# Welcome to the 13th century, NC!



## MSTCNC

Yesterday, voters in NC approved Amendment One. In they process, they not only banned same-sex marriages; but, civil and domestic unions as well. Most are, even still, unaware what the full proposal was... as all they heard was, "Gay people.... blah blah blah... marriage... blah blah... gay people!"

Sadly, it's undeniable that those counties that voted AGAINST... are those counties with excellent education... and those who voted FOR... where more rural, less-educated counties...

Have we learned nothing in all of the time humanity has been kicking around this dusty blue marble? How much longer must we wait until, as Rev. King said, we judge a person by the character of their heart, and not the color of their skin (sexual preference, etc).

Looking at the returns, I take solace in the fact that the residents of Orange and Durham lead the vote against this anti-famil legislation. VERY happy with my neighbors... just not so much with the rest of the State...

On a high point... now that the Gay's are under control... we can start talking about electricity and indoor plumbing!

Strike one against me staying past graduation in 2013... sorry, NC... but, I'm ashamed of you!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

It'll bite them in the ***, and they'll cry foul, but the only ones to blame for choosing to stay ignorant are themselves.


----------



## granfire

well, a very smart lady I get to talk to now and then would not call them ignorant, but stupid.
Because ignorance can be fixed with learning and acquiring information. Those who avoid gaining knowledge are henceforce stupid. And we all know you can't fix that!

Only bad is that the stupid are also increasingly loud and tend to bully.
So we do tend to see more stupid laws being passed and voted on.


yippee, we are living in_ Interesting Times_...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

When all those 'good god a fearin folk' start losing their own health care and other benefits as a result, watch them whine.



> The ACLU of North Carolina released a list explaining how bad things could get for unmarried North Carolina couples if Amendment 1 passes. Here are some rights that could be at risk:
> 
> 
> Domestic violence laws protecting people in an unmarried  partnerships might be weakened. (This claim has been debated by both  sides, and it's still unclear exactly how the law would impact domestic  violence victims. Opponents of Amendment 1 say many of North Carolina's  domestic violence laws offer special protections to victims who have an established relationship  with their abusers. So if the amendment narrows the law to legally  recognize only marriages, it might weaken these protective laws for  unmarried partners. Supporters of Amendment 1, such as Rockingham County  District Attorney Phil Berger Jr., contest this claim. Berger said nothing in the amendment changes any laws on assault, rape, murder, or other crimes.)
> Unmarried parents could no longer have the same child custody and visitation rights as married parents.
> Private  agreements between unmarried couples might not longer  have a legal  basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has  cohabited and  raised children together for years decides to separate,  the wealthier  partner would not be legally obligated to divide property  with his or  her partner.
> The law could interfere with unmarried partners'  end-of-life  arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of  attorney.
> Employers would no longer have to provide benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of unmarried employees.


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/amendment-1-north-carolina-gay-people

You are so smart NC.  Way to screw your selves.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> As the _New York Times reports_: Just 36 percent of voters answered correctly that it bans  both  same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. An additional 26  percent  thought it banned same-sex marriage alone. Meanwhile, 10  percent of  voters thought a "yes" vote on the amendment would legalize  rather than  ban same-sex marriage, and 27 percent weren't sure what it  did.​



This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.


----------



## MSTCNC

Bob Hubbard said:


> This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.



<points to nose>


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.



Thats nothing new during the 2008 presidential election radio stations were interviewing obama voters and over half either couldnt name his VP or thought it was Palin when asked.  People dont care they go in and hit the button so they can say they voted.  Ive voted for laws before that i had no idea what they were about normally local laws that didnt apply to my county but needed a change in state law to be allowed in that specific county or city. 
As for the NC ban well its their state and their choice if you dont like it dont move to NC.   Ive always said you shouldnt need the GOVT permission to get married but when you allow them to get involved  you stuck with it.


----------



## oftheherd1

As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles.  I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman.  That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.  

I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle.  I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians.  I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that.  I take them for the kind of person and personality they are.  If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have.  I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.

Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally.  I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle.  Physical attacks are illegal.  It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.  

Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.


----------



## oftheherd1

ballen0351 said:


> ...
> 
> Ive always said you shouldnt need the GOVT permission to get married but when you allow them to get involved you stuck with it.



That in itself is worthy of a debate (but in another thread).  Many religion's leaders also don't think that a State should be able to give permission (license) to be a preacher.  They think that should be between the preacher and God, and the church who would ordain.  There are of course plenty of arguments on both sides of that issue.  

Just a thought.


----------



## MSTCNC

oftheherd1 said:


> As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles.  I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman.  That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.
> 
> I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle.  I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians.  I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that.  I take them for the kind of person and personality they are.  If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have.  I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.
> 
> Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally.  I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle.  Physical attacks are illegal.  It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.
> 
> Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.



Having a personal opinion on something, and even having a presonal religouse viewpoint, is all fine and good...

It's imposing that viewpoint on others that I take exception to. Not to mention un-educated voters casting their .02 on a ballot that are uniformed about...

Personally, although I was brought up Christian... I no longer follow that line of thinking... as I found too many discrepancies between the written word, and the actions of church in general. And, as the son of a Minister... I feel qualified to say that...

And,honestly, I don't feel that religeon should come into play here in any way, shape, or form. There are many other religeons that are practiced in this Country... and, to assume that those practitioners will all be OK with a Christian stance... is conceited at best...

Not pointing fingers, or passing judgement here... just sayin'...

Inn the big picture, I just can't believe, with a straight face, that an all-knowing creator would really give a rat's *** where you stick your private parts...


----------



## ballen0351

So people should not vote how they believe or feel?  You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?





MSTCNC said:


> Having a personal opinion on
> 
> something, and even having a presonal religouse viewpoint, is all fine and good...
> 
> It's imposing that viewpoint on others that I take exception to. Not to mention un-educated voters casting their .02 on a ballot that are uniformed about...
> 
> Personally, although I was brought up Christian... I no longer follow that line of thinking... as I found too many discrepancies between the written word, and the actions of church in general. And, as the son of a Minister... I feel qualified to say that...
> 
> And,honestly, I don't feel that religeon should come into play here in any way, shape, or form. There are many other religeons that are practiced in this Country... and, to assume that those practitioners will all be OK with a Christian stance... is conceited at best...
> 
> Not pointing fingers, or passing judgement here... just sayin'...
> 
> Inn the big picture, I just can't believe, with a straight face, that an all-knowing creator would really give a rat's *** where you stick your private parts...


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles.  I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman.  That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.
> 
> I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle.  I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians.  I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that.  I take them for the kind of person and personality they are.  If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have.  I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.
> 
> Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally.  I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle.  Physical attacks are illegal.  It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.
> 
> Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.




You are free to not marry a person of the same gender.

however, in a nation that believes in a separation of church and state the bible should have no bearing on the laws.

Aside from the sex part, there are money matters involved. 
And really, contrary to popular believe, marriage is an economic arrangement.
In the past it was restricted to man and woman because of the biological necessity to produce children (oh, and government had always had it's hand in that pie: from the olden days when permission had to be granted by the lord of the land, to minimal monetary requirements for the happy couple. In essence, no money - or job - no maritial bliss) 
marriage is a worldy thing, as martin Luther had put it (and some say that only as answer to the reformation marriage was made into a sacrament by the Catholic church)

Also, a physical attack, that is about the last step. However the dislike of the 'lifestyle' is causing the subtle attacks on those individuals, to be bullied by the legislative.
After all, what is it to you what other people do?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

For Christians, God gave out 10 laws.  Ok, for Jews he gave 10 laws, but Jesus is quoted saying those laws are in effect and he specified many of them.
So, for Christians there are 10 God given laws, +1 that Jesus added. That's it.
Everything else, are man-made rules.

So, would an enlightened Christian or Jew, show me where -GOD- or Jesus said anything against same-sex relationships?



> [h=4]Reference by Jesus[/h] See also: Expounding of the Law
> In the Gospel of Matthew 19:16&#8211;19, Jesus repeated five of the Ten Commandments, followed by that commandment called "the second" (Mat.22:34&#8211;40) after the first and great commandment.
> Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
> 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? _there is_ none good but one, _that is_, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
> 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou  shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear  false witness,
> 19 Honour thy father and _thy_ mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> ​



So, while there are laws in the Old Testament, those were man-made, not God issued. 
There are 2 or 3 comments by Paul about the topic, but he never met Jesus in person, and the remainder of the NT is silent on the topic, and Jesus himself never is quoted in addressing the topic.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> So people should not vote how they believe or feel?  You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?



Believe, feel, vote how you like.

Just make sure you understand what you are voting on.

People voted FOR this law thinking it was Pro-Gay and they wanted to support equality.  People voted against it thinking it was Pro-Gay.
They voted incorrectly based on their desired outcome.

Make sense?


----------



## MSTCNC

ballen0351 said:


> So people should not vote how they believe or feel?  You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?



No. Not at all what I'm saying...

If you're a religeous person, then of cousre it will affect you outlook on things... as does intellect...

What I'm saying is, it pretty assuming of somone to ram their beliefs down someone elses craw through via legislation such as this...

Don't like the lifestyle of the gay community? Fine, I'm sure that community of people can live with that fact just FINE! But, to say it's wrong for someone else, and their point of view... based on YOUR religeous beleifs? Well, it just seems myopic of the person passing judgement... (IMHO)

Do unto others and all that, yes?

How'd you like someone saying you couldn't belive in God anymore... that it was illegal...

That'd get people from the Christian sects up in arms, yes?



> Judge not lest ye be judged


... 

Honestly, we could go on and on with this...

In the end, this thread is expressing MY frustration with what I feel is a grave injustice enacted upon the people of NC... BY the people of NC...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

MSTCNC said:


> what I feel is a grave injustice enacted upon the people of NC... BY the people of NC...



I agree.


----------



## Flying Crane

granfire said:


> You are free to not marry a person of the same gender.
> 
> however, in a nation that believes in a separation of church and state the bible should have no bearing on the laws.
> 
> Aside from the sex part, there are money matters involved.
> And really, contrary to popular believe, marriage is an economic arrangement.
> In the past it was restricted to man and woman because of the biological necessity to produce children (oh, and government had always had it's hand in that pie: from the olden days when permission had to be granted by the lord of the land, to minimal monetary requirements for the happy couple. In essence, no money - or job - no maritial bliss)
> marriage is a worldy thing, as martin Luther had put it (and some say that only as answer to the reformation marriage was made into a sacrament by the Catholic church)
> 
> Also, a physical attack, that is about the last step. However the dislike of the 'lifestyle' is causing the subtle attacks on those individuals, to be bullied by the legislative.
> After all, what is it to you what other people do?



I really dislike the "lifestyle" references, because it simply is not a lifestyle.  That implies there is a choice involved and that is not true.  Homosexual people are who they are because they were made that way, not because they made a choice to be that way.  They are gay in the same way that straight people are straight, because that is who they are and they have no control over it.

Nobody should confuse coming out of the closet after years of suppression, with making a choice to be gay.


----------



## Bob Hubbard




----------



## granfire

Flying Crane said:


> I really dislike the "lifestyle" references, because it simply is not a lifestyle.  That implies there is a choice involved and that is not true.  Homosexual people are who they are because they were made that way, not because they made a choice to be that way.  They are gay in the same way that straight people are straight, because that is who they are and they have no control over it.
> 
> Nobody should confuse coming out of the closet after years of suppression, with making a choice to be gay.



Aye.
Living on the farm is a lifestyle....


----------



## decepticon

I'll take a risk and voice another dissenting opinion. Am I missing something here? If the majority of voters in a particular area vote against something, why is that wrong? The minority is free to stay and try to educate or free to leave and go where their views are better tolerated or even accepted. There are 49 other states to which they can relocate.

I've read in this thread that religion shouldn't matter and yet our governmental organizations fall over backward not to offend one of the many non-Christian religions represented in our public schools, public buildings, public gatherings, etc. Why does it matter sometimes but not others?

I also take great offense at all the slurs here against rural residents. Cries that they should be denied the right to vote. I don't remember hearing any of that when urban/inner city voters were being encouraged to vote in droves about 3 years ago, regardless of their educational level.

Whether or not I agree with the results of the vote in NC, I am strongly in support of the local citizen voters' right to vote however they choose. If it all boiled down to a lack of clarity about the exact wording of the ballot, then that sounds to me like the pro-gay marriage groups did a poor job of spelling it out for voters. I have always hated the "vote no if you want something to continue and yes if you want it to stop" type of wording. That is confusing, but not exclusive to NC. 

If the majority of local voters there were against allowing gay marriage, then it is their right as Americans to vote to continue the ban. Last time I checked, it was government by the people, not government by the people who think they know what is right for the local people.


----------



## dancingalone

decepticon said:


> I'll take a risk and voice another dissenting opinion. Am I missing something here? If the majority of voters in a particular area vote against something, why is that wrong? The minority is free to stay and try to educate or free to leave and go where their views are better tolerated or even accepted. There are 49 other states to which they can relocate.



There is definitely something called the tyranny of the majority, something our Founding Fathers thought about a lot when they wrote the Constitution and put together the branches of government.

A more inflammatory example is perhaps WWII Germany though I don't equate the good citizens of North Carolina at all to the Nazis.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

View attachment $560477_455916711101058_122256581133741_1704489_548658102_n.jpg

Remember, the majority of people in the South also wanted to keep it illegal for blacks and whites to mingle, for black children to go to the same schools as whites, or for blacks to ride in the front of a bus. Majority rule is 3 of your neighbors deciding that you have a nice tv and it would look good at their places.


