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: 20
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by seabag

Sow me the constitutional right for gay marriage! I’ll wait!




# 1 it is clear that marriage is a religious matter.


Not since they started allowing the State to issue licenses for it. That made it a State matter, not religious. The separation of Church and State cuts in both directions.





edit on 2012/5/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


Religion gave up the religious argument when they allowed the State to start issuing licenses.


Historically incorrect.

The Church was the state.
The Pope had the power to make or break Kings in Catholic nations.

Example:

Following perhaps the Byzantine or visigothic formula, the French coronation ceremony called Sacre primarily included the anointing or unction of the king and was consequently first held in Soissons in 752 for the Carolingian king Pepin the short to legitimate his deposition of the last of the Merovingian kings, since they were only elected by an assembly of nobles inside the royal family and according to hereditary rules. A second coronation of Pepin by Pope Stephen II took place at the Basilica of St Denis in 754 which is the first recorded by a Pope. The unction served as a reminder of the baptism of king Clovis I in Rheims by archbishop Saint Remi in 496/499, where the ceremony was finally transferred in 816 and completed with the use of the Holy Ampulla found in 869 in the grave of the Saint.


A coronation grants an aura of "legitimacy" to the monarch.
Coronation of French Monarchs

Ok but that's France, and we were actually focusing on the UK more particularly in this discussion of the history of marriage licences.

So now I will reveal the power that the Church of England has (which is reminiscent of the Catholic Church in it's respective nations):


Seated again on the Chair of Estate, Elizabeth then took the coronation Oath as administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the lengthy oath, the Queen swore to govern each of her countries according to their respective laws and customs, to mete out law and justice with mercy, to uphold Protestantism in the United Kingdom and protect the Church of England and preserve its bishops and clergy.


Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II


She proceeded to the altar where she stated "The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God," before kissing the Bible and putting the royal sign-manual to the oath as the Bible was returned to the Dean of Westminster.


Why is the Church of England crowning the Queen? BTW in a "Constitutional Monarchy" which the UK is, the monarch has the power to dissolve parliament.


The Queen was then invested with the Armills (bracelets), Stole Royal, Robe Royal, and the Sovereign's Orb, followed by the Queen's Ring, the Sceptre with the Cross, and the Sceptre with the Dove. With the first two items on and in her right hand and the latter in her left, Queen Elizabeth was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the crowd shouting "God save the Queen!" at the exact moment St. Edward's Crown touched the monarch's head.


That's why you only had two options for marriage, the Church of England or "civil".

The point is religion never gave up the religious arguments, because that is why this very thread exists and it is the background of the discussions herein. That is why we still have a problem in fact, because people believe their religious beliefs grant them the justification to interfere in other's lives and dictate their behaviors.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Also, here is some info about the Archbisop of Canterbury


The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. In his role as head of the Anglican Communion, the archbishop leads the third largest group of Christians in the world



The current archbishop is the Most Reverend Rowan Williams. He is the 104th in a line which goes back more than 1400 years to St Augustine of Canterbury, the "Apostle to the English", in the year 597. From the time of St Augustine until the 16th century, the Archbishops of Canterbury were in full communion with the See of Rome and thus received the pallium. During the English Reformation the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, at first temporarily under Henry VIII and Edward VI and later permanently during the reign of Elizabeth I.


Now here is the most revealing part of where the Church and State mix directly:


In the Middle Ages there was considerable variation in the methods of nomination of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops. At various times the choice was made by the canons of Canterbury Cathedral, the King of England, or the Pope. Since the English Reformation, the Church of England has been more explicitly a state church and the choice is legally that of the British crown;today it is made in the name of the Sovereign by the Prime Minister, from a shortlist of two selected by an ad hoc committee called the Crown Nominations Commission.


