North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

page: 33
21
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


It's safe to assume that we already do regulate the rights of consenting adults, in many states sodomy is illegal. Which includes anal sex, and oral sex. We already regulate what consenting adults can and can't do, however that wasn't the base of the argument when the op stated his or her argument. The argument is that the government should not regulate what people do for happiness, I went for the extreme but still to make a point I drew in the murder and paedophilia. Two consenting adults was not the context for the argument simply just regulation of happiness.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


It really hasn't been that absurd until I reached for the extreme point in that post. Nothing else has really been absurd when using statistics it would basically be impossible that everyone voted down the law just because of religious convictions.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


It really hasn't been that absurd until I reached for the extreme point in that post. Nothing else has really been absurd when using statistics it would basically be impossible that everyone voted down the law just because of religious convictions.


Again - - you are the only person talking about everyone.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


It's safe to assume that we already do regulate the rights of consenting adults, in many states sodomy is illegal. Which includes anal sex, and oral sex. We already regulate what consenting adults can and can't do, however that wasn't the base of the argument when the op stated his or her argument. The argument is that the government should not regulate what people do for happiness, I went for the extreme but still to make a point I drew in the murder and paedophilia. Two consenting adults was not the context for the argument simply just regulation of happiness.


Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the U.S. Armed Forces. By 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. TexasThe remaining sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing

Originally posted 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.


You must be a lawyer or a politician.

No one else would try to twist "Majority" to mean "Everyone".



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing

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.


This is what I don't get. If these christians are so opposed to gay marriage, then they don't have to have gay marriages or allow them in their church or whatever. Why forbid this to fellow americans who have no problem with it themselves?

You're explicitly talking about the majority here denying a minority's rights... Do you see the problem with it?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Kudus, I was not aware the laws had been repealed so you beat me there.

Scratch that, the Texas decision only provided leverage against the laws, it did not mean all states had repealed their laws. In fact 18 states have a law as of 2011 against sodomy.
edit on 5/30/2012 by denynothing because: I did research after the post
edit on 5/30/2012 by denynothing because: wrong term used



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Well heres the deal Christians believe God's word to be the truth and the way of life. Therefore we are called to reject sin. In this case Homosexuality is the sin that is being called up for a vote, so the christians that did vote on this bill did so out of religious conviction. Technically speaking homosexuality is not a freedom given to us by God so Christians like myself do not feel bad that this bill passed. However, that isn't to say that I view homosexuals as lower beings like some do, we are equal under God. So yes it could seem like a majority ruling over the minority, but thats exactly what you get from a democracy.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But thats exactly what you are doing when you are claiming the vote was based upon religion, all I want you to do is consider the fact that some people did not vote on this bill based upon religion. Therefore it isn't truly a religious bill.


P.S. Neither politician nor lawyer, I am actually in college for nursing



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


Kudus, I was not aware the laws had been repealed so you beat me there.


I've been pro-equal rights and fighting for it for 20+ years.


There are many Christians who support gay rights.
There are many Christians that understand evolution of social acceptance.
There are many Christians -- who think Homosexuality is a sin - - but support Equal Rights
There are many LGBTQ Christians. Because you were raised in a belief - you dump it when you find out your gay? NO
There are Atheists that don't support gay marriage.
There are even LGBTQ who are against marriage.
There are many interpretations of those parts of the bible that are far more intelligent.

However - - the majority voting against gay marriage are Christian (of some kind).



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Heres the deal though, homosexuality isn't a debate at least it shouldn't be to christians. It is proclaimed as a sin in the bible and should be treated as such. It is equal to murder, theft, being rude..etc because all sins are equal and should be refrained from. It just so happens that homosexuality is the big debate in todays political sphere, also the bible does not evolve to the times, it is the times that must evolve to the bible. It has nothing to do with social acceptance, I accept them as a person but not their sin, as I would hope others would do the same with me.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by wirehead
 


Well heres the deal...

...Technically speaking homosexuality is not a freedom given to us by God so Christians like myself do not feel bad that this bill passed.


Actually, technically speaking it can't be proven that a god or gods exist so what you're saying is your own belief in an unproven supernatural being allows you to be quite content that your beliefs deprive others of happiness and equality.

Where's the vote on wearing silk with cotton in the same garment hmm?

Christianity disgusts me.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Annee
 


Heres the deal though, homosexuality isn't a debate at least it shouldn't be to christians. It is proclaimed as a sin in the bible and should be treated as such. It is equal to murder, theft, being rude..etc because all sins are equal and should be refrained from. It just so happens that homosexuality is the big debate in todays political sphere, also the bible does not evolve to the times, it is the times that must evolve to the bible. It has nothing to do with social acceptance, I accept them as a person but not their sin, as I would hope others would do the same with me.


Actually, there is a debate among some Christians. Interesting article on the internet, talking about the differences between the commandments which involve not abusing other people (Justices), and rituals and sexual taboos (Jobs). The justices include: do not murder, do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, honor your mother and father. The jobs include: no tattoos, no shellfish, no clothing with two fabrics, no sex with menstruating women, no homosexuality, etc. This article claims there was a reason Jesus never mentions any of the rituals and taboos as forbidden, he only talks about the justices. This was because he felt the only true laws were about not abusing others (love your neighbor as yourself).


