriage with constitutional amendment

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by spyder550
You have absolutely got to be kidding -- what in the hell do you mean - not every minority group deserves rights. That is the core being of the United States of America. Without that tenant we are absolutely rubbish as a nation.

You have not presented over half the worlds view, it is obvious that you don't have a passport, your worldview is very small. You are the hypocrite, you might feel more comfortable in a theocracy - may I suggest Iraq or Afghanistan -- those are the beliefs that you are aligned with. May I suggest you get a passport and move. Our democracy will not change and you will find yourself being more and more uncomfortable.

If there is a state constitutional amendment -- it will be ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court - because it is so obviously unconstitutional.

By the way sodomy is only sin to you because you say so, it has no bearing on anyone else gay or straight. To thinking people it is as remarkable as deciding between wheat or white bread for toast.
edit on 12-9-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

What do you mean, what do I mean?, no, you've got to be kidding me, you said that every minority group deserves rights, you've lost your mind, should murderers form a group to say they are victimized by society, should rapists form a group and say they are victimized by soceity, should pedophiles form groups and say they have been victimized, they are minority groups, should we change the laws to allow these people to practice their ways,? absolutely not, but, but, they are victimised and blah blah blah, get a grip.

lol, I care not what some sodomite loving government says, I care what GOD says. Telling me to move to a different country is a joke, maybe you may feel more comfortable getting an island somewhere and taking all the sodomites with you there, they'll all be dead in a geneartion but at least you'll have it your way. In regards to it being unconstitutional, really you need to get your head out of the sand, there are many laws that have been put into place that are unconstituional, has it stopped them yet? no, and as I say, I care not what some pack of corrupt zionist/occultist theiveing homicidal maniacs from the government say.

Sodomy is not a sin because I said it is, it's a sin full stop, and I've got over half the world to back me up, you're outnumbered, jew, christians, muslims, and many other faiths regard sodomy as a sin and a sickness of the mind. Dont expect the world to adjust to your perverted point of view, its not like chosing white or brown bread at all. If everyone was as perverted as sodomites then we would cease to exist, yes thats right the sodomites wouldnt even have been born, if we all eat white or brown bread we wont cease to exist, nor does any religion I know of tell you that eating white or brown bread is a sin, you've lost a grip on reality long ago and your analogy was an absolute fail jsut like the rest of your post. Anyway, I'm not goign to change my mind regardless of how much sodomites and thier sympathizers whinge about it. We'll see who's right on the other side, see how you go then.

edit on 12-9-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:57 PM
I am not going to read through of the anti-straight hate and vitriol being spread in this thread. I do not support same sex marriage. I believe that it is the starting point of a very slippery slope. Let gays have their government approved civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:59 PM
Couldnt agree more with you on that one sonofliberty, these GOD hating, straight hating sodomites will try anything to pervert the world.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:09 PM
I guess Im one of those weirdos because I have no issue talking to my kids about why 2 people of the same gender might be kissing. If anything I would ask them..."Why do you think they are?" An answer might end up surprising you. "Because they love each other" was the one I always got, and I could then use that to start a dialogue about a complex matter in a very simple way. People dont give children or eachother, enough credit. Neither side should be bashing the other and should instead be focused on the betterment of things for all parties involved, even the ones they do not like. Seems thats more in tune with Christ consciousness than trying to elevate ourselves above others based on how we choose or choose not to live. There are certain universal things that we all need. Love is a big one. To shut love out of your life is to basically shut out all light. Call that light whatever the hell you want...thats not the important part. The important part is the love. Marriage for many people is an expression of that love. If you are truly in tune with love you understand that it extends outward to us all and is not something that you simply cultivated out of nowhere and have exclusive rights to.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:22 PM
When the “United States” was founded, it was a concept where different peoples and beliefs could come together to deal with the “big picture”. Be it the common defense, or whatever. As time when on it included the concept that “human rights” that of the individual over the point of view of the majority at any one time, were at least important and in the end the foundation for all liberties. In the end, the individual is the foundation of all we are. If two people want to commit to live together, to share property, (and problems) for the rest of their life, I don’t know how “natural” that is, gay or straight. But who I am to tell two consenting adults they don’t have the right? Perennial presidential candidate Kicky Freedom put it well when asked if he was for gay marriage. (he’s straight by the way). He said “Absolutely! I think gay people have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us” Well said.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:26 PM
The arguments that are often presented against gay marriage are as follows:
1) A marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Yet ultimately, how does that explain all of the people who decide to live together, have children and not get married? What about the 1960’s and free love, where people shacked up? And who is to decide who should and should not get married, as there are some individuals out there that should not get married or be married in that kind of relationship, after all should a marriage between an abusive person and someone of the opposite sex is considered valid, yet 2 people who are of the same sex are not considered valid, even though they are stable and not abusive?

