North Carolina to consider banning same sex marriage with constitutional amendment

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Well friend you show me PROOF of anything about the stories and people in the bible and I'll give you a gazillion dollars.. but I can give you the same amount of proof that Christians accept for every other story they believe.

I posted the link just on the last page (page 2).

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow




Jonathan and David gay lovers?

I guess G-d had sex with creation because it says He loves His creation.

Israel had sex with Joseph and made him a colorful coat, because he was the beloved son.

I should have sex with G-d, because I love him.

Or perhaps I should have sex with an act (kindness).

By the way . . . all those examples are times the word 'ahab is used in the Tanakh (which is the same word used to describe the feelings between Jonathan and David).

. . . is a good read . . .

But you said Yeshua hinted at homosexuality . . . so proof?

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.

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)

I like how nobody can explain why in history, marriage has always been between the opposite sex. That theme still prevails in a polygamist marriage as well.

Also, keep in mind that there are lots of "things" in The Bible yet not all of them are good. Murder, famine, molestation, sodomy, lying, cheating, stealing, slavery, war, ect. Also keep in mind that early man when writing The Bible had little scientific understanding of things so everything to them was religious. The Church was the government that kept things in order. Also keep in mind that such an entity also was bad, inquisitions ring a bell.

I am not against gay people, but I disagree that they should be married. They can call it marriage but I will never recognize it as such. I could care less if you have a piece of paper that allows you the same exemptions as married people but it is not marriage. Lawful Union sounds better, calling it marriage is highly offensive to people with certain religious beliefs.

I also understand that gays may not recognize or respect the fact that religious people with certain views believe homosexual activities to be a sin. Most gay people I know are respectful here in Texas, they are not trying to shove their ideology down our throats.

Please also keep in mind that not that long ago gay people had to stay in the closet so to speak. Be happy that gay relationships are aired on cable. Be happy that you have your own magazines and other types of published reading material. Be happy that gays are considered a valid demographic that advertisers make billboards for and that politicians pander to. Be happy that homosexuality is not illegal like it is elsewhere. But please respect the long held tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. You are not only offending Christians here in America but other faiths as well across the world. Heteros will respect you more for it if you do not push this issue on society right now.

Give it 20 more years.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Well friend you show me PROOF of anything about the stories and people in the bible and I'll give you a gazillion dollars..

You know what's interesting.

There is actual history of the time "bible Jesus" was supposed to have lived. However - - the actual real history does not support the myth.

Banning equal rights because of religious reasons should be unconstitutional. It may take a while - - but equality will eventually win out.

Reply to post by Annee

Well apparently you do not know history too well.

thedevineevidence.com...

And all those martyrs died because of a man that was a figment of their imagination … a myth. Makes perfect sense.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
I like how nobody can explain why in history, marriage has always been between the opposite sex. That theme still prevails in a polygamist marriage as well.

Maybe death for blasphemy was a deterrent.

We are talking Legal Marriage. Which is a government contract to protect individual and property rights.

I'm so sick of this sentimental religious marriage crap.

All you god believers - - - please get married in your church - - - and leave the Legal Marriage to the rest of us.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Yes.. in fact most all interpretations present this version.
It's just the spin on how that story should affect your life that changes.

Are the lovers in the right, or the father that outcasts his son.
Of course unless you are blind the love is spoken of in an endearing way.

I'll say this now, not as a disclaimer, because I think that is a weakness of character, but so you guys can understand my point of view. I'm a straight male, I have a friend of about 12 years that came out about 5 years ago. He's my best friend and completely equal so I don't see why he shouldn't be able to enjoy anything I can.

reply to post by Annee


Yeah.. i don't understand why they think it's a problem. I mean if they believe it's wrong there is probably zero chance they have to worry about their church ever hosting a gay marriage.

reply to post by Leonidas


Humanists called their own ideology a religion till Christians challenged them on separation of church and state, then suddenly it was no longer a religion.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Annee

 

And all those martyrs died because of a man that was a figment of their imagination … a myth. Makes perfect sense.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

reply to post by Annee

All you god believers - - - please get married in your church - - - and leave the Legal Marriage to the rest of us.

What does this even mean Annee? Catholics get married in a Catholic church, Lutherans in Lutheran church, Baptists in Baptist church, and atheists at City Hall. But everyone has to make a trip to City Hall.

Well North Carolina better be reconsidering that consideration!

Seriously, if the Republican party wants to gain some credit and actually be the party about freedom. Then they need to stop waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because gay exist and want to get married to each other.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Annee

 

Well apparently you do not know history too well.

Oh but I do.

I guess I choose my history - - as you do.

The History of Marriage Licenses

Marriage licenses were unheard of prior to the Middle Ages.

www.ehow.com...

This is about Legal Marriage. I could care less what god believers think about it.

