It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 19
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MushroomWig
I've never understood why some people care that much about the private life of other people. It's just not logical in any sense. It's just evil people trying to ruin the lives of others for no reason.


We are evil? I call it evil that Homosexuals started GRID which was politically bastardized and the name was changed to AIDS and they spread it on purpose to the rest of society, I call that pretty evil. Every AIDS case (AKA GRID) in the early stages of that epidemic here in America can be traced back to one Homosexual. When your private life gets transformed into a civilization ending plague and affects the rest of society, I say its everyone's business.

Just because they call it AIDS today doesn't mean it's still not GRID. Homosexuals by and large are the biggest group affected by that disease. Always has been and always will be that way. The gay marriage agenda should be the least their worries but the agenda really isn't gay marriage. The end game is moral decay and legalization of pedophilia and its well documented that that is the real agenda with the LGBT.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grayghost
reply to post by jenlovesturtles
 


That is your right to do as you please.

But you are not married in the eyes of God.

You are married in the eyes of man but not God.

Again that is your right just remember every head will bow and every tongue will

confess at the great white throne of judgement.


If God ever asked you to approve what he does and does not recognize or "see", I didn't get the memo.

Have you got a carbon copy of it you can forward?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
*snip*Wasn't there something about judge not lest ye be judged?*snip*


Actually, that's a misunderstanding. The admonition is against hypocrites passing judgment while refusing to be judged. very common misunderstanding, but there is an article that explains the reality much better than I can. If interested, you can check this out:

Should Christian judge?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

edit on 10-5-2012 by alien because: ...referred to reply since removed...



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
*shivers all over in disgust*

Some of the replies in this thread are so disgusting I can't even comprehend it. Some of the hatred, ignorance, and bigotry in this thread is unspeakable. Homophobia is bad enough, but when those phobics use their homophobia to oppress other people it's just....I wouldn't urinate on people like that if they were on fire. Burn.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


The issue here is that people are allowed to vote however they see fit, not that they necessarily vote according to your beliefs and desires. Whether the Supreme Court agrees with your ideas or another's is another story. You and other Progressives consistently think that voting in democratic settings only apply to what you think and not what others think. This is why we have a representative Republic and not a direct democracy, but when given the opportunity for majority vote, if it doesn't go your way suddenly it becomes unfair.

I would also mention that the Supreme Court isn't necessarily always correct or on the moral side of things. Whenever did the Declaration of Independence read that unborn infants are not created equal?


Equality and non-discrimination is not my "idea". You want to be treated equally, don't you? So, it's your idea too. I think that voting on issues is appropriate until it involves withholding a group's rights, simply because they are that group, and for no other reason (hint: this is called discrimination).

I'm not going to get into the abortion issue with you, because it's off-topic for this thread. I'll just say that the Supreme Court ruling involved women's rights regarding their own bodies. Unborn infants are just that - unborn - a parasite in the woman's body. The woman's rights take precedence over the parasite's rights. Once the unborn is born and is no longer attached to the woman's body, it now legally becomes a person, with all the same rights as anyone else. I am personally against abortion in all but the most dire circumstances, but I can understand the Supreme Court's ruling on it. Just like someone can be against homosexuality personally, but understand that gays should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


Civilization-ending plague? Lol - idiot.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
How amazing would it be if all humans treated each other equally and with dignity, simply as the humans that they are, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or mental capacity.

Ah, but too many have been conditioned *so* very well, tptb must be oh so proud of their little pet project.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by seabag
The people got the issue on the BALLOT because they wanted it! People VOTED on it!!!! This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment! :


What people would that be exactly?

Judging a minority group who should be protected by Separation of Church and State.

Something is definitely screwed up.


Since when do sexual preference make one a 'minority group"? Plus, please READ what the Constitution actually says, because "Separation of Church and State" isn't in it. Anywhere. Even if you claim this decision is based on religious beliefs, then those voters were using the "free exercise thereof" of their religion, as it pertains to laws they want.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruckDriver69

We are evil? I call it evil that Homosexuals started GRID which was politically bastardized and the name was changed to AIDS and they spread it on purpose to the rest of society, I call that pretty evil.


Can you prove this? How do you know that a homophobic scientist didn't start the disease and infect homosexuals because he hated them?


The end game is moral decay and legalization of pedophilia and its well documented that that is the real agenda with the LGBT.


Again, proof please? Where's this documentation you speak of? Is there a LGBT newsletter or mission statement being distributed that advocates moral decay and legalization of pedophilia that you can forward to me?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


Marriage is not a basic right.

Or, if you will, please define what "basic" rights we should have as human beings.


Loving V. Brown is the case in which the entire SCOTUS said that marriage is a basic civil/human right. So, according to federal court precedent it is a basic right.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


North Carolina is part of the (Bible Belt)....and also in that state they marry their relatives...in NC first cousins can marry....they believe in incest and inbreeding.....and yet they are against 2 adults who love each other and are not related... marrying...to me that way of thinking is really creepy.