2) Marriage is for procreation. Yet that argument fails every time, when you consider the number of unwed mothers, single family. Would a rapist be the ideal father of the year. And what of the people who are sterile, does this mean their marriage is invalid? Or how about child molesters, should they be parents? Or any number of harden criminals out there?

3) Same-sex couples are not the proper environment to raise children. Reality is that there has been no hard study as to the long term effects of a child raised in a same sex couple household. Not one, all those that are out there are biased and do not stand up to proper peer review, or are heavily weighted towards the religious aspects of society.

4) Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Well last time the constitution of the United States was checked, it was stated that we have the Freedom of Religion, and thus it stands to reason that we have the Freedom From Religion. Not one religion has any more weight than the other in this country nor should it. Would you agree that by allowing Christian morality is the same as allowing the Muslim Shari’a into the country, after all that is where such would head and ultimately lead us down to.

5) Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the Species. Who says people want to have children? After all not every one, and they are out there, want to have children, or even like them or desire to have anything to do with them. And what of people who are past the age of child rearing, are they now forbidden to get married, cause they can not have a child?

6) Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. How does what goes one in one house affect what happens in another house? How does 2 men being married and living together have anything to do with what goes on in their neighbors house? Does that not invite the state to look into the private bedrooms of everyone?

7) We shouldn’t alter heterosexual marriage, which is an institution that goes back to the dawn of time. Well lets think what other institutions go back, that we have chosen to do away with or prohibit. Slavery comes to mind, since the dawn of time, people have sought to control others, and yet we have done away with such. And prostitution, another quaint institution has been outlaws in most of the states, and is considered illegal.

8) Same-Sex marriage is untried. Yet it has been done in Denmark, since 1989, and it has been shown that it is successful.

9) Same-sex marriage would start us down a slippery slope towards legalized incest, bestiality and polygamy. Yet no one wants to admit that all of those have nothing to do with the other, and the ladder has already been decided by law and courts long ago. So gay marriage is something new.

10) Granting gays the right to marry is a special right. Well now how is having the board equal special? After all is not allowing one group the same rights as another group, the essence of discrimination?

11) Churches would be forced to marry gay people. Last time I checked, the Freedom of Religion is just that and the state is forbidden by law to interfere in the goings on in a church. If anything legally, the church’s and religious institutions are often afforded more tolerance and lack of government over site than any other organization. It would not be right to force a church to wed gay people, especially if it violates its doctrine and the government has already broached this subject with the US Navy, by stating it would allow for same sex couples to wed, but would leave it up to the church, if they would allow for such.

12) If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools. There is a bit of a problem with that in its basis. The facts are that children are going to experiment with sex. They already do, and if current events and modern history has shown, the parents are not teaching the children about safe sex, not with the rise of unwed teen age mothers, and the raise of stds among the young people. This may be a good thing, that means that people are going to look at safe sex practices and be a bit more open about telling children about such.

13) Gay marriage would undermine society. Got to love that argument. Think back when you were growing up, what was going to undermine society? As I can recall, there are a few that comes to mind: Drugs, rock and roll. Elvis, the Beetles, and desegregation. Yet here we are, more people have the same opportunities, society has not collapsed due to the onslaught of Rock and Roll, or any other music group. Drugs are still on the streets, yet society still endures.