----------



## Carol

dancingalone said:


> There is definitely something called the tyranny of the majority, something our Founding Fathers thought about a lot when they wrote the Constitution and put together the branches of government.
> 
> A more inflammatory example is perhaps WWII Germany though I don't equate the good citizens of North Carolina at all to the Nazis.



Exactly.  Hence the issue with voting on civil rights, especially when those most affected are small in number.  The smaller the diaspora, the easier it is to marginalize out the diaspora.  

As many states were adopting a holiday in January in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the state of New Hampshire stood against the adoption.  In 1991, the state adopted the holiday of "Civil Rights Day" in honor of all civil rights leaders, and observed on the same day when the rest of the country was observing the holiday for Dr. King.  In 1999, the state dropped Civil Rights Day and formally adopted Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday...the last state to do so.

Although the state is becoming more diverse, New Hampshire does not have a large black population -- a fact even noted in the NYTimes article.

While establishing a holiday is not quite the same as defining a right, I think this is a good example of how the desires of a small minority can easily be marginalized.  It doesn't take a leap of logic to see that New Hampshire might not have been so "contrarian" with MLK day had our black diaspora been larger. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/26/u...or-dr-king-at-last.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm


----------



## WC_lun

My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.  Your religious beliefs should not be law for the rest of us.  Now if you can find a provable link between two consenting adults of the same sex together somehow being a detriment to either the economy or society then we'd have something to talk about.  Right now the ignorant are legislating thier beliefs onto the rest of us.  So much for that small government thing of conservatives.

As far as the bible being the base for anti-gay beliefs, that doesn't hold water.  There are other things in the bible that people do not folllow because they know better.  Worn a poly-cotton blend shirt lately?  What about eating pork or shell fish?  Sold a female relative into slavery?  I could understand a person that followed the entire bible being against homosexuality, but the truth is Christians pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow.  I actually think that fairly smart, given the archaic and often conflicting rules laid down.  However, if you do pick and choose, do not tell me your choices limiting gay civil rights are anything other that bigotry.  It just doesn't fly.


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.  Your religious beliefs should not be law for the rest of us.  Now if you can find a provable link between two consenting adults of the same sex together somehow being a detriment to either the economy or society then we'd have something to talk about.  Right now the ignorant are legislating thier beliefs onto the rest of us.  So much for that small government thing of conservatives.
> 
> As far as the bible being the base for anti-gay beliefs, that doesn't hold water.  There are other things in the bible that people do not folllow because they know better.  Worn a poly-cotton blend shirt lately?  What about eating pork or shell fish?  Sold a female relative into slavery?  I could understand a person that followed the entire bible being against homosexuality, but the truth is Christians pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow.  I actually think that fairly smart, given the archaic and often conflicting rules laid down.  However, if you do pick and choose, do not tell me your choices limiting gay civil rights are anything other that bigotry.  It just doesn't fly.



Heck, even in Jewish circles it's currently frowned upon to sell your daughters...


----------



## Nomad

WC_lun said:


> My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.



The above is really good advice.

It reminded me of a quote by Dennis Miller (back when he was funny before he went all right-wingy):  "The most important thing in the world to me is my orgasm.  And the least important thing in the world is anyone else's."


----------



## ballen0351

Id rather let the people decide for their own state then the fed decide for everyone.  I also rather allow the citizens decide and not the state legislature like here.  Here they approved gay marriage and the people never got a chanceto even vote the governor said he wanted it the legislature said ok and passed it.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Id rather let the people decide for their own state then the fed decide for everyone.  I also rather allow the citizens decide and not the state legislature like here.  Here they approved gay marriage and the people never got a chanceto even vote the governor said he wanted it the legislature said ok and passed it.



But I do believe the feds decided for the South that segregation was unconstitutional...


----------



## elder999

Years ago, it was "the will of the people," that my marriage, and that of more than a few other people on this board, was illegal.

Thankfully, those laws were overturned, though it took until a 1967 SCOTUS decision for it to happen.

Some people, of course, still think my marriage is "immoral," or "wrong," and it's their right to think as much. It does not, however, have the force of law.

As for "Jesus said":

View attachment $35514_3071102665255_1494282084_32113414_707134976_n.jpg


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> But I do believe the feds decided for the South that segregation was unconstitutional...



Yep and whats segregation have to do with gay marriage.


If your complaint is the people didnt know what they were voting for then thats the pro gay marriage lobbys fault for not getting the word out good enough.  
If your complaint it tyranny of the majority well thats the price you pay for living in a democracy.  Sonetines the people vote badly and someday they may see the mistake and fix it.  The good thing about a democracy is nothing is forever any and all rights and laws can be voted away.
Had the fed not ended segregation the states would have voted to end it at some point.

.  Im pretty much against the fed for evrything other then national defense and when some state passes a law that effects other states or issues that crosses state lines .  Other then that leave it for the states to decide.  For better or worse if you dislike it then move.  I know its not the way the constitution was written thats just my opinion.  The fed needa to leave the states alone.  If NC wants to outlaw gay marraige and you think thats wrong then your free to come to MD where you can get married.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Yep and whats segregation have to do with gay marriage.
> 
> 
> If your complaint is the people didnt know what they were voting for then thats the pro gay marriage lobbys fault for not getting the word out good enough.
> If your complaint it tyranny of the majority well thats the price you pay for living in a democracy.  Sonetines the people vote badly and someday they may see the mistake and fix it.  The good thing about a democracy is nothing is forever any and all rights and laws can be voted away.
> Had the fed not ended segregation the states would have voted to end it at some point.
> 
> .  Im pretty much against the fed for evrything other then national defense and when some state passes a law that effects other states or issues that crosses state lines .  Other then that leave it for the states to decide.  For better or worse if you dislike it then move.  I know its not the way the constitution was written thats just my opinion.  The fed needa to leave the states alone.  If NC wants to outlaw gay marraige and you think thats wrong then your free to come to MD where you can get married.



The majority of the Southern people thought it was peachy to have that in place.
Same thing.
By the logic of the majority rule we'd still have white only fountains.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> The majority of the Southern people thought it was peachy to have that in place.
> Same thing.
> By the logic of the majority rule we'd still have white only fountains.



And a majority of Californians agree with NC so are they a bunch of uneducated souther hicks like is being said about NC?


----------



## ballen0351

Id rather know upfront how people fell then have laws require them to hide it and have them do things behind my back like spit in my food.  And as a cop im pretty sure ive had my fair share of spit in my food.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Id rather know upfront how people fell then have laws require them to hide it and have them do things behind my back like spit in my food.  And as a cop im pretty sure ive had my fair share of spit in my food.



you think the black short order cook did not do his/her share of spitting back then?


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> you think the black short order cook did not do his/her share of spitting back then?



Back then?  They still do.  


Point is you cant legislate politeness or force eveyone to live in harmony by law.  Sometimes its better to leave things alone until people are mature enough to allow things to happen on there own.  Forcing people under law only causes.knee jerk reactions like this.   I could careless if two people want to get married but if enough people do care well its power to the people.  What was it they said when Obama said when he was elected when he was talking about the health care laws something to the effect of the people have spoken well you got to take the good with the bad.


----------



## Ken Morgan

In a truly democratic society there would be no taxation as no one would vote to be taxed, but we are taxed because the state needs to function. 

Yes people vote the way they vote and the consequences are the consequences. However, the righteousness of a society is judged by how they treat their minorities, years ago non-Christians, women and non-whites were treated little better then cattle, we have matured somewhat in the west. In many parts of the world women are still treated less than cattle, the caste system in India is brutal, and try being a Christian in Egypt these days. We recognise these things to be wrong and we encourage those governments to do something about their poor treatment of minorities, regardless of what their populations think. Yet then somehow we think its ok to treat our own minorities poorly? Governments enact laws and policies all the time that are not popular, but are necessary, equal rights to gays is one of them.


----------



## ballen0351

We dont treat minorities as equals in this country they are a protected class.  They are already treated differently.  If my son went to school wearing a red sox hat and someone punched him in the face its assault.  If he was wearing a gay pride shirt and was punxhed in the face its a hate crime with increased punishment.  It is what it is.  The people are not ready to accept it in NC.  Marriage laws are left up to the state to decide.  That state decided no.  My state decided yes.  If you dont like it move.  If My state passed a law i could not deal with and i was totally against id move.  I have that right.  Someday in the future NC may decide to allow gays to marry and when they are ready they can change the law.  Laws come and go.  As a society changes so do the laws so far society has not changed enough to want gay marriage.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles. I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman. That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.



Interestingly, most of "what you find in the Bible," usually doesn't mean what you think it means, as regards to homosexuality.

Jesus, for instance, never said anything about it-though it's likely that he would have been against homosexual acts and practices, as an extremely observant Hebrew.

"Paul," of course, is another story. However, one of his passages most cited as an example of a condemnation of homosexuality is itself an example of the very murkiness one finds in this area:



> Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
> [SUP]9 [/SUP]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> [SUP]10 [/SUP]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



We'll leave aside the matter of authorship-_again_-and point out-*again* that the origional _koine_ Greek might look more appropriately like this, in syntax and language:



> Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, *malakoi, arsenokoitai,* thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.



"Unholy" here is _adikos_ and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication. Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using&#8211;you'll find various English words and phrases instead. What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, *no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

*It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was _homophilia._ That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this *word is never used in scripture*. McNeill, in his work, _The Church and the Homosexual,_ writes that a second century use of the word in _"Apology of Aristides" _seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words&#8211;malekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied&#8211;that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the _malekos_, and the adult the_ arsenkoites _referred to in this passage of scripture.

While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality&#8211;there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though the author of the works attributed to Paul seems rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship to me.

As others have pointed out, Christians no longer make burnt offerings (neither do Jews), keep kosher, perform ritual bathing, stone people for adultery, keep menstruating women segregated (and, I'm sorry, but tampons don't exactly cut it any more than lack of trichinosis does for eating pork) or even, in the interpretation of some (7th Day Adventists) keep the Sabbath holy, since Saturday is still "the seventh day." But hey, that's okay-_just as using mistranslated verses and interpreting them how you choose to_ is okay. What's not okay, and what I'm railing about and will continue to rail about, is not just the hypocrisy, or the cherry picking of verses, or the dwelling upon Old Testament fixations with sexual behavior and mores-what is not okay is trying to run _*other*_ people's lives by those rules. What is not okay, and probably wouldn't be okay with "Jesus"-anymore than homsexuality would have been "okay" with him, *-culturally*-is trying to use the state, or government, to rule the people. If you believe that homosexual behavior/marriage/whatever will damn you for all eternity to the fires of hell, _*then don't engage in it*._ Nowhere in scripture does it say that you'll be damned for the actions of others, or for the actions of your government. If there's gay marriage, sure, maybe it's another sign of the coming of the Apocalypse, and Jesus will walk the earth in rightiousness, bearing a flaming sword-if that's the case, you should pray harder, *and mind your own business....... *


----------



## Ken Morgan

The bible also says you can sell your children into slavery too, as well as kill your bride if she isn&#8217;t a virgin when you marry her. Why do we pick and choose what parts of the book we wish to follow?


----------



## ballen0351

Because as a free person with a vote your free to pick and choose whatwver you want.  Its your vote if you want to listen to the taco bell dog its your right.  If you want to listen to the bible its your right.  If you just want to piss off a liberal and thats your only reason to vote again its your right and nobody has to defend their vote.  Its their vote to cast as they see fit.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Because as a free person with a vote your free to pick and choose whatwver you want. Its your vote if you want to listen to the taco bell dog its your right. If you want to listen to the bible its your right. If you just want to piss off a liberal and thats your only reason to vote again its your right and nobody has to defend their vote. Its their vote to cast as they see fit.



It's not fit-*or just*-that they get to vote on this at all.


----------



## ballen0351

If your pro gay marriage then you need to do a better job making your case.  Calling people stupid rednecks is not going to win alot of converts.  There have been some very good pro gay marriage arguments on MT made by others in other threads on this topic in rhe past.  They need to make better arguments to the people for their cause.  They failed fo back to the drawing board and try again


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> It's not fit-*or just*-that they get to vote on this at all.



I agree with you.  I dont think the govt should have any say in who or what i marry.  We gave them that right and now were stuck with the outcome.  It should be between me my spouse and my god.  Not a govt paper pusher at the county court house.


----------



## MSTCNC

But, what I'm saying is... be an INFORMED voter...

That's a majority of the issue with the NC legislation. Exit polls are showing that those who voted for the amendment, had no idea it included domestic and civil unions as well as same-sex unions...

My issue is NOT that people passed this because they hate the gay community... it's that they did so UNINFORMED... and, having done so, they took rights away from an even bigger portion of the population... simply because they thought they'd "fix those queer folk"...

Gay as a blade... or straight as an arrow... if you're not a man and a woman who where married in a religeous institution... you aren't married... and you have no rights...

Personally? I have friends on both side of the "normal" line... and this affects them all... and I think it's a horrible thing...

That's all I have to say really... I appreciate everyone weighing in...

{salute}


----------



## ballen0351

Like i said more then half the people in this country dont care they are not informed about politics they votw for the D or R and dont even know the names.   My own mother thought Obama was the republican in 08.  Thankfully shes not a citizen so she cant vote.  You can claim ignorance on almost every topic thats voted on.  That goes back to the supoorters of the bill need to do a better job getting the information out there.  You can only blame the pro gay people for this bill they didnt do a good enough job spreading the word


----------



## WC_lun

States cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional.  Seems to me that keeping a person from having equal civil rights is indeed a breach of the constitution, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with thier life style.  As a nation we do revoke some people's civil rights, but there must be a cause to do so, say the person is a felon.  Archaic laws on homosexuality, much like cross racial relationships, have either been struck down or no longer enforced.  That means we now have a segment of the population that do not have equal civil rights for reasons that are not part of law.