Incest is illegal.



14-178. Incest between certain near relatives. The parties shall be guilty of a felony in all cases of carnal intercourse between (i) grandparent and grandchild, (ii) parent and child or stepchild or legally adopted child, or (iii) brother and sister of the half or whole blood. Every such offense is punishable as a Class F felony.
14-179. Incest between uncle and niece and nephew and aunt. In all cases of carnal intercourse between uncle and niece, and nephew and aunt, the parties shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


How about you do a little research before spewing lies.

Cousins can marry, but that puts us in the same boat with New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, California and several other states.
edit on 9-5-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by seabag


Yes, but the people of N. Carolina voted, which isn’t a religious vote but a constitutional one.



It is extremely unconstitutional to take personal private religious matters to the state, create legislation governing that behavior, and trample the rights of citizens to make their own religious choice.

Marriage licences are unconstitutional in every conceivable manner. The state has no legitimate authority over these matters, "Separation of Church and State" is suppose to be the law of the land you see.



Religion gave up the religious argument when they allowed the State to start issuing licenses. That gave the State a say in who marries who, and effectively ended the religious arguments against it.

In other words, they cut their own throats when they started asking daddy to approve their choices to begin with. That same applies to the other agitators in the matter - they asked for the State to decide things for them, and the State did. Now they want to cry about what they agitated for in the first place - the State to decide for them.

If you don't ask permission, they can't say "no".



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by KillThePoor
reply to post by neo96
 


If you bothered to read my post, one of the things I explained is how a tiny minority, which is the fundamental christians of the far right, can control legislature when in a democracy the majority's will is supposed to be imposed. The sentence you are talking about concerned the different groups controlling our government and I listed three of the main groups, in my opinion, which would be corporations, Wall Street, and tiny minorities aka SPECIAL interests. These special interests have such power because of powerful propaganda machines targeting the christian fundamentalists of the far-right, who are known to vote in much greater numbers than the general population. There is nothing else linking any group to Wall Street except for my observation in the final paragraph. Very simple to understand, I would think? If you bothered to read the post, you wouldn't have asked such a question.


So the voters are to be blamed for getting off their asses and voting their conscience, but the non-voters are blameless for sitting on their asses and failing to support THEIR beliefs?

You get what you work for.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myomistress
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 


God does not hate anyone. Besides, by most Christian standards as long as you accept Christ and don't kill anybody then you're already into heaven anyway. Everyone sins, YOU sin and you're no better than anyone else. You're on a level playing field with the "sinning" gays, live with it.


I understand what you are saying and you are right, on the sinning issue. But in my bible God does not always love all his children or creation. ..especially in the OT...Everyone knows He was partial to the Israelites. He did not love the Egyptians nor their first born children. Men, women and children and babies were killed in the flood. Yes..I know they were sinners, but were the babies and children guilty too?
Many times he ask for war and there were times He specifically ordered the deaths of infants too and ordered them dashed to pieces.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Domo1
*snip*Wasn't there something about judge not lest ye be judged?*snip*


Actually, that's a misunderstanding. The admonition is against hypocrites passing judgment while refusing to be judged. very common misunderstanding, but there is an article that explains the reality much better than I can. If interested, you can check this out:

Should Christian judge?


Yes, and Jesus said that we should judge righteously. Jesus also never judged against homosexuality, so if we judge against homosexuality, we are not judging righteously, according to Jesus.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
So, let me get this straight...

We're arguing the morals of a society that, when told the Earth revolved around the sun, cried blasphemy? That, when told the Earth was actually round, cried blasphemy?

We're arguing over the morals of those people? How on earth could you ever expect them to be right?

If morals are being questioned and changed even today, then how does a moral that was invented a thousand years ago still stand? One that is proven to be nonsense? A moral that condemns a man who has never raised his hand against another, or spoken an unkind word? Someone who shows love in a harmless manner, and is persecuted for it?

The hilarity of this argument...it's unbelievable.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by KillThePoor
reply to post by neo96
 


If you bothered to read my post, one of the things I explained is how a tiny minority, which is the fundamental christians of the far right, can control legislature when in a democracy the majority's will is supposed to be imposed. The sentence you are talking about concerned the different groups controlling our government and I listed three of the main groups, in my opinion, which would be corporations, Wall Street, and tiny minorities aka SPECIAL interests. These special interests have such power because of powerful propaganda machines targeting the christian fundamentalists of the far-right, who are known to vote in much greater numbers than the general population. There is nothing else linking any group to Wall Street except for my observation in the final paragraph. Very simple to understand, I would think? If you bothered to read the post, you wouldn't have asked such a question.


So the voters are to be blamed for getting off their asses and voting their conscience, but the non-voters are blameless for sitting on their asses and failing to support THEIR beliefs?

You get what you work for.




The sad reality is, the large majority of the population really doesn't have a strong opinion on gay marriage. They'd be ok with it, and they're ok without it. And because they don't feel strongly about it either way, they are not going to go out and vote on it.




top topics



 
21
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join