Is god mentioned in the government contract Marriage License?

reply to post by Mcupobob


Exactly.
What's funny is that the majority of these bible beating politicians are atheist/agnostic/secular and only stand on these points to get what they consider the vote of the ignorant.

If people vote based on things like gay marriage over foreign policy and economy that is in fact an ignorant vote.

Republicans are going to vote us straight to the World War Three president and have us all destroyed trying to keep gay couples from getting married!

reply to post by impressme


Arguments against gay marriage so often bear close resemblance to the arguments once made against inter-racial couples. People try to turn the issue on its head by claiming gays are asking for special rights, not equal rights, but would they think the same thing if we substituted race for sexual orientation? After all African Americans had the right to marry too, but they were legally required to only marry who the state decided they could. Same arguments are used against gay marriage.

Constitutional amendments are supposed to protect people's rights, what part of allowing people to marry who they want to marry at all infringes or endangers the rights of straight people? This is going to be in the state Constitution if they actually go through with it correct? Wouldn't the Supreme Court be able to knock it down as unconstitutional on the grounds that it discriminates and actually restricts rights?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


You would think the courts would side with equality, however there are twenty nine states that have constitutionally banned same sex marriage. Twelve states have statutes against it.

A huge push for amending state constitutions to specifically prohibit same sex marriage has occurred in the past decade. It started with the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, in addition to the US supreme courts ruling in 2003 striking down 14 state sodomy laws. Particularly Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law which stated the following:

A Class C misdemeanor when someone "engages in deviant sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex," prohibiting anal and oral sex between members of the same sex.

September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs into law the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
November 3, 1998: Voters in Alaska approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
November 2000: Voters in Nebraska approve Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
November 2002: Voters in Nevada approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
August 3, 2004: Voters in Missouri approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
September 18, 2004: Voters in Louisiana approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
November 2004: Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
April 5, 2005: Voters in Kansas, by a 70% to 30% margin, approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
November 8, 2005: Voters in Texas approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
June 6, 2006: Voters in Alabama approve a approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, with 81% of voters voting in favor.
November 2006: Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
November 4, 2008: Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida approve state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The religious right as been destroying this country for the past thirty years and is still going. The fight for liberty and equality has been losing, particularly in the past decade.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by impressme

 

Arguments against gay marriage so often bear close resemblance to the arguments once made against inter-racial couples.

Religion.

Curse of Ham

www.afrostyly.com...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Mcupobob

 

Exactly.
What's funny is that the majority of these bible beating politicians are atheist/agnostic/secular and only stand on these points to get what they consider the vote of the ignorant.

If people vote based on things like gay marriage over foreign policy and economy that is in fact an ignorant vote.

Republicans are going to vote us straight to the World War Three president and have us all destroyed trying to keep gay couples from getting married!

Which ones specifically. Don't just make a blanket statement about an unseen person. That's like saying there's terrorists out there who want to hurt us.

reply to post by Observer99

How typical that you would use the one thing that should be all inclusive and healing as a weapon, like so many before and will continue after you. Religion, is not the end all or be all of life. It is the highest of all things and wisdom to use religion to heal a society, to provide hope, but what hope can there be, when it is used as a weapon, as it is so often used?

Social change comes in many forms, and like those before us, if it is radical of an idea, then people fear it, using the death of society, failing to see what good could come of it. If you look from a historical perspective, was it so wrong that we ended the years of oppression against a people all cause their skin was a different color? That we ended years of discrimination against a people, cause we viewed them as a threat? Was it so wrong that we allow scientific achievements, that benefit all, to go forward, rather than stifle the very dreamers who would dare question the very word of what was thought as accepted and wrapped up neatly in one book?

There is no one path to salvation, we are a varied people and our beliefs reflect that, however, we are a nation of laws. Religion can only provide so much, and the rest has to come from the laws that govern us wisely, to that end we have to also ensure equality for all people in the society. To ask one group to play by the rules, pay their taxes, be productive members of society, yet deny them the same benefits, rights, freedoms and luxuries of the rest is the very essence of discrimination. It was not right, when it was done to the native Americans, or the Chinese, or the African Americans or the Hispanic population, nor is it right to do it to those who are homosexual.

You state that we should follow the Christian creed, yet many would scoff at the introduction of the Muslim Shari’a, there is no different, same concept, both would have people fall under a set of laws that were unfair and based on religion and a religious idea, even if they did not believe or were of that religion. Why is it right to demand we follow one and not the other? That is the height of hypocrisy in its finest point, like the arguments that the founding fathers had over the issue of slavery.

People have the right to choose what they believe, and to expect equality under the law. To deny either violates the very spirit and the very letting of the law and documents that govern this country.

Originally posted by Annee
...
All you god believers - - - please get married in your church - - - and leave the Legal Marriage to the rest of us.

Are you saying that religious people do not have the right to a legal marriage and that only gays do? Care to touch my other talking points?

Also, why do gays want a legal marriage? What do they hope to gain other than being married?