Then there is the issue of people forcing thier religious beliefs on others.  If Muslims all moved to one state and voted in Shariah law, how would that fly?  How about if Jews voted in a law that everyone had to eat koscher?  Or even if the right wing Christians voted in a law outlawing dancing or alcohol?  Liberals outlawing guns?  Rightly there would be an uproar about religious and personal freedoms.  However, because the target of these so called marriage laws are considered the other, it is okay to do so, because "its the will of the people."  It is nonsense and it is not right.  Remember how easy it is to justify outlawing someone else's civil rights when yours become under attack.


----------



## ballen0351

Thats all fine and good but there is no right to be married.  Its not in the constitution.  So its left up to the states constitution and NC just changed there constitution.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Thats all fine and good but there is no right to be married. Its not in the constitution. So its left up to the states constitution and NC just changed there constitution.






> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.*Article IV, section 1, U.S. Constitution*



..the so-called "Full faith and credit clause."

Which basically means if Rita (that's the *wife*) and I get married in NM (*we did!*) then we're married in Nevada, Utah, New York, Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, Alabama, Florida, and, yes, even in North Carolina-though we wouldn't have had a legally recognized marriage there prior to 1967, not in the least because I was only 7 and she was only 3, but because she's remarkably Nordic and blonde in appearance, and I'm clearly *not.* :lol: It's because of the full faith and credit clause that the SCOTUS decided that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional-in fact, the language of that decision is telling:



> _*Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"* fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State._



It's legal for two dudes to get married in Vermont. It's *unconstitutional* for any other state not to recognize it. Any law or constitutional amendment enacted in any state against recognizing it is a violation of Article IV, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and, by definition, _*unconstitutional*_-which is why the current SCOTUS will never hear such a case-it's too compellingly clear, and to hear the argument is to agree with it.


----------



## ballen0351

And at somepoint i expect the SCOTUS to take this topic on and rule just as they have in other marriage laws.  But until then its still up to the state.  When they do rule it will be settled but not until then we will have many different laws regarding this topic.  I didnt read the entire NC law as it was passed but it may recognize marriages in other states juat not allow it to happen in NC itself .   I honeslty dont really care about the law itself it has no effect on me i dont live in the state.  Its their state they can do whatever they want.  We already have gay marrage here so if your gay in NC drive 2 states north and get hitched.  We can use the tourism money.


----------



## ballen0351

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199 , 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C

States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


----------



## ballen0351

As of May 2012, with the passing of North Carolina's gay marriage ban, 12 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute and 30 via the state's constitution.

Looks like its outlawed in most states.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199 , 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C
> 
> States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
> 
> Under the law, no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).



And it's pretty clearly also a violation of Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution-in fact, it's a direct contravention of it.


----------



## ballen0351

Its only a violation when its ruled on and its 16 years old and has never been taken beforw the high court.  Maybe someone needs to fight it.


----------



## ballen0351

I think the feds are stepping back on alot of hot button issues and letting the states deal with it.  Just like legal marijuana its still illegal in the federal system to possess marijuana but many states have made it legal and the feds havent tried to stop it.  Same thing here in reverse.  Obama wants same sex marriage but he wont try to fight for it in court  or at least until his next term and he wont need to worry about votes.
Its pretty clear most people dont want same sex marriage it its illegal in over 40 states so he wont touch it until he either wins or looses in Nov.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Its only a violation when its ruled on and its 16 years old and has never been taken beforw the high court.  Maybe someone needs to fight it.



We need a few rich gays to tackle that one. Arguing in the SC isn't for poor people like me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> I think the feds are stepping back on alot of hot button issues and letting the states deal with it.  Just like legal marijuana its still illegal in the federal system to possess marijuana but many states have made it legal and the feds havent tried to stop it.  Same thing here in reverse.  Obama wants same sex marriage but he wont try to fight for it in court  or at least until his next term and he wont need to worry about votes.
> Its pretty clear most people dont want same sex marriage it its illegal in over 40 states so he wont touch it until he either wins or looses in Nov.



Surveys put it at about even nationally. Most of the votes such as California's Prop 8 were close.

Of course, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> We need a few rich gays to tackle that one. Arguing in the SC isn't for poor people like me.



Im sure if it was as cut and dry as some say the ACLU would havr been all over this years ago


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Im sure if it was as cut and dry as some say the ACLU would havr been all over this years ago



Several cases are _s....l....ooooww.....ly_ working their way there-by all appearances, courts are downright reluctant to hear them, but one or more of them ought to make it to the SCOTUS by 2013 at the earliest-that would be California's Prop 8, btw.....


----------



## elder999

And this minister, in Greensboro, North Carolina, pretty much points out all the stupid....


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> Several cases are _s....l....ooooww.....ly_ working their way there-by all appearances, courts are downright reluctant to hear them, but one or more of them ought to make it to the SCOTUS by 2013 at the earliest-that would be California's Prop 8, btw.....


Im just suprised the defense of marriage act wasnt challenged  15 years ago.  It will be interesting to see what happens with this.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> Im just suprised the defense of marriage act wasnt challenged 15 years ago. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.



America was stunned: having Bill Clinton sign a "Defense of Marriage Act" is a lot like having Teddy Kennedy teach lifesaving.....:lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1

How amazing that everyone wants to jump all over the Bible and prove it is so wrong.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't say what a lot of people want it to say so they can be comfortable.

Well, rather than try to refute every contrary statement here by numerous people, I will just tell all that I will believe what I want.  I am not responsible for anyone else's belief, only my own.  I have stated my beliefs.  You all are free to have your own beliefs.   I stated my beliefs were from my upbringing and the Bible.  I have stated before I believe in the King James Version (translation).  There are other versions.  All are free to choose the Bible version (translation) they wish to believe in.  I have made my choice.  It might be interesting to note that even Wescott and Hort had no problem translating the Greek to say sex between men or sex between women was wrong.

I did not state that anyone else was required to agree with my beliefs, nor that I intended to require anyone to adhere to my beliefs.  Yet here we are on page five of this thread, and probably half or  more of the posts are attacking the Bible.  Not believing the Bible, is again, the prerogative of each individual.  I have yet to attack anyone else's beliefs.  I could, but would that help you change your beliefs?  I would rather simply talk about what the Bible says and what I believe.  Then others can make choices to believe or not believe as they decide.

But I wonder why nobody has commented on the rest of my post?

Oh well.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> How amazing that everyone wants to jump all over the Bible and prove it is so wrong. Or maybe not. It doesn't say what a lot of people want it to say so they can be comfortable.
> 
> Well, rather than try to refute every contrary statement here by numerous people, I will just tell all that I will believe what I want. I am not responsible for anyone else's belief, only my own. I have stated my beliefs. You all are free to have your own beliefs. I stated my beliefs were from my upbringing and the Bible. I have stated before I believe in the King James Version (translation). There are other versions. All are free to choose the Bible version (translation) they wish to believe in. I have made my choice. It might be interesting to note that even Wescott and Hort had no problem translating the Greek to say sex between men or sex between women was wrong.
> 
> I did not state that anyone else was required to agree with my beliefs, nor that I intended to require anyone to adhere to my beliefs. Yet here we are on page five of this thread, and probably half or more of the posts are attacking the Bible. Not believing the Bible, is again, the prerogative of each individual. I have yet to attack anyone else's beliefs. I could, but would that help you change your beliefs? I would rather simply talk about what the Bible says and what I believe. Then others can make choices to believe or not believe as they decide.
> 
> But I wonder why nobody has commented on the rest of my post?
> 
> Oh well.




Because the KJV is full of errors-in translation, prose and data-especially in this regard. That's a *fact*.

What you choose to believe, and call "the _truth_," is entirely up to you. No one, least of all me, has attacked your "beliefs," only the specious document on which you've chosen to base them.

"The rest of your post?" Hardly relevant-I mean, it sounds sort of like...., I dunno: "_I've got lots of black friends._" to me....:lfao:


----------



## Jenna

I worry so much that to cite biblical passages in support of this thing and that thing within our Judeo-Christian centric societies is to miss or be wilfully ignorant of the whole point of the Bible? goodness I am so tired of this sometimes.. it is just not good enough to READ the Bible (or the Torah or Qur'an or whichever) and then come out on the streets with guns loaded looking for witches and heretics.. If you subscribe to a faith then when you read your holy text with the heart of openness to receive the WHOLEword of God in the manner in which it is intended -WHETHER IT SUITS YOU OR NOT!- then you will put away your guns and your disapproving faces and concentrate on your own failings and leave everyone else to theirs.. People are NOT gay or straight or black, white, asian, male female it is all so stupid people are just people why am I so naive to think this is the only important thing?  There is NO danger to anyone in this same sex marriage and there is no offence to anyone except that which is actively sought by them.. and people like to seek their offence, why is this? pffft..


----------



## elder999

Jenna said:


> I worry so much that to cite biblical passages in support of this thing and that thing within our Judeo-Christian centric societies is to miss or be wilfully ignorant of the whole point of the Bible? goodness I am so tired of this sometimes.. it is just not good enough to READ the Bible (or the Torah or Qur'an or whichever) and then come out on the streets with guns loaded looking for witches and heretics.. If you subscribe to a faith then when you read your holy text with the heart of openness to receive the WHOLEword of God in the manner in which it is intended -WHETHER IT SUITS YOU OR NOT!- then you will put away your guns and your disapproving faces and concentrate on your own failings and leave everyone else to theirs.. People are NOT gay or straight or black, white, asian, male female it is all so stupid people are just people why am I so naive to think this is the only important thing? There is NO danger to anyone in this same sex marriage and there is no offence to anyone except that which is actively sought by them.. and people like to seek their offence, why is this? pffft..



Gosh, Jenna-that sounds awful _spiritual_.:asian:

 Kind of misses one of the essential points of* religion*, though: _telling everyone else what to do._ :lfao:


----------



## Jenna

to read an holy text with a mind to who next door is doing what 'wrong' is to read the word of God with a closed heart and is to receive nothing.. then to worship with a closed heart is to satisfy nothing but ones dogmatic humanness.. good for those that seek to ban marriage between ANY who consent to it pffft.. it shows a commitment to never transcending this mundanity, that is fine what do I care and yes what do I know.. still I am saying these people it would be better instead to close up that holy text they are reading while looking disapprovingly through their curtains that holy text with such beautiful words of enlightenment and go next door use it to beat them with and maybe they will learn not to be gay next door to you again.. pffft.. I am weary of holy text cherrypicking.. and worse.. an whole system of jurisprudence and government based upon divisive misinterpretations? this amendment is based upon fear and ignorance.   spiritual whatever I am the stupid one x


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> America was stunned: having Bill Clinton sign a "Defense of Marriage Act" is a lot like having Teddy Kennedy teach lifesaving.....:lfao:



or AA classes?


----------



## WC_lun

Historically we have not left the matter of civil rights up to the majority.  As you have pointed out, in too many cases the majority vote from a place of ignorance.  Allowing a person's civil rights to be left up to the ignorant makes no sense.  For these type of laws to be changed they must go through the lower courts then make it to the higher courts.  Courts that do NOT want to hear these cases because of popular pressure.  These laws must eventually be changed to be in line with other civil rights and seperation of state laws.  However, it will be slow going until bias on the basis of ignorance is not the rule of law.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1, it must be nice to be so sure. For thousands of years, the one line in Leviticus has been read and debated, in the original Hebrew, so as to get the true meaning, and yet it is still not clear exactly what 'man lying with a man as with a woman' exactly means. Furthermore, there is nothing in Mishna expeanding on this. So we are left with only the literal meaning. Most likely refering to sodomy. Anything else is OK. Torah does not say homosexuality is wrong, merely that this one act is wrong. Just don't put blind faith in a bad translation.


----------



## oftheherd1

elder999 said:


> Because the KJV is full of errors-in translation, prose and data-especially in this regard. That's a *fact*.



Please enlighten me. Which translation is not "... full of errors-in translation, prose and data-especially in this regard." And fact? There indeed being a lot of contradictory information, it would seem you only designate as fact, that which you choose to believe. You have that right, but not to determine what is fact and what is not for me. I believe what I say to be fact, and I can give you my reasons. But my beliefs are based on my faith more than any "fact" you or I can bring forth.



elder999 said:


> What you choose to believe, and call "the _truth_," is entirely up to you. No one, least of all me, has attacked your "beliefs," only the specious document on which you've chosen to base them.



If you strongly attack the basis of my beliefs, and only when I mention it, how do you say you are not attacking me? And "specious?" Saying that about the Bible does you no credit sir.



elder999 said:


> "The rest of your post?" Hardly relevant-I mean, it sounds sort of like...., I dunno: "_I've got lots of black friends._" to me....:lfao:



Perhaps I don't correctly understand your meaning, emoticon or not. If I did not state my stance well, just let me know. But I take that as insulting. Shame on you sir!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

View attachment $gay-marriage-anyway.gif


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> oftheherd1, it must be nice to be so sure. For thousands of years, the one line in Leviticus has been read and debated, in the original Hebrew, so as to get the true meaning, and yet it is still not clear exactly what 'man lying with a man as with a woman' exactly means. Furthermore, there is nothing in Mishna expeanding on this. So we are left with only the literal meaning. Most likely refering to sodomy. Anything else is OK. Torah does not say homosexuality is wrong, merely that this one act is wrong. Just don't put blind faith in a bad translation.