The commandments between man and man were the Justices. Justices were based on the precept, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The commandments between man and God were the Jobs. Jobs included all ritual requirements and sexual taboos. In the first century, the precept “Love your neighbor as yourself” designated the Justices—the group of commandments that didn’t include the prohibition on homosexuality.

Christianity overlooked a very important pattern regarding the New Testament’s use of this precept. Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they:

Only list Justices, and

Cite the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”


www.jesusonhomosexuality.com...

If you only look at Jesus' teachings, Christianity really is a beautiful religion. It's a shame that people have used the Bible and twisted (or ignored) Jesus' words to justify their own hatred and fears.
edit on 30-5-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


There are far more intelligent and realistic translations/interpretations of bible script - - that refers to "man lying with man" - - - then the modern day CHOSEN interpretation of selected hate.

What one believes - - is CHOICE. Those CHOOSING the translation/interpretation of "God Hates Fags" - - - also CHOOSE ignorance of the more intelligent/realistic translations/interpretations of those writings.

Many Christians understand these writings come from ancient times and the translations/interpretations more then likely applied to specifics of those times and are completely unrelated to homosexuality.

A "true" Christian is one who understands and lives the teachings of Christ - - - and are not stuck in ancient dogma words.



There is also the argument of the translation. All the passages were translated by a human, written by a human hand, and therefore by nature (as the bible dictates) flawed. The word for word translation ("Not shall you lie with man [in the] bed of woman, [it is] abomination.") was intended to be (many scholars believe to mean in context) a branching off of the passage of lust for a woman being adultery in the heart and applying it also to a man. In this sense, a man (once married) can not lust after another woman or another man. How does one get this translation from the word for word passage? When a man marries a woman, both in modern and ancient societies, the bed is the property of the woman. For instance....who ends up sleeping on the coach when the man and woman argue? (Hint: the man does) The bed is without question the property of the wife. Many would wander what is Gods opinion on bisexuality. The problem with this is that the word for homosexuality in Hebrew is ambiguous. The word for homosexual in Hebrew also means many other sins and sinful people, but the word for homosexuality did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ were even alive. The word used in the bible was "arsenokoite." This word is however used several other times in order to condemn premarital sex of any kind. Therefore every reference in the bible to so called "homosexuals" was not even referring to it because the word did not even remotely exist until many years after these books were originally written. The Hebrew language actually had no word for it. The actual word at the time that was used to describe men who have sex with other males was "paiderasste." Therefore each time the word homosexuality appears it is merely a rendering of the opinion of those commissioned to translate it. In fact, the man who commissioned the bible to be translated into English was he himself a homosexual. However the writers who were commissioned to translate it clearly had a bias against homosexuals. (perhaps they just didn't like their boss) Read more: wiki.answers.com...



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Well Jesus did not abolish any of the laws that were put forth by his father in the Old Testament. The only thing Jesus did was take the punishment for our sins, he did not set us free from the law though. So, this is what Jesus said about the laws. Perhaps I am confusing that but to me it means that the threat of eternal punishment has been taken away but not the actual rules.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Just because he can't be proven does not mean that he does not exist, if I was content with my faith I wouldn't worry about my own faults, I wouldn't thank Jesus for his sacrafice. Also I don't know where the vote on the two fibers is, contact your congressman or senator about it then. All I know is that this was the bill that was presented to the people and I support the results of said vote because I am a christian.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Garfee
 


Just because he can't be proven does not mean that he does not exist, if I was content with my faith I wouldn't worry about my own faults, I wouldn't thank Jesus for his sacrafice. Also I don't know where the vote on the two fibers is, contact your congressman or senator about it then. All I know is that this was the bill that was presented to the people and I support the results of said vote because I am a christian.


You're missing the point that you're using a belief in an invisible sky fairy that you can't prove exists and a book written by human beings supposedly inspired by the sky fairy, to discriminate.

You should be #ing ashamed.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Garfee
 


Just because he can't be proven does not mean that he does not exist, if I was content with my faith I wouldn't worry about my own faults, I wouldn't thank Jesus for his sacrafice. Also I don't know where the vote on the two fibers is, contact your congressman or senator about it then. All I know is that this was the bill that was presented to the people and I support the results of said vote because I am a christian.


Heaven forbid that you have an independent thought - - - on what's actually humanly right.

So - - this is all about your guilt - - and trying to justify voting against equality.

Thankfully - - I live by personal integrity and have no concern or worries about some imaginary being's punishment after I die.

How is living your life in fear - - life at all?

edit on 30-5-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

You're missing the point that you're using a belief in an invisible sky fairy that you can't prove exists and a book written by human beings supposedly inspired by the sky fairy, to discriminate.

You should be #ing ashamed.


DITTO



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Well Jesus did not abolish any of the laws that were put forth by his father in the Old Testament. The only thing Jesus did was take the punishment for our sins, he did not set us free from the law though. So, this is what Jesus said about the laws. Perhaps I am confusing that but to me it means that the threat of eternal punishment has been taken away but not the actual rules.


Yes, I think you are very confused, because you cannot explain why Christians totally ignore some of the laws of the Old Testament.





new topics




 
21
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join