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: 32
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
I'm honestly in bewilderment about your accusation about the bible, because thats the book I know, not saying anything about homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus condemns homosexuality fairly clearly, and Romans does too. Those two have passages that do specifically talk about homosexuality. It is not an ignorance of the books, it is intentional denial of the word. Don't worry we all do it, it's impossible not to go against the word.
So, we have proved that bible does talk about homosexuality and I think the Koran does too, however I don't know about Hindu, Buhddism, Taoism, Shinto...etc. But it would be difficult so sit here and claim religious discrimination because to my knowledge no religion specifically allows or calls a person to be gay. And therefore, the passage of the bill hinders one's right to practice said religion.


It would be interfering with your religion if someone passed a bill saying you personally had to have a gay marriage, or your church must recognize gay marriage. Then its coming in and messing with your religious practice.

But, instead, it's simply allowing people who having nothing to do with you or your religion to have their gay marriage, and for some reason you take this personally. It has nothing to do with you. Gay people will get married and it will not affect you in the slightest.

It's weird because your post makes sense right up to that sentence.

Also, yes, Leviticus does have anti-gay stuff in it. In the very same chapter, though, you can find stuff about not touching a woman on her period, not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, not getting tattoos.... Where is all the anti-tattoo legislation that would force us all to live by your Leviticus rules?




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
All this horsepucky about gay marriage is ridiculous, and any state ban on it is blatantly unconstitutional, and here's why:

1) The church's job is to provide social and moral codes for its members.

2) The state's job is to create and enforce laws, agreed upon by the majority of its constituents.

3) It's the Federal Government's job to create and enforce federal laws, without respect for, or oppression of any religion, and to uphold the provisions of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, superseding any state law that is in violation of the US Constitution and/or Bill of Rights.

Now, let's turn on our left-brain and apply some basic logic using NC as an example. The majority of North Carolina citizens are Protestants in the form of Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans, and a handful of smaller Protestant off-shoots. They all hate homosexuals, and their various churches support that hate. Item #1 from my list above has been covered - the church has set the social and moral code.

These church-going, homosexual-hating citizens vote for people who, like them, follow the moral code set forth by the church and the same basic belief structure. Now in elected state offices, these officials propose state legislation banning gay marriage because it is in conflict with their moral code, and that of the people who put them in power. The people of NC cast their votes for the legislation and, because the legislation is supportive of their morals and belief structure, the bill passes and becomes state law. Item #2 from my list has been covered - the state has proposed and enacted law that has been agreed upon by the majority of its citizens.

Most of the people in NC are pleased with the law because of item's 1 & 2. However, there is a small number of people, let's say there's only 2, who are against this new law because they happen to be homosexual and want to live as married partners, acknowledged as such by the government. They cannot be legally married, because the new state law forbids it. But these two people are in love, and want to spend the rest of their lives together, and they feel that it's unfair that they should be treated differently from any other loving couple just because of their sexual orientation. So, they sue the state in the US Supreme Court on the grounds that their constitutionally-protected right to equality is being violated.

The US Supreme Court hears their case, looks at the NC law in question, and must conclude that the law be nullified because A) they cannot entertain any religious consideration or condemnation in making their decision, B) the law is directly based on the moral code promoted by the church, and C) results in sanctioned inequality on the basis of sexual orientation. Item #3 of my list above has been covered - the Federal Government has upheld the US Constitution, superseding the state law.

So, regardless of how you personally feel about homosexuality and gay marriage, the US Constitution protects the rights of ALL citizens and applies that protection equally. Case closed.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Your example of leviticus is really illogical because tattoos have nothing to do with gay marriage. Yes, I get your argument but they have nothing to do with each other. Culturally and socially we have come to accept the mixed fibers and tattoos. However we have not accepted homosexuality on a whole scale, hence the religious backlash. Your right it won't affect for them to get Married, but I am called to reject sin and speak against it. Therefore, to not vote against it, or speak against it would be to accept said sin, which would be a sin.

That's how many Christians are going to look at it, is it right to single out homosexuals with such vehement hate that we have seen? No, of course not its a sin. All sins are equal and we are called to correct each others sin with love and friendship. However that is not to say that its right to expand marriage to homosexuals. It's not because the bible tells us so, its not a hatred for individuals I have. It's just that I believe their lifestyle goes against the bible.

P.s. I think you might have been confused with how I meant a sentence. The intention was to make a point that if a religion exists that calls a person to be homosexual, then and only then does this law equal religious discrimination.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by wirehead
 

Your example of leviticus is really illogical because tattoos have nothing to do with gay marriage. Yes, I get your argument but they have nothing to do with each other. Culturally and socially we have come to accept the mixed fibers and tattoos. However we have not accepted homosexuality on a whole scale, hence the religious backlash.


My point in bringing up tattoos is that if you're citing Leviticus to show why homosexuality is a sin, you must be picking and choosing from that book to suit your own tastes, because you aren't showing equal opposition to legal tattooing.

So you're not against homosexuality because of Leviticus, you're against it because as a society / culture we haven't yet accepted it? So is it a sin or not? You can't say that homosexuality is a sin because of Leviticus, but only the parts of Leviticus that agree with your idea of society count.


Your right it won't affect for them to get Married, but I am called to reject sin and speak against it. Therefore, to not vote against it, or speak against it would be to accept said sin, which would be a sin.


Does this not amount to enforcing a Christian moral paradigm on your fellow Americans? Many are not Christian, many have no problem with homosexuality and do not see it as a sin. But these Christians see it as their duty to play morality police in a matter that has nothing to do with them?

Imagine if the Orthodox Jewish community was large and well-organized enough to try to enforce, by law, that nobody should drive a car on Saturday. Your same reasoning would apply.