Yes, it is nice to be so sure.  As to the meaning of "man lying with a man as with a woman."  Maybe I am wrong not to analyze to death as you have told me Jews are wont to do with all scripture (I'm sure that may be fun in a way).  But I can't imagine God would say two men simply occupying the same bed, absent any sexual connotations, would be a sin, or even describe it that as being "as with a woman."  You or anyone else is free to understand it as you wish.  As far as putting blind faith in a bad translation?  You see, I don't believe the KJV is a bad translation.  Again, you or anyone else is free to have your own beliefs.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, it is nice to be so sure.  As to the meaning of "man lying with a man as with a woman."  Maybe I am wrong not to analyze to death as you have told me Jews are wont to do with all scripture (I'm sure that may be fun in a way).  But I can't imagine God would say two men simply occupying the same bed, absent any sexual connotations, would be a sin, or even describe it that as being "as with a woman."  You or anyone else is free to understand it as you wish.



It likey meant sodomy. that is fairly clear. What is not there is averything else, including the idea that being a homosexual is a sin per say.




> As far as putting blind faith in a bad translation?  You see, I don't believe the KJV is a bad translation.  Again, you or anyone else is free to have your own beliefs.



"Thou shall not kill"

Bad translation right there. The Hebrew reads "No murder"


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> .  As far as putting blind faith in a bad translation?  You see, I don't believe the KJV is a bad translation.  Again, you or anyone else is free to have your own beliefs.



That has nothing to do with believes. That is linguistic and a fact.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob last time i checked we dont base our laws off of other countries.  So im not sure your point unless your infavor of the new wprld order one law for the world no country is allowed to decide for itself.


You all keep brining up the bible as if thats the only reason this bill was passed.  Fact is everyone has a vote and the people voted its there choice it does not matter if the bible told them to do it Rush told them to do it the mail man or the muppets eveeyone gets a vote and they are free to vote however they want and nobody needs to explain why.  If we ever get to vote for it here ill vote no just to piss off the Governor.  Since he decided he knows whats best for my state and never allowed us to vote.  Ill also vote.no to punish him for wanting to raise our gas tax to the highest in the nation ill vote no for everything he is for.  Its my vote im allowed.to use.it as i.see.fit. Truthfully i could give two craps about who get married to who.
  There is all this talk about people pushing their beliefs on others well that goes both ways.  Here the minority pushed its belief onto the majority.  In NC  and 40 other states they said no to gay marriage.  The federal govt also said no to gay marriage in 96.  It is what it is you dont like it do a better job getting the message out there to change peoples minds but simply attacking them and telling them what your opinion of the bible is will not change anyones mind.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1 said:


> Maybe I am wrong not to analyze to death as you have told me Jews are wont to do with all scripture (I'm sure that may be fun in a way).



We don't do it for fun. We study and analyze because the text has many meanings and it is a living document.

Reading the KJV and thinking you understand the message is like translating a Russian Cliffs notes and thinking you understand 'War and Peace'


----------



## CanuckMA

The Bible keeps getting brought up because it is usuallly the fall back argument against gay marriage.


----------



## ballen0351

CanuckMA said:


> The Bible keeps getting brought up because it is usuallly the fall back argument against gay marriage.



Funny the only people i see using the bible are the pro gay marriage to show how the people against it are wrong.  Ive seen obe person even bring religion up as a reason not to vote for it and 5 people bring it up as a reason why you can vote for it.  My fav part is when someone say i dont believe in the bible but look what the bible says lol....... 
Or your bible is wrong but my bible is right and it says this........

Who cares people are free to vote however they want for whatever reason.  So put out a valid argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed.   And saying your biblebis wrong so na na na boo boo is not a valid argument.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Funny the only people i see using the bible are the pro gay marriage to show how the people against it are wrong.  Ive seen obe person even bring religion up as a reason not to vote for it and 5 people bring it up as a reason why you can vote for it.  My fav part is when someone say i dont believe in the bible but look what the bible says lol.......
> Or your bible is wrong but my bible is right and it says this........
> 
> Who cares people are free to vote however they want for whatever reason.  So put out a valid argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed.   And saying your biblebis wrong so na na na boo boo is not a valid argument.



You have not been to the right places.

I see that a lot around here, people pointing fingers at that other (protestant) denomination (not even going into the 'do you Catholics believe in Jesus' story) is reading the wrong bible etc...
And yes, it is religion and bible based when the preacher exclaims from the pulpit the bitty about 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' with more or less fervor in the voice.


----------



## ballen0351

Maybe your right we never really had the debate here.  It was just passed with no concern about what people wanted.  Im also in one of the leftist left states.


----------



## CanuckMA

Ballen, you're right, the Bible should never enter this debate. But it does. 


In the end, it's simple. Gay marriage should be allowed because he current situation denies a large number of legal and economic rights and advantages to a minority solely because of what they are.There needs to be bullet proof protection for religious insttutions and clergy who do not want to perform those marriages. But marriage is a civil legal matter anyway. For an idea on how to draft such legislation, look at Canada. We've had gay marriage for quite a while now, and there has never been a lawsuit brough against clergy for refusal to perform a ceremony. And our society has not devolved into chaos.


----------



## granfire

While it is true that a country should not be concerned about the laws of another, I find it interesting that very Catholic and conservative nations already have the equality on the books.


----------



## ballen0351

CanuckMA said:


> And our society has not devolved into chaos.



I dont know about that ive been to canada and that stuff you call bacon is so NOT bacon


----------



## CanuckMA

ballen0351 said:


> I dont know about that ive been to canada and that stuff you call bacon is so NOT bacon




And that fat laced strips of pork bellies is?

But hell, what do i know. I never touch the stuff.


----------



## ballen0351

if marriage is only a civil arrangment then why not change all marriages to a contract.  Let churches keep marriages but give them no legal standing.


----------



## rframe

CanuckMA said:


> The Bible keeps getting brought up because it is usuallly the fall back argument against gay marriage.



It is brought up because laws (including what legal rights or privileges should be given to people in various situations) are based on the moral outlook (what _ought_ to be) of someone.  In a democratic or republic society, those laws are to reflect the beliefs of the population.

Individuals build their moral standards on many things including their experiences and their guiding world views.  For large numbers of people the bible is strongly influential to their world view.  To say they are wrong for holding their views is close-minded and ignorant, even if you do disagree with them.


----------



## CanuckMA

Church marriages have no legal standings. It's the civil contract that is signed as well that convey legal standing. The civil document is just a convinient way to advise the state that those 2 people can enjoy all the advantages given by the state.


----------



## Steve

The biggest clue for me that the outrage over gay marriage is at its root unethical is that time and again, those who are staunchly opposed to it reverse their positions completely when someone whom they love comes out as gay.  Pastors who have children who are gay are suddenly no longer staunchly against it.  Once the issue is humanized and people stop thinking of it in terms of "gay agenda" or "gay community" and start thinking about it in terms of _people _who are gay, the injustice becomes, IMO, pretty clear.  

That said, the most alarming thing about this in my opinion has nothing to do with gay marriage.  It's the overt, public, ratified endorsement of discrimination against a specific subset of citizens.  To date, this country and our States has taken a position that discrimination is okay against most groups, with a few very specific exceptions in the form of protected categories.  This is, to my knowledge, the first time that any State has specifically endorsed discrimination to the point where it is illegal to NOT discriminate.  While I can choose not to hire someone because they have tattoos on their face or multiple piercings or because they refuse to bathe, I can also choose NOT to discriminate on those grounds.  Saying that we MUST discriminate against gay people by barring them specifically as a result of an amendment to a State's constitution is, frankly, scary to me.


----------



## oftheherd1

CanuckMA said:


> It likey meant sodomy. that is fairly clear. What is not there is averything else, including the idea that being a homosexual is a sin per say.
> 
> "Thou shall not kill"
> 
> Bad translation right there. The Hebrew reads "No murder"



How do you define sin, so you know what not to do?

I do not speak Hebrew, and therefore an unable to comment with as much knowledge as you. But in looking for commentaries on "Thou shalt not kill" I found this URL, http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html and specifically this:

_Ratsach is used only a few times in the OT. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deut. 19, and Joshua 20-21, it is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call manslaughter, or negligence; but it seems that there is more to the matter. Passing by places where the word is used but there are no contextual clues (Is. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2), we have this:_


_In Judges 20:4, it describes the killing of a woman who was in a house that was beset upon by night by a gang of evil men. _
_In 1 Kings 21:19, the Lord rhetorically asks Ahab if he has ratsached. This is after Ahab has concluded a plot to do away with Naboth by having two fellows say they have heard Naboth blaspheme. (This word also describes Ahab in 2 Kings 6:32.) _
_In Job 24:14, it describes one who in the light sets upon the poor and the needy, and is a thief at night. _
_In Ps. 62:3, it describes the fate of someone who is not prepared for what will happen to them, for they have no foundation in God. In Ps. 94:6 it describes the wicked who kill the widow and the stranger -- those who are helpless and disoriented. _
_In Prov. 22:13, it describes something a lion will do to the slothful man. This verse, we shall see, is the key to the whole puzzle. _
_In Hos. 6:9, it is applied to priests who commit iniquity, with a comparison to a troop of robbers waiting for someone. _

_Taken together, we can discern a simple definition of ratsach: It refers to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal -- which means either: _

_as an angry reaction to stimulus; or _
_lying in wait, as one waits for prey._
_
...

_
_Nakah occurs in the OT almost 500 times. But it is a word that is used in the sense of striking (Gen. 19:11, where land is nakahed), defeating or conquering (Gen. 14:5, 7, where Abraham nakahs an army). It does not mean "to kill" but is given that definition by context alone. __Being that nakah does carry this variety of nuances, it is erroneous to allege that there is some contradiction in Scripture over nakah. 

_
Does any of that make sense to you with your understanding of Hebrew? If not, I would appreciate your comments on why not. Thanks for your reply.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> if marriage is only a civil arrangment then why not change all marriages to a contract.  Let churches keep marriages but give them no legal standing.



it IS a contract.
Always has been.


----------



## CanuckMA

oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> it IS a contract.
> Always has been.



It seems to me the fight is all over the word marriage not the defenition.  In places where civil unuions arw legal thats not good enough they want to be called married.


----------



## CanuckMA

Because civil unions do not usually carry the exact same rights as marriage. You can call the contract whatever you want, as long as there is one word and one definition for gay and not gay couples. Using marriage is easier because of the seer number of laws that reference that word. All you need to do is change the definition from one man and one woman to 2 people. To use a new word means that every law has to be changed. To use a new word strictly for gay marriage, means that not only every law still needs to be changed, but it opens the possibility of granting rights to one but not the other.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> It seems to me the fight is all over the word marriage not the defenition.  In places where civil unuions arw legal thats not good enough they want to be called married.



Well, I do believe there is always a devil in the detail. 
I think they don't care what it is actually called, as long as it entails the exact same benefits as marriage.

I have not kept up with it (got a bit busy with life as it happens around me) but the civil union and marriage do not include exact same right. That is the sticking point usually.

I am sure elder has the details on a hot key though.


----------



## granfire

CanuckMA said:


> oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.



and obviously English has a word for both, too....


----------



## ballen0351

Im not sure why they want to be married in the first place dont they see how sad us straight married guys are why do it to themselves


----------



## ballen0351

CanuckMA said:


> oftheherd1, you don't need an analysis of the text. Hebrew has a word for murder and a word for kill. the commandement uses the word for murder.


Taken out of context thats true but in the context of entire book you know what def they are talking about.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Im not sure why they want to be married in the first place dont they see how sad us straight married guys are why do it to themselves



LOL

You think us straight married guys fair better?! :lfao:

(on that note, MAKE them get married, they should be just as happy as we are.... )

That should read gals....


----------



## WC_lun

Marriage is a contract, submitted to the state, and following the state's laws and paying a fee to recieve the state's recognition of that contract.  The issue now is that some member's of our society must pass fundamentalist Christian values test as well to recieve state recognition of thier marriage, even if they do not prescribe to that particluar belief system.  If this same standard was held to different parts of our society, there would be hell to pay.  To make matters even more wrong in my opinion, there has been no provable reasons why gays should not marry and many provable reasons why they should be allowed to.  This means supposed religiuos beliefs are now the only basis for law. Whe that "relifious belief" is shown to be based upon prejudice, it makes it even more difficult to see how these laws are allowed to be.

The very same arguements against gay marriage were used to justify laws against bi-racial marriages.  Bi-racial marriages are now looked upon as fairly common.  Anyone proposing a law against bi-racial marriage today would be looked at as a bigoted fool, yet the very same reasons were used to defend such prejudice in our history.  If the arguements did not hold up then, why are we as a country so quick to give them credence now.  This is nothing more than some people legislating thier own prejudice into law, so the rest of us have to abide by someone else's bigotry.  

As a country, we want to pride ourselves on our rule of law and our somewhat reasoned approach on how ideas become laws in this country.  Someone sees a legitimate need for a law. A reason a particular law would help a segment of our society.  It then becomes voted on and if enough people agree, yes there is a need for this and yes it would be beneficial to have this law, its becomes law.  In this case, there is not benefit to outlawing gay marriage.  Married gays posses no risk to society by being married.  It could be argued with the ability to marriage, gays would pose less harm.  However, laws are being passed state to state that have no benefit of being passed, they are just a result of prejudice.  That bothers me and makes me ashamed that so many are prejudiced as to think these laws are anything other than the bigotry they are.

Prejudice and bigotry should not be the basis for law, any law.  If this becomes acceptable how will you argue against a law that uses those same markers to pass a law that effects you.  Will you be satisfied to wait out bad laws like this if you are the target?  I know moving to a different state has been mentioned.  What if you are poor or have many many ties to the community.  This becomes much more difficult.  Then you are also moving due to the bigotry of others.