14) If gay people want to get married, all they have to do is become straight and marry the opposite sex. This is a very affront to the one freedom that we all have, the freedom to choose. For those who are married, would you want someone telling you who you could and could not marry? After all would society not be better and more structured if that chose was taken away from everyone, where people would be forced to wed a person that they did not want?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I am not going to read through of the anti-straight hate and vitriol being spread in this thread. I do not support same sex marriage. I believe that it is the starting point of a very slippery slope. Let gays have their government approved civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

Then you'd agree that the socioeconomic aspects of being married should be stripped from marriage and leave it to be a strictly religious institution with no benefits, right?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I am not going to read through of the anti-straight hate and vitriol being spread in this thread. I do not support same sex marriage. I believe that it is the starting point of a very slippery slope. Let gays have their government approved civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

Then you'd agree that the socioeconomic aspects of being married should be stripped from marriage and leave it to be a strictly religious institution with no benefits, right?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:13 PM
If you leave this question up to the states,then some will decide not to allow it.It is easy to have this opinion,because I grew up in North Carolina,and I can tell you that the OVERWHELMING majority of NC people (NOT transplants) support not fixing what aint broken.Let that sleeping dog lie.BAHGOOFUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P.S.,I was born in TEXAS,so I was a transplant too,but I agree with the locals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:44 PM
I'm fed up of this stupid issue with two consenting adults so what if they are same sex their big and grown leave them alone, why don't these people concentrate on pedo's and perverts etc with harder sentencing *end rant*

edit on 12-9-2011 by Diamonquecharm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:16 PM
Lets play a thinking game. Say down the road same sex marriage is legitimized across the nation. Whats next? Can I marry a goat? You say no, but what if I told you I genuinely loved that goat? Would gays stand up for my rights too? OK, manimal marriage is too weird for you, lets try another.

Say I want to marry my sister or my brother, does that need to be illegal? Will gays back my rights up if I feel the need to marry my sister or brother? What about marrying my dad?

I would also like to add that no gay rights have been taken away. Marriage was designed as between a man and a women. USA is a Christian founded nation, they respect the marriage between a man and a women from the various faiths. No rights have been taken away, gays want something that was exclusive to a married man and women.
edit on 12-9-2011 by BIGPoJo because: further thoughts.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by BIGPoJo

There is a seperation between church and state. We can't rule our country by one religion or religion for that matter. If churches decided not to marry gays or 2 people for other reasons such as the people are not members or of that religion that is fine. It becomes a whole matter when you push religous ideals on the masses. This is why the orginal settles left england in the first place and why many more left thier country over the years to get away from the religous government.
You can't equate homosexuality with incest or beastility it is not even in the same catergory. Frankly I don't care what people do in their own homes as long as it is not abusive or harmful. If 2 sisters or brothers of legal age love each other that is fine with. As as beastility or underage there is a reason that is against the law because one of the partners can not give consent.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:56 PM
I think that people who are worried about the sanctity of marriage should be less concerned about people who want to get married and more concerned about people who want to get divorced. Where is the cry for a law banning divorce?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Marriage is a religious institution between 1 man and 1 woman.

Read the history of marriage. Religion has very little to do with it - - other then the religious belief was the rule of the day.

Women were owned/property - they had no rights. They were bought/sold - - and used for political alliances.

Marriage licenses were appropriated by the Catholic church because it was profitable.

I am so sick of hearing about hetero sanctity of marriage - - - with more then 50% divorce rate among god believers.

"Marriage License" is a government contract with no mention of god or religion.

Even God believers can not be legally married in church - without the government contract.

Screw religion - - you don't own the word Marriage.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:33 PM
I like how no christian in this thread addressed my pointing out homosexual relationship in the bible and the fact that not until much later after jesus did people add things against homosexuality in there.

This country is founded on freedom of religion. If gay people marry it does not harm anyone else therefore it is their right. If they want to say they reinterpreted the bible and decided they could be married under it who am I to judge and say their interpretation is better or worse than anyone else.

Anyone who says they can't isn't a christian themselves.

United Church of Christ - supports gay marriage
Unitarian Universalism - supports gay marriage
The Union for Reform of Judaism - supports gay marriage
Some Orthodox Jews support gay marriage
Bhuddists don't make a fuss about it so they dont really take a position.