So the Prime Minister is directly involved in the nomination the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Here is more detailed information about appointment of Church of England bishops from wiki.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
*snip*

My other question, can a woman still wear white if she is marrying her rapist as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Amplified Bible (AMP) 28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, 29 Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days.



edit on 9-5-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)


That passage has nothing to do with rape, but refers to a consentual act. The preceding verses show this clearly, when condemning an actual rape -
Deuteronomy 22:
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 

Was it really the Homosexuals that started with GRID? Or was it something else, can you back that up? Based off of the research, GRID was renamed to AIDS and HIV, as it showed that it affected more than just gay men.

According to the most prominent minds and scientists, who have been studying this horrible disease, all have come to the conclusion that this came from West Africa, and namely that of primates. Based off of the best information in the area of virology, that the following is considered fact.

The primates suffer from a disease so names: SIV. They have found that there have been cases of HIV that have date back to the 1940’s that have lead to one of the more prominent hypotheses that it was the eating of primates that led to the cross over of this disease from one species to Humans. This is not the first time that such has been seen, in fact another disease, has been around for years, and it came from: Sheep. The first people who suffered from syphilis, were sheppards, caught and started to spread this disease to the rest of the world. Viruses have been known to jump species before and continue to do such. It is a fact of nature. Even now they are finding that such occurs in Africa to this day, as they found that people who were eating infected primates are also infected with other diseases from such. So it is safe to say it has been around and spreading.
The reason why it exploded in the USA and it started out the entire movement, is that it was that gay people were being vocal and the officials (For once in a long history) were starting to take notice. Remember before the 1970’s animals were used for testing on, including the creation of vaccines that were later on used in humans. An infected animal could theoretically also spread this disease to humans.


It is the height of ignorance that the linking of gay marriage to the legalization of pedophilia. After all the majority of pedophilia’s and those who do such, are found to be heterosexual, and often found to be a relative of the victim. Or are more common to be an older male and a younger female.
So how is that linked to gay marriage? After all one deals with someone who is straight and more often than not attracted to young children and are often that of the opposite sex, and the other is 2 consenting adults of the same sex?

You mention morality, yet fail to put out whose morality should we go by. Yours? Some church, or religious organization? Isn’t that forcing a belief on the whole, when one of the founding ideas of this country was the Freedom of Religion, where not one religious group would get support or beneficial treatment from the government?

From all of the gay people that I have ever heard of, talked to, or know the agenda is that they want to have the same rights, and be treated equal under the law of the country, not to be set apart, but treated the same as everyone else. You expect that gay people pay their taxes, be productive citizens of the country, contribute to their neighborhoods, yet would deny them the same right as someone who is not gay, the freedom of choice. How is that fair in a country where the very idea of equality for all is the foundation of the very documents that not only separated it from England and set up the government? The only reason why gay people got special treatment under the law is to protect them from unfair and biased discrimination against them in the country. Take that away and such laws would not be needed.

Want to end the entire debate on gay marriage, then remove all of the legal and financial benefits of being married, make it where there is no advantage of getting married or having children, then there would be no debate or want for such by anyone.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

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.



I don't have a strong opinion on gay marriage myself - no stronger than my opinion on hetero marriage. I personally find such behavior repulsive. but I'm not engaging in it, so that point is moot. I voted against the amendment on legal grounds - I don't care who pokes whom with what if I'm not involved in it, and I don't believe the State should have that say, either.

It's none of my business OR the States.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Luckily for anyone interested in being in a same sex marriage, you are still entitled to all of the rights and privileges of that union in any state if you are given a legal marriage certificate in a state that allows same sex marriages.

The only recourse a state has is to not allow them to be issued in their state.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
What can I say other then I am disappointed? Years ago it was considered wrong and immoral for a black person to be in a relationship with a white person...Things changed...

Hopefully, in time, things will change for the gay and lesbian community in the same way.

I am sure that some day they will be given equal rights as well.

When that day comes, then and only then can we truly call our selves a free country.

Also, good for Obama ( I don't say that too much
) for being the first President to come out in support of gay marriage.

It's time for things to change again folks. Old, out dated and prejudiced ways of thinking about gay people, are dying out....Slowly, but they are...And a newer, open minded, freedom loving, welcoming, hopefully non-prejudiced society is being born.