In my opinion, we should be doing all we can to support people having loving, monogomous relationships.  Those things have a positive effect on society.  We should be doing everything we can to keep prejusdice and bigotry from being alloed purchase in our society.  Bigotry and prejudice are not postive influences on our society.


----------



## ballen0351

And thats your opinion.  In this case more NC voters dont share your opinion and thats their opinion.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> And thats your opinion.  In this case more NC voters dont share your opinion and thats their opinion.



True.
But replace gay with black and see what happens. Or white or martian....

Some things are just not left to the public, for the public as a whole does not get the picture...Like people not wanting o fund schools, because they have no kids. 


The list is endless, really.


----------



## ballen0351

Yes the govt knows best for us all why vote at all lets just turn our lives over to the govt it will be so much better for us all.  



Its the price you pay when people are allowed to vote for themselves you take the good with the bad.



granfire said:


> True.
> But replace gay with black and see what happens. Or white or martian....
> 
> Some things are just not left to the public, for the public as a whole does not get the picture...Like people not wanting o fund schools, because they have no kids.
> 
> 
> The list is endless, really.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Yes the govt knows best for us all why vote at all lets just turn our lives over to the govt it will be so much better for us all.
> 
> 
> 
> Its the price you pay when people are allowed to vote for themselves you take the good with the bad.



well, no.

That's why the founding fathers put safeguards in place.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> well, no.
> 
> That's why the founding fathers put safeguards in place.



And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime.  We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes.  The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm not a Christian.
This isn't a Christian nation.
We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.

Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime.  We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes.  The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.



Will of the People has little to do with amending the Constitution.



> Article V of the Constitution outlines how to amend (modify) the document. It consists of two steps: proposal and ratification.
> 
> * 1. Propose An Amendment*
> Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.
> 
> Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a  two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
> Two-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.
> *2. Ratify An Admendment*
> Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
> 
> Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
> Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via  ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal  Prohibition (21st Amendment).
> Is there a timeline for ratification? The US Supreme Court has held that  ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the  proposal." Since the 18th Amendment, Congress has set a term of seven  years for ratification.
> 
> Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of  Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps  the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.
> 
> 
> Article V
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem  it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,  or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the  several States, shall call a Convention for proposing  Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all  Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when  ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several  States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one  or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the  Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to  the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any  Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section  of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent,  shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm


----------



## ballen0351

The will of the people have everything to do with changing the constitution.  Who do you think elects both houses of congress.  Tje people.  If you get enough people that want something changed it can happen.  If you got enough people that no longer wanted the 2nd amendmemt they could change it.  If you got enough people that want single payer health carr they could change the constitution.  If you gpt enough people that wanted to return to segregation and outlaw interracial marriage you could.  Thats the point when you have a country where everyone gets a vote you get great results and not so great results.  Theres no education requirement to vote so even people that decide im going to vote yes no yes no yes no with out even reading the ballot that vote no matter how stupid counts. You get enough well you win


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm not a Christian.
> This isn't a Christian nation.
> We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.
> 
> Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.


So EVERYONE that voted the ban was a christian?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> And every single safeguard can be changed at anytime.  We could outlaw freedom of speech or press tomorrow if we had enough votes.  The constitution can be changed anytime we want if you get enough people to vote.



well, it takes too many people to agree on it.

Yes, it could in theory be changed.

In reality not much will be done in our lifetime. 

That is in a nutshell why the US constitution is such a great work of art.

It is not the best constitution. Nor the oldest.

But it is simply the best old one, still working as the authors had intended, and in 200 years not many changes were undertaken. Simply genius!


----------



## oftheherd1

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm not a Christian.



True if you say so.



Bob Hubbard said:


> This isn't a Christian nation.



We are still sometimes considered so.  But you are correct.  I think that sad.



Bob Hubbard said:


> We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.



For sure.  And I wouldn't want it any other way.  We have in general found a way to keep our religion and civil government separate.  Some nations have a problem understanding that.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.



That wasn't nice of you Bob.  Why do you think christians don't seek, nor by implication, have the ability to find, happiness?

And one thing I don't understand, is why those of you who are so sure it is OK to not have values and laws to support them, don't advocate for total anarchy?  And maybe that isn't nice either.  But we always draw lines on values and laws that will support them.  We just don't always agree on where those lines should be drawn.  That's OK too.  We should not be a nation of sheep.  I have expressed my views, and you and others, your views.  Great!  But I wonder if there aren't more who think my view (not because it is mine) is how they also believe, but just don't want the roasting going on here now?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

oftheherd1 said:


> True if you say so
> 
> ....
> 
> That wasn't nice of you Bob.  Why do you think christians don't seek, nor by implication, have the ability to find, happiness?
> 
> And one thing I don't understand, is why those of you who are so sure it is OK to not have values and laws to support them, don't advocate for total anarchy?  And maybe that isn't nice either.  But we always draw lines on values and laws that will support them.  We just don't always agree on where those lines should be drawn.  That's OK too.  We should not be a nation of sheep.  I have expressed my views, and you and others, your views.  Great!  But I wonder if there aren't more who think my view (not because it is mine) is how they also believe, but just don't want the roasting going on here now?



First part, I'm not. There's a thread around here somewhere that I went into more detail on where I fall as it were.

Last part, wasn't what I meant.  My point was if you're a Christian, follow Christian policy, but let those of us who aren't follow our own. Which means if my faith is fine with same-sex marriage, then let us recognize them, and give them the same rights as -everyone else who is married-.

That's all.

As to happiness...I could say 'married misery' too. 

As to views, believe what you want, how you want. But let me do the same.  

(sorry if I'm not being clear, had little sleep dealing with some idiot putting a rock through my front window last night.)


----------



## MSTCNC

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm not a Christian.
> This isn't a Christian nation.
> We're a Republic, not a Theocracy.
> 
> Let the Christians deal with themselves, and let the rest of us seek happiness.



Thank you, Bob...


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> well, it takes too many people to agree on it.


And with as deeply divided the nation is becoming i see a much greater chance of some wtates saying screw you washington DC and leaving the union before a mass change in the constitution my only point was peopke xan change the safeguards if they choose to nothing is forever 


> Yes, it could in theory be changed.
> 
> In reality not much will be done in our lifetime.
> 
> That is in a nutshell why the US constitution is such a great work of art.
> 
> It is not the best constitution. Nor the oldest.
> 
> But it is simply the best old one, still working as the authors had intended, and in 200 years not many changes were undertaken. Simply genius!


The problem comes when the govt finds its loopholes to get around it or just flat out refuses to follow it


----------



## ballen0351

Bob all thats fine and dandy but you seem to imply a person should not vote their beliefs because you disagree with them.  If i believe gay marriage is wrong should i not vote that way?  I cant help it more people believe the same way i do then believe the way you do.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> And with as deeply divided the nation is becoming i see a much greater chance of some wtates saying screw you washington DC and leaving the union before a mass change in the constitution my only point was peopke xan change the safeguards if they choose to nothing is forever
> 
> The problem comes when the govt finds its loopholes to get around it or just flat out refuses to follow it



No, nothing is forever, even great empires eventually fall.

However, the government not following the guidelines only works until they are challenged. 
Pass a numbskull law that affects nobody, it won't cause ripples. Eventually somebody will come along and test the waters, because that's what some people do. 

Then the big guys will tell DC that sadly that won't do and the 'representatives' will scramble to fix it. 

it ain't perfect, but the best thing so far.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Bob all thats fine and dandy but you seem to imply a person should not vote their beliefs because you disagree with them.  If i believe gay marriage is wrong should i not vote that way?  I cant help it more people believe the same way i do then believe the way you do.



If people minded more teir own business instead of everybody elses....
Especially in matters that happen behind close doors between consenting adults...
There is a mild latent perversion going on in that obsession with same sex relationships.


----------



## Steve

If you believe it's wrong, ballen, I'd recommend not marrying a guy.  

I seriously don't understand why I'm the only one who seems alarmed at the idea of ratifying enforced discrimination.  This is no different than passing a law banning anyone who is clinically obese from eating in restaurants.  Or barring white people from being eligible for food stamps.  We are no longer talking about protected or unprotected categories.  We move into categories that are singled out for Government sanctioned discrimination.  That's not good, folks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nomad

Marriage, at it's root, is a civil contract that gives first precedence in all legal matters to the person's spouse.  You cannot get married in a church without having a marriage contract that meets state law... the religious ceremony is just that, a ceremony. If you or your spouse contracts a terrible illness, this document says you get to make choices that they may not be able to regarding their care.  If one dies, the other automatically gets any insurance benefits (unless the policy explicitly states someone else as the beneficiary) and inherits the spouse's possessions in the absence of a more explicit will.

As pointed out, a marriage performed in one state is valid in all others, and internationally as well.

Non-spouses that meet certain criteria are granted some of the same rights as spouses, depending on the state laws.  By definition, rights granted by these less-formalized arrangements don't necessarily transfer between states or internationally.

I don't understand how you tell a gay couple that's been together for 20 years that they don't qualify for equal rights and protection under the law, and that their relationship is somehow less valid than Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage.


----------



## Jenna

Nomad said:


> I don't understand how you tell a gay couple that's been together for 20 years that they don't qualify for equal rights and protection under the law, and that their relationship is somehow less valid than Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage.


Most concise and astute comment so far! BIG +1


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> If you believe it's wrong, ballen, I'd recommend not marrying a guy.


I dont disagree with you.  Ive alreay said several times i dont think you should need govt permission to get married.  I woukd never fight to bring it up for a vote.  But if it was on the ballot should you not vote your beliefs?



I dont think it should have ever been voted on  if i want to marry my jeep its none of your concern
But we let the govt in our relationships and now were stuck


----------



## Master Dan

Hey on CNN they just posted the top 5 cities for Porn in the US and NC had 2 out of 5 of the top 5 this is based on reserch data of streaming porn buying and renting Porn DVD's It never fails when the far right righteous goes off they tend to be guilty of far more than those they choose to hate or opress. You gotta love it? I think our economic stress as a country has led the Conservative factions to need to do something and in all Facists forums they feel better when they can point the finger at others for being to blame or make themselves feel better by saying that group or those people are bad? I hope 2012 election will point out that there are more sane people in the US than not?


----------



## Steve

I have a question.  Isn't the broader issue of state sanctioned discrimination larger than this one issue?  What I mean is, even of you are against gay marriage, can you not also agree that it is unjust to ratify discrimination against any group?   It's not the issue of gay marriage that's the real nut.  That's just the vehicle.  

 In other words, we are free to disapprove of gay marriage.  You already have that ability and dont need a law to do so.  But shouldn't we also be free to approve of it, as well?  If we choose?  Shouldn't we be free to discriminate or not?  These amendments take away the ability to choose not to discriminate.  That's oppressive in a completely scary new way. 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Master Dan said:


> Hey on CNN they just posted the top 5 cities for Porn in the US and NC had 2 out of 5 of the top 5 this is based on reserch data of streaming porn buying and renting Porn DVD's It never fails when the far right righteous goes off they tend to be guilty of far more than those they choose to hate or opress. You gotta love it? I think our economic stress as a country has led the Conservative factions to need to do something and in all Facists forums they feel better when they can point the finger at others for being to blame or make themselves feel better by saying that group or those people are bad? I hope 2012 election will point out that there are more sane people in the US than not?


So whats your excuse as to why it was voted down twice in Cali?  Thats not exactly a far right state


----------



## Sukerkin

Good point, Steve.

Here's Roger Water's rather chilling verse on the matter:

So ya
Thought ya
Might like to 
Go to the show.
To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
That space cadet glow.
I've got some bad news for you sunshine,
Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
We're gonna find out where you folks really stand.

Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way, 
I'd have all of you shot!


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I have a question.  Isn't the broader issue of state sanctioned discrimination larger than this one issue?  What I mean is, even of you are against gay marriage, can you not also agree that it is unjust to ratify discrimination against any group?   It's not the issue of gay marriage that's the real nut.  That's just the vehicle.
> 
> In other words, we are free to disapprove of gay marriage.  You already have that ability and dont need a law to do so.  But shouldn't we also be free to approve of it, as well?  If we choose?  Shouldn't we be free to discriminate or not?  These amendments take away the ability to choose not to discriminate.  That's oppressive in a completely scary new way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



People dont think in that wide a scope. People only see that one issue and wont look beyond it.   So you may be right that it opens the door to discrimination against others groups nobody worrys about that until it happens


----------



## Steve

What about you, ballen?  I'm not asking people.  I'm asking those of you in this thread who have no apparent problem with whats happening.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun

Steve, for some I think that is why this is such a big deal.  Others it is a bit more personal, knowing people that are directly effected by these laws.

For me, I don't like having the Christian right telling me that I must follow laws based upon thier understanding of thier religion and no other reason.  Then I have friends that are gay and have seen the heartache involved when partners of many years are not given spousal rights.  Including a house being sold out from underneath a gay partner of many years of a deseased man, because the dead mans family did not believe the gay lifestyle was valid AND they were greedy.  He was kicked out on the street, destitute because of the prolonged ilness of the man who died.  I have seen a gay woman not be able to spend her last moment on earth with the woman she's been with for many years, because legally they were't related or married.  These things happen because someone else wants to legislate thier own religion upon others.  Majority rule vote, in this case, just does not cut it in my book.  Not when there is no other basis for the law than prejudice.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...since 2/3 of the African American voters also voted against the gay marriage thing I was wondering, if as in an earlier post people who are against it just aren't ignorant, but stupid, does this mean they are stupid as well?  Does this mean they are right wing extremists as well?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76133.html



> African-Americans voted 2-1 in favor of the North Carolina amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, but the White House is betting that black voters there and beyond will stick with the president, despite broad resistance to legalization.