Main stream and non main stream these are religions, the institutions that religious posters here allow to shape the definition of marriage.
edit on 12-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:53 PM
I don't really care either way. As long as they aren't hitting on me we're all good.


I see no reason to not recognize polygamy as a legal marriage (marriages). After all, who are YOU to judge their choice of lifestyle. The gays hate it when people judge THEIR lifestyle, so, as such polygamy is just as valid in my eyes,

And no I am not a polygamist. But once you let one 'alternative lifestyle' in, that door has to stay open for everyone.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I see no reason to not recognize polygamy as a legal marriage (marriages).

I have no problem with any group marriage. And Polygamy should never have been made illegal under religious freedom.

However - - it gets into more complicated legal issues of taxes and rights.

Two people marrying (no matter the gender) changes nothing in government structure.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I like how no christian in this thread addressed my pointing out homosexual relationship in the bible and the fact that not until much later after jesus did people add things against homosexuality in there.

They won't.

They'll just tell you your interpretation is wrong - - and give you theirs.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Gay marriage, the very nature is the essence of social change, the likes of which has not been seen since the civil rights demonstration of the 1960’s. Historically, social change is something that the general public fears, as it challenges the very concepts of what people believe as being right or wrong, within their view of morality.

Not all social change is good. Infinite individual rights would not be in the interest of society. There must be standards set, there must be lines drawn. Wherever one would draw the lines, the terrible problem is that you and most people today refuse to admit that it is the case.

I agree with the quoted person that gay marriage is a terrible mistake for society. That conclusion comes from a purely rational, non-religious standpoint. I've previously wasted my time explaining it for you all, but it's kind of like explaining the finer points of political science to a kindergarten class.

Essentially, very few people reach my level of intellect and wisdom, with the ability to see the big picture, free of groupthink, able to view human society effectively from the outside. And let me tell you what I see from here -- a pack of spoiled, ignorant, dangerous apes, who have only gotten this far by sheer luck, now standing on the precipice of the abyss and seemingly eager to dive headlong into their own arrogant destruction.

What got us here? The positive aspects of the human himself achieved some basic elements of civilization, but for many centuries, it has been the religion of Christianity whose underlying principles have guided society to reach its pinnacle. Whether Christianity is "true" is irrelevant, in the end what matters for a society are the results.

Western civilization reached its apex in the latter half of the 20th century, and is now in a steep decline. Gay marriage is just one aspect of that decline. Most people simply do not have the intellectual faculty to understand why society needs norms and standards. Without a positive religion "falsely" setting those standards for the masses, our society WILL eventually collapse. I have not seen one single atheist come forth with an alternative to religion, I have not seen one single atheist create a set of norms and standards of behavior for humans based purely on reason, let alone explain how it will take the place of religion in human society. From atheists I see nothing more than arrogant condescension, the desperate desire to be "proven right" and to tear down the beliefs of others. In effect, and very amusingly, most self-proclaimed atheists are clear examples of why atheism utterly fails as a system of beliefs for most humans.

But hey. Whether I like it or not, I have tickets to the big show. I might as well try to enjoy watching you all go down in flames.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Observer99 because: edit

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:15 PM
While I do not agree with homosexuality, the foundation of this country promises equality to all, and that must be followed. With that being said . . . .

Originally posted by The Old American
Religious intolerance by extremist "Christians" that have zero clue what the word of Jesus was really about.
. . .

So a Torah observant Yeshua, supported homosexuality?

Originally posted by links234
This is what happens when you vote for true 'conservatives', people that put their God before their country.

. . .

I know. how dare people have a belief system

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

What's funny is in reality Jesus talked about very suggestive love between two men,


however it was only hundreds of years later that the people that finished the bible (just wrote whatever they wanted never having met jesus) added the anti homosexuality stuff.

. . .

Ahh . . . so the writers of Tanakh added that stuff hundreds of years after the appearance of a man that the followers of the same set of writings fail to acknowledge even existed.

That makes logical sense.

edit on 9/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in