P.s. I think you might have been confused with how I meant a sentence. The intention was to make a point that if a religion exists that calls a person to be homosexual, then and only then does this law equal religious discrimination.


Ah yes, thanks. I realized that after I posted.
edit on 27-5-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing

P.s. I think you might have been confused with how I meant a sentence. The intention was to make a point that if a religion exists that calls a person to be homosexual, then and only then does this law equal religious discrimination.


That does not make sense to me.

How is denying rights to others because of belief - not discrimination?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Sorry replied to your previous post on my phone so I somewhat messed up my arguments. What I meant by the Leviticus example is that tattoos and the mixed fiber example have become socially acceptable and culturally acceptable. Therefore, people aren't as quick to religiously condemn such actions because the society we live in have accepted those as okay behaviors. Much like premarital sex has become more and more acceptable throughout the ages. Yes, Leviticus does say that these things are wrong among other things, but people may not realize it or just don't think about it because the culture says its okay. Personally I did not know about the mixed fiber sin.

Now to bring this back into scope, homosexuality is not truly socially acceptable, therefore many more people are aware of it being a sin in the bible. Since they are aware they act against the sin, yes part of it does depend on the culture and society we subscribe to. However that doesn't mean the culture dictates the rules of the bible, it may seem that way but that is because we are ignorant of the bible. Thats the only reason we don't enforce the other rules of the bible, we just aren't aware of the sin.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Yes it is difficult to not shove my religion down other's throats. However, most people in this country are christians in some form or another. So, its more or less the masses agreeing with each other while disagreeing with the minority so to speak. So that makes it even more difficult to not shove the religion down the proverbial throat of America. Honest christians believe they are doing the right thing by rejecting this sin, some do it out of hate, I do it out of Lord's call to reject. That doesn't make me better than anyone but it's what I believe so I must do what I believe. Thats the paradigm of the country right now, many are trying to do what they believe per their religious beliefs. While others want to do what they believe is right per their social and civil beliefs. Some christians may have thought that if the bill hadn't passed then those without the same religious belief were forcing their beliefs on the country.

It's essentially a see-saw relationship, some people out of the goodness of their hearts believe that everyone should be equal no matter their choices. That is a noble belief and they will fight tooth and nail to see that through thus we have civil rights, and special protection for homosexuals per hate crimes. Then there are the people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and should not be condoned, thus the passage of the bill in North Carolina. Both sides believe they are right, and will think each other is forcing upon them beliefs that they do not possess. Some bills will sway one way and some will sway the other. I belief the right choice was made per my beliefs.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


To my knowledge there is not a religion that calls a believer to be a homosexual, therefore when this billed passed it discriminated against no set belief system. Again to my knowledge. They only way you can prove that religious beliefs are being impressed upon others is by showing that every person that voted for this bill did this out of religious beliefs. It may sound strange but some people don't agree with homosexuality simply because they don't like the idea of it or don't like the idea of homosexual marriage. Simply out of personal opinion did they make this decision.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by denynothing
 


Well, until christians start following all the laws in their book they should shut the # up.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


To my knowledge there is not a religion that calls a believer to be a homosexual, therefore when this billed passed it discriminated against no set belief system. Again to my knowledge. They only way you can prove that religious beliefs are being impressed upon others is by showing that every person that voted for this bill did this out of religious beliefs. It may sound strange but some people don't agree with homosexuality simply because they don't like the idea of it or don't like the idea of homosexual marriage. Simply out of personal opinion did they make this decision.


Are you a lawyer or a politician?

What a load of double talk.

Technically correct? Complete BS in reality.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


It's impossible to follow every rule, hence the reason Jesus came. I doubt you follow every law this country has, the coin does have two sides.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


And its complete nonsense to think every single naysayer of homosexuality does it our of religious conviction. Some people sans religion simply do not agree with homosexuality so you cannot claim this bill was passed simply out of blind faith.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Garfee
 


It's impossible to follow every rule, hence the reason Jesus came. I doubt you follow every law this country has, the coin does have two sides.



The difference is that I'm not denying people happiness.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


And its complete nonsense to think every single naysayer of homosexuality does it our of religious conviction. Some people sans religion simply do not agree with homosexuality so you cannot claim this bill was passed simply out of blind faith.


Two words: Bible Belt

Its complete nonsense to think exclusively 100% of any group.

However - attempts to claim the vote in North Carolina was not religious based is ludicrous.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Some people find happiness in murder, some people find happiness in touching children. Really your argument is a moot point. So yes you do deny people their happiness, as do I.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I'll give you that most did vote out of religious conviction but all did not, its ludicrous to think that every person in north Carolina voted because of religion that's not even logical. Just because a state reputation of following a religion does not mean It's fair to assume all are of that religion. That is religious discrimination by putting all voters in the same category.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Garfee
 


Some people find happiness in murder, some people find happiness in touching children. Really your argument is a moot point. So yes you do deny people their happiness, as do I.


It can be safely assumed that we should not deny someone's happiness when it involves consenting adults and doesn't take away the rights of others. Murder and pedophilia do NOT involve consenting adults, and they DO take away other's rights. See the difference?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


I'll give you that most did vote out of religious conviction but all did not, its ludicrous to think that every person in north Carolina voted because of religion that's not even logical.


And who exactly is claiming they did?

The only place I've heard this is from you.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Garfee
 


Some people find happiness in murder, some people find happiness in touching children. Really your argument is a moot point. So yes you do deny people their happiness, as do I.


A legal government right of happiness straights already have.

Straights do not have the right of happiness for murder or pedophilia.

You love to reach to the absurd - don't you.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 




However - attempts to claim the vote in North Carolina was not religious based is ludicrous.


You literally claimed what you said I claimed right there. You are claiming that the vote is based upon religion. I am claiming that it wasn't.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join