----------



## Sukerkin

I don't understand the point you are trying to make, BillC .  It is established fact (from answers to surveys) that homophobia is pretty high in the African American population, even in this day and age.  So, given that, I can't see that what you say carries a great deal of relevance to the core topic, that I suspect you are alluding to, that the driving force behind keeping 'gay' marriage illegal is a narrow cleaving to an Old Testament directive.

Admittedly, that directive was pretty darned unequivocal but wasn't it and a swathe of other Old Covenant laws essentially revoked by the New Covenant that Christ created?  Probably fodder for another thread there.


----------



## billc

Well, part of it would be that the topic of inter-racial marriage is being used in the argument, and the people in NC are being painted as white red necks who didn't like that either.  The issue stretches beyond one racial group.  I'm sure if you polled the various latin communities around the country they also would be against gay marriage.  Just trying to keep this in perspective.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> What about you, ballen?  I'm not asking people.  I'm asking those of you in this thread who have no apparent problem with whats happening.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



I think if you dont like the law move.  If the people in NC want this law i as someone from Maryland have no right to tell them how to run there state.  I think at some point tge SCOTUS will over turn the ban and i really dont care one way or the other.  Im not gay it does not effect me.  I just enjoy the debate.  I do find the dont push your beliefs on me to be a funny argument since thats exactly thats the same thing the pro gay side is doing as well.


----------



## WC_lun

So let me get this straight, no pun intended.  If my state passes a law that tramples on my civil rights, I should try to get another job in another state and spend my hard earned money to buy a house in another state and move?  That makes no sense to me.  I should not have to move to another state in this United States in order to recieve civil rights afforded me by the NATIONAL constitution.  No one should have to move because of prejudice.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> So let me get this straight, no pun intended.  If my state passes a law that tramples on my civil rights, I should try to get another job in another state and spend my hard earned money to buy a house in another state and move?  That makes no sense to me.  I should not have to move to another state in this United States in order to recieve civil rights afforded me by the NATIONAL constitution.  No one should have to move because of prejudice.



Except the National constitution does not protect a right to be married.

If a state passes a law you dont like you have 3 choices

Move to a state with better laws

Fight to change the law

Or deal with it.  

Thats it really unless you can think of a 4th?
calling people stupid red necks or evil christians really does not do much except i guess make you feel better about yourself at how "enlightened" you are compared to everyone else


----------



## WC_lun

As has been pointed out, it does. though to be fair that does not seem to make a difference to some law makers.  

Notice I never called anyone "stupid red necks or evil christians."  I named them as they are, prejudiced.  Unless you can show me a reason other than prejudice that these type of laws have been passed, I stand by that characterization.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> As has been pointed out, it does. though to be fair that does not seem to make a difference to some law makers.
> 
> Notice I never called anyone "stupid red necks or evil christians."  I named them as they are, prejudiced.  Unless you can show me a reason other than prejudice that these type of laws have been passed, I stand by that characterization.



You may not have called them that but others have like to picture of the state that ahowed only the college citys voted against the ban as to imply the rest of the state has never been to college and only educated people voted against the ban.


----------



## Sukerkin

If that is true it is pretty damning.  I am assuming that you are saying it is not so?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I think if you dont like the law move.  If the people in NC want this law i as someone from Maryland have no right to tell them how to run there state.  I think at some point tge SCOTUS will over turn the ban and i really dont care one way or the other.  Im not gay it does not effect me.  I just enjoy the debate.  I do find the dont push your beliefs on me to be a funny argument since thats exactly thats the same thing the pro gay side is doing as well.



So there would be no problem if a state wanted to ban brunettes from getting food stamps?  Or prohibiting obese people from using the public library?  Or cops from getting married?  Or people who have body piercings from running for state office?  All of these are arbitrary sub sets of people being denied what are otherwise government benefits most of us take for granted.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Bob all thats fine and dandy but you seem to imply a person should not vote their beliefs because you disagree with them.  If i believe gay marriage is wrong should i not vote that way?  I cant help it more people believe the same way i do then believe the way you do.



No, vote your beliefs is fine.

But make it an educated vote so that you are actually voting the way you think you are voting.

Or putting it another way, if you are pro-gay then make sure that's how your vote goes. Same with anti.

You should never have to say "I thought it meant something else" after you vote on something.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Except the National constitution does not protect a right to be married.



Actually, it does. Which is what Article IV, section 1 & Amendment 10 cover, in part. 

Alabama can't have a law denying blacks the ability to marry.

So why can they have a law doing that to gays?

Can they do that to retards?


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So there would be no problem if a state wanted to ban brunettes from getting food stamps?  Or prohibiting obese people from using the public library?  Or cops from getting married?  Or people who have body piercings from running for state office?  All of these are arbitrary sub sets of people being denied what are otherwise government benefits most of us take for granted.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Like i said if you get enough people on your side it is what it is.  You cant say let the people decide and then get pissed when they dont decide how you want.  Its ok for the people to legalize marijuana thats power to the people but when they say sorry no gay weddings its people are stupid we need the govt to step in and fix this.  

You cant say people have spoken about health care reform and people are atupid about gay marriage.

When this was set up for a vote the pro gay side had just as much chance and the non gay side to get it passed or failed.  They did a crappy job getting there message out.  Thats on them.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually, it does. Which is what Article IV, section 1 & Amendment 10 cover, in part.
> 
> Alabama can't have a law denying blacks the ability to marry.
> 
> So why can they have a law doing that to gays?
> 
> Can they do that to retards?



They can do it to gays until the court says they cant.  The feds passed a law signed by Clinton they says no state must recognize a gay marriage of another state.  I dont see a difference but the feds do and until the courts rule the law is valid.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> If that is true it is pretty damning.  I am assuming that you are saying it is not so?



Huh?


----------



## Sukerkin

:chuckles:  That's what I thought when I read your post #135.

What I unpicked from "*You may not have called them that but others have like to picture of the state that ahowed only the college citys voted against the ban as to imply the rest of the state has never been to college and only educated people voted against the ban" *was that you were saying that it was not the case that only the cities with a well educated population did not vote for the ban.


----------



## Carol

It's the more educated counties, not cities

View attachment $nc1.jpg

Additional info:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2012...rolina-lessons-from-the-amendment-battle.html


----------



## WC_lun

Those maps do make a point...


----------



## Josh Oakley

There was a time when I would not have been able to legally marry my wife, because of her being black? It was said that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and sanctity of marriage, was perverse, was against God's will, was unnatural, etc.

And now they are saying this about gay marriage.

But here's the reality. Adam and Steve getting married has no bearing on Jack and Jill's marriage. And as to whether it's God's will... This country is about religious freedom. Is it God's will that I'm atheist? Or that an atheist would serve a chaplain?

... Doesn't matter. My beliefs and religious identity is protected by the constitution. 

This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature. That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.


----------



## oftheherd1

Josh Oakley said:


> ...
> 
> This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. *And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature.* That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.



Are there other cultures that do not support gay or lesbian relationships, or prohibit them, that don't do it based on religion?


----------



## ballen0351

Josh Oakley said:


> There was a time when I would not have been able to legally marry my wife, because of her being black? It was said that interracial marriage would destroy the institution and sanctity of marriage, was perverse, was against God's will, was unnatural, etc.
> 
> And now they are saying this about gay marriage.
> 
> But here's the reality. Adam and Steve getting married has no bearing on Jack and Jill's marriage. And as to whether it's God's will... This country is about religious freedom. Is it God's will that I'm atheist? Or that an atheist would serve a chaplain?
> 
> ... Doesn't matter. My beliefs and religious identity is protected by the constitution.
> 
> This country does not base its decisions on any god's will. And there is no argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature. That's why this whole issue was non-sensical to me even when I was a Christian. God's will and the government's will are not the same thing.



It is true the country should never base its decision on religion.  But this wasnt the countrys law it was put up for a vote.  So while a country shouldnt base a law from any religion as a person your free to base your vote on anything you want.  The pro gay side didnt get enough votes.  Oh well they can try again next year and keep trying.  Or take the fight to the courts.  People can vote for any reason they want they dont need a good reason they can vote for a president just because hes black and no other reason.  The can vote down gay marriage because his neighbor is gay and his dog keepa you up at night.  You dont need a reaaon as to why or how you vote.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Those maps do make a point...



What point is that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> What point is that?



Education cures ignorance and superstition?


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> Education cures ignorance and superstition?



So nobody with a degree voted for the ban in the state?  And only people in thoea counties have degrees?  OR could it be the big cities are in thoes counties and bigger cities tend to be more left leaning and democrat.  Thats where i think more of the nongay marriage vote came from not religion but politics.  It goes back to dems vs republican.  Gay marriage is a dem thing so republicans said nope .  I think some people voted for rwligious reasons but i think alot voted for political reasons.

If we ever get to vote here ill vote no not because of a religious reason but simply because this is something our Gov wanted and ill vote against him on everything he wants.  My vote has nothing to do with the issue and morw to do with not going along with the Gov.  Which like it or not is my right to use my vote however i want.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> Education cures ignorance and superstition?



So when California voted it down twice were they all uneducated stupid rednecks too?  Wheres you maps on its voter break down?


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> So when California voted it down twice were they all uneducated stupid rednecks too?  Wheres you maps on its voter break down?



Well, in Cali the Church of Laterday Saints had a hand (and lots of money) in it.

And it's Cali...I think the laws of nature are suspended there....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

btw, a difference of 600,000 votes is pretty close.

Based on comments made by the Prop 8 supporters, I would cite significant ignorance on the matter, especially from the people voting no simply because 'there are more important issues like the economy'. That shows ignorance.  More people getting married = more business for halls, officiants, caterers, dj's, photographers, wardrobe + more tax money for counties and states via licenses. That -is- economic stimulation at work, which is estimated as a multi-million dollar boost for each state allowing it. (NY estimates over $400M)


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Well, in Cali the Church of Laterday Saints had a hand (and lots of money) in it.


Might be but id be interested in seeing the break down.  They waisted no time with tje southern redneck crap on NC  Id like to see how it broke down in other states that have said no as well.



> And it's Cali...I think the laws of nature are suspended there....



Thats for sure.


----------



## ballen0351

So again it looks to fall more closely down party lines then anything.  Most of the areas that were for gay marriage are more dem areas of the state the bigger cities.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Like i said if you get enough people on your side it is what it is.  You cant say let the people decide and then get pissed when they dont decide how you want.  Its ok for the people to legalize marijuana thats power to the people but when they say sorry no gay weddings its people are stupid we need the govt to step in and fix this.
> 
> You cant say people have spoken about health care reform and people are atupid about gay marriage.
> 
> When this was set up for a vote the pro gay side had just as much chance and the non gay side to get it passed or failed.  They did a crappy job getting there message out.  Thats on them.


So, if we all voted to force anyone over 40% body fat to quit their jobs and move into a... let's call it a "camp," you'd be okay with it?  I mean, if we had enough votes.  If the people of Washington State were 90% in favor of sending fat people to labor camp, you think that's cool?  No problem?  Fat people should have run a better PR campaign?  

There is no scenario where state endorsed (and legally enforced) discrimination is good.  It's draconian.  We've done it before and it's a shameful chapter in our Country's history.  We did it to the Japanese citizens during WWII and it was shameful.  And we have obviously learned nothing from it.  

On the subject of weed, there is a movement to make it legal, and that will pass or it won't.  But there is no movement to prohibit people who listen to Reggae music and have dreadlocks from voting, driving on public streets or enjoying any of the basic government services that we take for granted.  It would, IMO, be absurd to think that we would single out people with dreadlocks for some specific, state enforced discrimination.  

Do you see the distinction?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States

An interesting read and highlights the inequality.


----------



## JWLuiza

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

There's a generational gap and a religious divide. They didn't break it down by educational background, but other polls and the correlation of decreased religiosity with education would provide a trend of increased support with increased education. Can't wait for the year where all my friends can get married if they love each other.


----------



## JWLuiza

This is also why civil rights should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had it wrong with slavery and interracial marriage. We've got it wrong here as well.


----------



## Master Dan

The LDS Church official position is to be neutral on any or all politics go to http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng to read however they do get concerned about preservation of the family but in fact official church policy and at local levels it is always stressed to not be negative judgemental or hateful to any other church or people including lgbt as a policy or for its members to say or do hatefull things to others. 

*IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANY CHURCH GET IT FROM A MEMBER 
**Political Neutrality*
The Churchs mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
The Church does not:


Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:


Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
In the United States, where nearly half of the worlds Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Churchs neutrality in partisan political matters.
*Relationships With Government*
Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.
Modern scriptural references to the role of government: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134
*Political Party Participation of Presiding Church Officers*
In addition, the First Presidency letter issued on 16 June 2011 is a re-statement and further clarification of the Churchs position on political neutrality at the start of another political season. It applies to all full-time General Authorities, general auxiliary leaders, mission presidents and temple presidents. The policy is not directed to full-time Church employees.
"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.
"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:


Are acting solely as individual citizens in the democratic process and that they do not imply, or allow others to infer, that their actions or support in any way represent the church.
Will not use Church stationery, Church-generated address lists or email systems or Church buildings for political promotional purposes.
Will not engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> So, if we all voted to force anyone over 40% body fat to quit their jobs and move into a... let's call it a "camp," you'd be okay with it?  I mean, if we had enough votes.  If the people of Washington State were 90% in favor of sending fat people to labor camp, you think that's cool?  No problem?  Fat people should have run a better PR campaign?