Progress, if it scares you, maybe it is time to rethink your belief system.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by nenothtu


Religion gave up the religious argument when they allowed the State to start issuing licenses.


Historically incorrect.

The Church was the state.
The Pope had the power to make or break Kings in Catholic nations.


1. The Vatican is not America. The Pope does not run the US. He is not the head of state here.

2. We are not discussing European history - we are discussing the here and now in America. Therefore, the "history" you mention is of null effect. It has no bearing here.



Ok but that's France, and we were actually focusing on the UK more particularly in this discussion of the history of marriage licences.


No, I was actually referring to marriage licenses in America, specifically North Carolina. The history of the Church of England or English Coronations is moot as well. they don't run the show here, either.



The point is religion never gave up the religious arguments, because that is why this very thread exists and it is the background of the discussions herein. That is why we still have a problem in fact, because people believe their religious beliefs grant them the justification to interfere in other's lives and dictate their behaviors.


Oh, I'm sure they'd like to have a say, but logically they don't. The Church does not issue licenses here - the State does, and it is the State who has a say in who gets them - not the Church. This was passed through the political process, not the religious process.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
i can't believe how people are against gay marriage, they make me sick.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I don't think they should be able to ban this. Although I don't agree with it people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't harming another person. That's just my opinion though.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I can't believe we as a people are this screwed up. Not to mention Gay marriage shouldn't be something voters who it doesn't apply to can vote on in the first place, but wow are we completely #ed.

Why do non gays get to have any say on any of this? lmao. God I hate people.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:57 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.



Mostly correct. God doesn't hate people, but He does hate sin. yes, we ALL sin, in one way or another. Acceptance of Christ brings salvation. Even if you did kill someone (that's the error), he can forgive that. Any sin can be forgiven, if we confess, and repent. That means accepting that it was a sin, and trying not to repeat it. The Bible calls homosexuality a sin, yes, and also fornication, adultery, and many other things.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MzMorbid
I guess the first amendment only applies to some people.




Lets be honest, at what point was the Constitution actually ment for everyone?...

Let me start of by saying I am a straight man from the US of A. And personally, I don't understand why everyone cares about getting married and who wants to get married. My personal beliefs are: If two people care enough about each other that they want to spend the rest of their life with each other, than why would they want to involve the government into something that beautiful? Keep your relationships between the peolple involved. Let love hold your relationship together, not some business contract set up by people you don't know or trust.

Needless to say, I will never get married. I will spend my life with one woman and raise a family. But I will never go into business with the one I love. If your only doing it to save on your insurance, then get a better job or insurance supplier.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 

Your point is invalid because there is a difference between 2 of the same sex getting married rather than 2 of a different ethnicity. A man and a woman of any ethnicity can have kids whereas 2 men or 2 women cannot. Use a different example.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
I can't believe we as a people are this screwed up. Not to mention Gay marriage shouldn't be something voters who it doesn't apply to can vote on in the first place, but wow are we completely #ed.

Why do non gays get to have any say on any of this? lmao. God I hate people.


Because gays have been demanding that everyone else recognize their relationships as legitimate. The rest said "no".

AGAIN... if you don't ask permission, they can't say no.

Also - if you demand their opinion, make sure you're ready to accept it. You'll never, EVER, dictate it.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruckDriver69
 


wow, we're in deeper trouble than I thought. I've got to get the hell out of here. Way too many uninformed idiots.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Finnaly, some common sense coming from Washington. Marriage is between "natural" Man and Women, not the other way around "unnatural in nature/science and religion". Gay marriage should be banned accross the planet ASAP! Might as well let people marry animals if this were to pass. Where would it end?
edit on 9-5-2012 by omegafire because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2012 by omegafire because: add



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


The point is, that voters of any kind shouldn't have any say in this. It's like voting to keep blue eyed children out of your school. Those without blue eyes might be all for it, but it shouldn't matter what people think, gays are humans and deserve every bit as fair a treatment as straight men and women, the USA is backwards enough.

People supporting this and thinking it's slightly ok to dictate to others what they can or can not do is very disturbing.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join