I wouldnt be ok or think its cool but it is what it is.  If you got enough people to go along withbit it could happen.  If you got enough people you could bring back slavery if they really wanted to.  When you allow people to have to power to shape there own govt thats what happens.  90% of the time you will get good and fair laws the other 10% you get things like the patroit act, TSA screeners,  gay marriage laws.   Im not really sure why you dont get that.  The people are free to vote for whatever they want and if you get enough votes bad things can happen.  We could elect the next Hitler or Stalin here if they got enough votes.  You all act schocked that peopke would vote this way.  We have voted for things like this since the start of our history.  Over time they work themselves out in the end.


> There is no scenario where state endorsed (and legally enforced) discrimination is good.  It's draconian.  We've done it before and it's a shameful chapter in our Country's history.  We did it to the Japanese citizens during WWII and it was shameful.  And we have obviously learned nothing from it.


That was the very incident that pops in to my head which is why people never shock me with the things we do in this country.  You all blame rwligion or uneducation or whatever you want but in the end it comes down to people dont care about other people.  They look out for me myself and I and if they are not gay they dont care.  Look no farther then basic self defense class for woman when they teach dont yell help people will ignore you yell fire and people will come to see the fire thwn the crowd will hopefully run off the attacker.  People just dont care.



> On the subject of weed, there is a movement to make it legal, and that will pass or it won't.  But there is no movement to prohibit people who listen to Reggae music and have dreadlocks from voting, driving on public streets or enjoying any of the basic government services that we take for granted.  It would, IMO, be absurd to think that we would single out people with dreadlocks for some specific, state enforced discrimination.
> 
> Do you see the distinction?



I see the distinction i never said there wasnt one.  I said people will vote for what they want no matter how i feel 3 states away.


----------



## oftheherd1

JWLuiza said:


> This is also why civil rights should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had it wrong with slavery and interracial marriage. We've got it wrong here as well.



To the whim of which minority should it be left?  And which majority had it wrong regarding slavery?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I wouldnt be ok or think its cool but it is what it is.  If you got enough people to go along withbit it could happen.  If you got enough people you could bring back slavery if they really wanted to.  When you allow people to have to power to shape there own govt thats what happens.  90% of the time you will get good and fair laws the other 10% you get things like the patroit act, TSA screeners,  gay marriage laws.   Im not really sure why you dont get that.  The people are free to vote for whatever they want and if you get enough votes bad things can happen.  We could elect the next Hitler or Stalin here if they got enough votes.  You all act schocked that peopke would vote this way.  We have voted for things like this since the start of our history.  Over time they work themselves out in the end.
> 
> That was the very incident that pops in to my head which is why people never shock me with the things we do in this country.  *You all blame rwligion or uneducation or whatever you want but in the end it comes down to people dont care about other people*.  They look out for me myself and I and if they are not gay they dont care.  Look no farther then basic self defense class for woman when they teach dont yell help people will ignore you yell fire and people will come to see the fire thwn the crowd will hopefully run off the attacker.  People just dont care.
> 
> 
> 
> I see the distinction i never said there wasnt one.  I said people will vote for what they want no matter how i feel 3 states away.


I'm not blaming anyone, just for the record.  I know that this comment might not have been directed at me, but it's important to me that this be clear.  

But just so I understand.  Are you saying that you agree with me?  Because that's the way your post reads to me.  It sounds like you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It's not right, but... what're you gonna do?"

If so, I'd recommend that we start by thinking on a macro level, educating each other on subjects about which we are knowledgable, and hopefully helping to keep each other from making bad decisions.  While I'm still staunchly in support of reasonable regulation of guns in our country, how I define "reasonable" has been tempered significantly by the discussions I've had with informed people on this forum. IN other words, my position on gun control has evolved as I have learned more about the issues at hand. 

I would hope that if (or when) the time comes for you to vote on "gay marriage" that you will at least consider the larger implications and vote accordingly, realizing that you aren't JUST voting against gay marriage.  You are voting FOR state endorsed discrimination.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'm not blaming anyone.   But just so I understand.  Are you saying that you agree with me?  Because that's the way your post reads to me.  It sounds like you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It's not right, but... what're you gonna do?"


I never disagreed with you.  I said its the people of NC choice to run there state how they want.  You in Washington and myself in MD have nobsay in the affairs of the state of NC their state their rules.  If the people decided that cops were no longer allowed to be married and theybhad enough votes to pass it id have 4 choices move, deal with it, stop being a cop or fight to get it changed.  Same choices the pro gay marriage people have.


----------



## billc

Here is a list of observations on gays in America...

They can live with whoever they want, same sex or different.  Check.

They can have sex with whoever they want, same sex, different sex, one or more of each.  Check.

They can buy or sell their property to whoever they want.  Check.

They can leave their property to whoever they want.  Check.

They can live wherever they want.  Check. ( if someone denies them an apartment then you run into the argument of private property rights, libetarians could speak up here.)

They can visit in hospitals. Check ( not always the case but now is because people are becoming accustomed to same sex relationships)

They can eat wherever they want, even lunch counters.  Check.

If they are attacked by a criminal they can declare special status under hate crime laws.  Check.

They are shown, positively, on every television show or movie  they are in, and are on almost every show now made.  Check.

They can create offspring through advanced medical procedures with same sex partners or a combination of same sex and different sex assistants.  Check.

They can adopt offspring in this country or in foreign countries and in some cases recieve preferential treatment.  Check.

Same sex couples make more income on average  than different sex married couples.  Check.

(unfortunately, since they do make so much more money, they are targeted by every add agency and marketing firm so that would be one disadvantage to being gay in american.)

They can hold high and low public office and will one day be the president (if he isn't one already...).  Check.

They can run businesses, own businesses, sell business to whoever they want whenever they want.  Check.

They can own property, sell property.  Check.

They can vote in every election, every where in the country for whoever they want without poll taxes, reading tests or violent intimidation.  Check.

Soooo.  If this is the state of being gay in America today, it would hardly be the same as African Americans who were owned by Democrats, murdered by democrats and prohibited from owning property, voting and all the things that make up real discrimination.

Now, if religous beliefs are not always understood by people not of that faith, for instance the reverence shown to a huge meat animal that was killed and skinned without permission, but should be respected, why are christians exempt from this.  For example, you can lawyer up the bible all you want and say Paul said this, Jesus did or didn't do that, but in the end it is the individual's faith that should be respected?    Shouldn't it?  After all, the faith of christians today does not condone selling daughters into slavery, owning slaves, killing homosexuals or killing non believers.  Hmmmm...there seems to be another religion that has a very vocal minority that actually does all of those things....but I can't seem to remember which religion that would be....and if I did remember the name I would probably be called something with "phobe," at the end of it.  Since christians hold in their faith that "marriage," is between a man and a woman, you can disagree with that, but since it is "faith," on their part, and the check list above indicates that they really aren't hurting anyone, shouldn't that also be respected?  Even if you don't agree with it.  I mean, if you get teary eyed over the death of a big meat animal because of its religous/faith/spiritual aspect, don't you owe christians a little respect as well?

Now if all of that check list above is correct or in the process of being correct, is the lack of the term "marriage," really the same as the way African slaves were treated by the Europeans and Africans who sent them to this country?  I mean look at that list.  It hardly says that gays are being shipped off to socialist gulags like they actually do in, say,  cuba.  ( You can imagine the socialist gulag of your choice either the German model or the marxist model, whichever your heated imaginings lean you toward.)

Now as Ballen has pointed out, people can vote for whatever they want for whatever reason they choose, one person, one vote?  Perhaps some people feel that tampering with the basic building blocks of society, "the family," as they see it, should be done with great care and great caution and vote that way.  Perhaps they "think," that social change like that should not be done lightly, especially when they "think," there might be harm done to the society.  Perhaps the fact that hollywood, the land of drug addicts, sex addicts, broken families, destroyed lives and pedophiles and people who ignore pedophiles (think roman polanski, or the guy who did Clown house or the guy from Ferris Buellers day off...) are some of the biggest supporters of gay marriage gives some people, of a religious bent, pause.  I mean, who doesn't think that Lindsey Lohan isn't the wisest person in the world to make society shifting decisions.

Soooo...I guess that might put things into perspective.  As a side note, I do think sadly about the death of the big meat animal.  I don't like it when people don't respect the religious/spiritual/faith beliefs of other people.   

I stand ready to take fire.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So, a gay couple can adopt a child?  My wife and I can.

When 1 gay partner dies, who gets the house?  If I die, my wife gets the house.

When 1 gay partner is in the hospital, can their partner visit them?  My wife can visit me.


"Well, it depends on..." doesn't cut it here. See, that little word "married" gives my wife and I somewhere around 1,000 rights and privileges denied by discriminatory laws to those in a same-sex relationship.

These include tax benefits, social security benefits, visitation, property, and more.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples


You tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.


----------



## billc

Hmmm...well, I'm all for civil unions and right now a legal will will take care of the rest.  Adoption, seems to happen a lot.  Visiting in the hospital, not the same issue it used to be because same sex couples are more common and are flexing their desires more.  Still, hardly call it discrimination on the same level as that experienced by African Americans in democrat controlled states.


----------



## billc

Here is some info. on gay adoption...

http://adoption.about.com/od/adopting/tp/gayadoptionbasics.htm


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, a gay couple can adopt a child?  My wife and I can.


They can in some states not in others.



> When 1 gay partner dies, who gets the house?  If I die, my wife gets the house.


They can leave their house to anyone they want.  Yu dont need to be married to buy a house together.  When my wofe and i bought our first house we were not married.


> When 1 gay partner is in the hospital, can their partner visit them?  My wife can visit me.


Sure they can why cant they?  


> "Well, it depends on..." doesn't cut it here. See, that little word "married" gives my wife and I somewhere around 1,000 rights and privileges denied by discriminatory laws to those in a same-sex relationship.
> 
> These include tax benefits, social security benefits, visitation, property, and more.
> 
> http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples
> 
> 
> You tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
> I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.


Does not matter if its discrimination its what people voted for.  Like it or not its the law in NC.  I dont like alot of laws but they are laws none the less.


----------



## Steve

Couple of things.  First, if I get married in Washington, I am conferred all of the rights and benefits of that marriage in all 50 states.  If I'm gay and get married in Washington, it's hit and miss elsewhere.

Gay partners can be barred by "next of kin" from visiting at the hospital.  If my gay son is dying in the hospital and i've never approved of his "lifestyle," I can shut his partner out completely.  I couldn't, however, shut his wife out.  She'd be his next of kin. 

Tell yourselves whatever you need to in order to sleep well at night, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## MSTCNC

bob hubbard said:


> you tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
> I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.



100% agreed!!!


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> They can in some states not in others.
> 
> 
> They can leave their house to anyone they want.  Yu dont need to be married to buy a house together.  When my wofe and i bought our first house we were not married.
> 
> Sure they can why cant they?
> 
> Does not matter if its discrimination its what people voted for.  Like it or not its the law in NC.  I dont like alot of laws but they are laws none the less.





Well, when the answer is 'it depends' you know the rest.

In some states, not in others - discrimination. 
Well, not to go into the finer parts of enheritence and stuff, should you die without a will your wife will get all. Without a will, just because.
If one partner in a gay union dies, his/her stuff does not automatically go to the partner, but to the family, blood, kin etc. 
You know, when you had the house before you got married, never changed the name on the deed. you croak and she gets it. Just because of that one signature. No extra steps required.

Well, in some places (most hospitals) ICU units restrict access to family members only: Spouse, kids, then the rest. No marriage license, no luck. 
Also, your spouse gets to make all medical decisions for you should you be unable to.
No such luck for the gay pair, not without costly extra paperwork of living will and so forth.


And just because it has been voted on (I am sure there has to be some signing there off before it can go into affect) does not make it constitutional. 
Like inter racial marriages were illegal in the south not too long ago. Matter of fact it was up for a vote in Alabama maybe ten years back. Interesting, because a) I have seen plenty of such marriages and their off spring b) it's obviously clearly discriminatory, thus unconstitutional to keep that law on the books, why even put it up for a vote? 

And just moving is very impractical in many cases. 

On the other hand, what do you do when you are in a 'civil union' and oopsie, the state votes on prohibiting such institution. 
All over sudden you are stripped of whatever few rights you had. 

I know you are not against the union/marriage thing itself, but maybe too much of the 'well, it's the law' persuasion?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

If 2 gay people marry, how does that:
1- effect you?
2- change the value of your own marriage?
3- effect your relationship with your god(s)?


To me, the answer is it don't.

Hell, some guy rogering a canoe while calling himself the Queen of Sheba has zero effect on me and my wife.
Other than it might make us both giggle.

So, it's all fine.

Just like any 2 people who wish to commit to each other.

namaste.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> If 2 gay people marry, how does that:
> 1- effect you?
> 2- change the value of your own marriage?
> 3- effect your relationship with your god(s)?
> 
> 
> To me, the answer is it don't.
> 
> Hell, some guy rogering a canoe while calling himself the Queen of Sheba has zero effect on me and my wife.
> Other than it might make us both giggle.
> 
> So, it's all fine.
> 
> Just like any 2 people who wish to commit to each other.
> 
> namaste.



It does not have to effect me or anyone else im still free to vote however i want for whatever i want.  Just like the people in NC could have just as easily voted down the ban.  They didnt.  You can call it discrimination, homophobia, crazy, mean, uneducated it does not matter there is no IQ test to cast a vote.  I can go in and draw pictures with my ballot if i want nothing you can do will changwe it.  If its a bad law it will work its way thru the courts and get fixed.


----------



## ballen0351

So instead of crying about a law that does not effect you what are you going to do to fix this great social injustice?


----------



## billc

Well, for some people, their religious beliefs say that it isn't a good idea.  Sooo...take it up with their version of God.  Once he lets them know its okay, they will fall in line.  So as to affecting them, yes it does, since it is part of their religious/faith/spiritual tradition and in truth, no real harm is done that can't be corrected by convincing more people to vote the other way or to get civil unions passed allowing all those things you want without going after some other persons, personal religious beliefs.  Once again, that check list above (post #166) pretty much shows that discrimination isn't the same thing people here are trying to make it out to be.  If African Americans in the democratic south could have had that list, the civil rights movement would have been a lot slower as well.


----------



## billc

I think this column really has the key to the whole thing...

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/05/11/laughing-all-the-way-to-the-white-house/



> Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage. He&#8217;s in favor of it in the same way he supports closing Gitmo: It&#8217;s a nice thing to be in favor of, he&#8217;s just not going todo anything about it.
> And that&#8217;s fine, really, in the case of gay marriage. His opinion of what to do about it (nearly) matches my own. Gay marriage is a totally new thing whose time may be coming, but let the states &#8212; let the people &#8212; come to grips with it at their own rates. Thirty years from now everyone, even folks in North Carolina, will wonder what all the fuss was about. And that&#8217;s as it should be.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> It does not have to effect me or anyone else im still free to vote however i want for whatever i want.  Just like the people in NC could have just as easily voted down the ban.  They didnt.  You can call it discrimination, homophobia, crazy, mean, uneducated it does not matter there is no IQ test to cast a vote.  I can go in and draw pictures with my ballot if i want nothing you can do will changwe it.  If its a bad law it will work its way thru the courts and get fixed.



Ah, sorry...not buying that.

It wasn't too long ago in terms of history, within the last 10-20 years, when the great state of Alabama let the public vote on whether or not to take the mixed marriage ban off the books. The public voted to not kick it.

Now.
According to your logic all interracial couples would now not be called married anymore.

You think that is gonna happen? Here or any place else? 

Just because the people voted on it does not make it right. Or constitutional.

(and frankly I don't know why they spend the money to put it on the ballot...)


----------



## Big Don

If I, as a heterosexual, don't want my family involved as next of kin, I am free to get a power of attorney and let whoever I choose have that power.
This is true for close to 999 of those supposed 1000 rights that gays are said to be denied. Be responsible for your life.

In other words, if you did not care enough about your life to act with due diligence, you aren't oppressed, you are stupid and/or lazy.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So instead of crying about a law that does not effect you what are you going to do to fix this great social injustice?


I already answered this question.  Post 164.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> If I, as a heterosexual, don't want my family involved as next of kin, I am free to get a power of attorney and let whoever I choose have that power.
> This is true for close to 999 of those supposed 1000 rights that gays are said to be denied. Be responsible for your life.



Power of attorney doesnt do nearly as much as people think...  And there are several different types of PoA.    

Don, serious question.  Do you KNOW that this is fact or are you repeating so,merging youve heard that Sounds reasonable?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun

Yesterday, in a defense budget bill, a law was put in by Republicans in the House that states US gay military personel are not allowed to marry.  When heterosexual people are subject to these same type of laws, then you can tell us about how the homosexuals in our country are not subject to discrimination.  Gays are allowed to serve openly in our military now, and about time.  Now Repubs in the government are saying, "Sure, its okay if you serve and maybe die in that service to our country, but you better not want to marry someone you love." It is nothing more than prejudice.  Some of it might be from society and some might be from religion, but in the end it treats people as second class citizens because they are different.


----------



## ballen0351

wc_lun said:


> yesterday, in a defense budget bill, a law was put in by republicans in the house that states us gay military personel are not allowed to marry.  When heterosexual people are subject to these same type of laws, then you can tell us about how the homosexuals in our country are not subject to discrimination.  Gays are allowed to serve openly in our military now, and about time.  Now repubs in the government are saying, "sure, its okay if you serve and maybe die in that service to our country, but you better not want to marry someone you love." it is nothing more than prejudice.  Some of it might be from society and some might be from religion, but in the end it treats people as second class citizens because they are different.



and?


----------



## JWLuiza

and? and the world will be a better place when the generations that think like you do are no longer voting.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> and?



I sure hope you are just doing this to inspire a conversation on the topic.

The old saying goes, what's good for for the goose is good for the gander......
That puts the discrimination on federal level, goody...

So, now, regardless of the will of the people of said soldier's home state, he/she can't get married. Per federal demand, for the reason of....what exactly?


----------



## WC_lun

Also part of the bill that was added by Republicans, if a soldier is from a state that allows gay marriage, his/her spouse is not allowed spousal benefits, including if they are KIA.  So for you guys argueing about it being a states decision, or should be up to the voters, or the fed should not be deciding issues like this, how do you feel?

I have to ask again, why are these laws being enacted?


----------



## Big Don

WC_lun said:


> Also part of the bill that was added by Republicans, if a soldier is from a state that allows gay marriage, his/her spouse is not allowed spousal benefits, including if they are KIA.  So for you guys argueing about it being a states decision, or should be up to the voters, or the fed should not be deciding issues like this, how do you feel?
> 
> I have to ask again, why are these laws being enacted?


It could be, they threw something the left would find objectionable to get the entire law vetoed... It has been done before...
FYI, a service member may name anyone he or she wishes beneficiary of their life insurance policy...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

To a Republican politician, it seems the only good gay is one that died fighting for the rights others can enjoy, but they themselves can't.


----------



## Big Don

Bob Hubbard said:


> To a Republican politician, it seems the only good gay is one that died fighting for the rights others can enjoy, but they themselves can't.


 &#8220;It is good to see that after  intense political pressure that President Obama has finally come around  to the Dick Cheney position on marriage equality.  

Nope, Dick Cheney is not a Republican...
by the way, this has been Cheney's position for years, i.e., he didn't just change it to get campaign contributions...


----------



## Sukerkin

I read some of the commentary on that GOProud site ... I was at first a bit confused for I thought that it was a pro-Gay rights site that I was being directed to rather than a right-wing 'opinion' portal (one can't call it scandal-mongering propaganda, after all, altho' I would if I wasn't being polite) :lol:.   

Ooooh nooo, quite an unpleasant place for my eyes to be - do you chaps really place any weight on what these self-appointed commentators write?  I'm shocked if you do.  As I said the other day to BillC, if you do it's like basing your political views on what you read in the Sun or Daily Mail newspapers; hardly something to be recommended.


----------



## ballen0351

JWLuiza said:


> and? and the world will be a better place when the generations that think like you do are no longer voting.



Good thing im young so i have MANY more voting years ahead of me.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> To a Republican politician, it seems the only good gay is one that died fighting for the rights others can enjoy, but they themselves can't.



So i ask again whats your plan to fight this great injustice?


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Also part of the bill that was added by Republicans, if a soldier is from a state that allows gay marriage, his/her spouse is not allowed spousal benefits, including if they are KIA.  So for you guys argueing about it being a states decision, or should be up to the voters, or the fed should not be deciding issues like this, how do you feel?
> 
> I have to ask again, why are these laws being enacted?



And ill ask again whats your plan to fight this great social injustice?


----------



## WC_lun

Fair enough question, Ballen.  I voice my opinion trying to use logic and common sense, I use my vote, I write my representatives, and on rare occasions I will donate part of my meager funds to politicians who fight against bigotry.

Now could you answer some of the questions I have posed?


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Fair enough question, Ballen.  I voice my opinion trying to use logic and common sense, I use my vote, I write my representatives, and on rare occasions I will donate part of my meager funds to politicians who fight against bigotry.
> 
> Now could you answer some of the questions I have posed?



I already have it is bigotry.  
Everything we do and every choice we make is a form of bigotry.  You pick coke over pepsi bigotry.  You choosea ford vs chevy.  You decide gay lifestyle is a sin.  You choose to want marriage to be a man and woman only.  You dislike people based on race or religion or job.  We all have some form of bigotry in all of us.  Were human and were not perfect.  Look at the responces against the ones that voted for the ban, uneducated redneck,  christain right wing nut jobs.   Im not even against gay marriage ive said several times in other threada id be for it if it was written like the canadian law or i believe how Carol says its written in her state  but because i defend a states right to make its own laws i get told how great the world will be when i can no longer vote.  There is all this talk about freedom for gays to marry yet all of you want to take away our number 1 freedom which is our vote.  As long as the vote goes how you like it then its power to the people but when you dont like the outcome its screw the vote we need the govt to override the people.  Which may be fine for this but what about the next time the govt decides it knows better then the people like i dont know federal wire taps or TSA pat down on children all in the name of "your safety".  So steve claims to look at the big picture and i say i am.  The will of the people is our only check on a corupt govt and your so willinging allow them to step in and step on the will of the people in the state of NC.


----------



## WC_lun

I have never advocated taking away your power to vote.  However, I do not believe a person's power to vote trumps another's civil rights.  There are plenty of things that haven't fallen my way when it comes to voting.  That's how the cookie crumbles in a democracy.  This instance it is diffferent though.  This time a majority is restricting a minority's civil rights.  This effects people in ways that would be very hard to imagine as a heterosexual.  I do not believe that people have that power, and history has shown that the courts agree with me.  Hopefully, SCOTUS will settle this soon, but until they do we are letting bigotry define our law and I do have a real problem with that.

Time and again I have asked how letting gays marry negatively effect anything.  The silence in reply has been defening.  When asked why we need such laws, I get responses of "the bible says its a sin."  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but our constitution is written in a way that protects minorities from religious and civil persecution.  Have we suspended the constitution?  Should we go back to a time when lynching was okay because most people thought it was okay to hang that particular person? Or maybe just okay violence against minorities when whites do it because after all, whites are the majority...for now. I know, lets take Jewish wealth among Christians, because the sentiment among many is that Jewish peole are wealthier than non Jews.  When we, as a country, decide it is okay to limit minorities' civil rights because of prejudice, we open the door for our own civil rights to be trampled on.  I am not even saying a person does not have a right to be a bigot.  That bigotry should NOT become law though.


----------



## Big Don

WC, since you are so stuck on the religious aspect, can you name three religions that wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality, as a good thing?


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Time and again I have asked how letting gays marry negatively effect anything. The silence in reply has been defening.


And why does that matter?  When it coems to voting your free to vote for any reason you want you don t need a good one to vote.  You dont need to justify your vote when you cast it.



> When asked why we need such laws, I get responses of "the bible says its a sin." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but our constitution is written in a way that protects minorities from religious and civil persecution
> Have we suspended the constitution?


There are plenty of things that the Govt does that I believe go against our constitution.



> Should we go back to a time when lynching was okay because most people thought it was okay to hang that particular person? Or maybe just okay violence against minorities when whites do it because after all, whites are the majority...for now. I know, lets take Jewish wealth among Christians, because the sentiment among many is that Jewish peole are wealthier than non Jews.


Like it or not if you got enough people to vote for it you conld do all of those things.



> When we, as a country, decide it is okay to limit minorities' civil rights because of prejudice, we open the door for our own civil rights to be trampled on. I am not even saying a person does not have a right to be a bigot. That bigotry should NOT become law though.


It should not become law your right but it is and does.   Its the way the cookie crumbles as you say.  Id rather give the power to the people then say the Govt knows best and allow them to make our choices for us


----------



## Steve

Ballen, what if the government made it illegal to hire anyone with blue eyes? The people voted and the law passed.  Blue eyed people are no longer Able to work legally in our country.  What would you do?  

Your entire position is a chicken **** cop out.  It boils down to, oh well.  Not me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun

Big Don, it doesn't matter if no religion at all accepts homosexuality.  You do not have a right to pass laws that others must follow based upon religion or bigotry.  We are not a theocracy.  Get it?

Now to answer your question, some variants of both the Christian faith and Jewish faith do not believe homosexuality is a sin.  Buhdhist do not believe being gay is a "sin."  So there are your three and it still doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  We aren't a theocracy to be ruled by religious dogma.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Ballen, what if the government made it illegal to hire anyone with blue eyes? The people voted and the law passed.  Blue eyed people are no longer Able to work legally in our country.  What would you do?


What if they did?  What can you do?  I already told you my answer  you can move, fight it in courts, or deal with it.  Thats all do you have another option?


> Your entire position is a chicken **** cop out.  It boils down to, oh well.  Not me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Its not a cop out its a FACT.  You can be as mad as you want  but thats the way it is.  I think seat belt laws are stupid but they are the law you still follow it or pay the price.  The facts are people can vote for ANYTHING they want.  It does not need to be fair, lodgical, or even smart.  Majority rules.  You can argue all you want about it the FACT is gays cant marry in NC no matter what you want in Washington state.  It can change some day but thats the way it is right now.


----------



## elder999

oftheherd1 said:


> Please enlighten me. Which translation is not "... full of errors-in translation, prose and data-especially in this regard."




English translation? None that I know of, but I've read the source documents-Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. These days, in fact, I'm kind of fond of the Kaboris Codex, the lodest extant Aramaic text, and the one I cited in this thread  , when I pointed out just one of the errors of the KJV.



oftheherd1 said:


> And fact? There indeed being a lot of contradictory information, it would seem you only designate as fact, that which you choose to believe. You have that right, but not to determine what is fact and what is not for me.




No. The KJV says "Thou shalt not kill," when the original Hebrew reads, "You wil do no *murder.*" The KJV says "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", when the original Aramaic reads "lemana sabacthani," -_for this I was forsworn._ THe KJV has Jesus as "from Nazareth," when the texts actually read "Jesus _the Nazarene_. As I said in that other thread, I could go on like this all day-but faith has nothing at all to do with facts, and I've pointed out before the 68 degree rule, and the difference between "truth" and fact. 


The Bible-in all its translations-is full of beauty and truth. I don't know of any finer sounding English literature than the KJV's translation of John 1:



> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made-John 1:1-3




Of course, we could have many discussions about what that actually means, and how the Greek mystery religions influenced it, but that's beside the point-it's beautiful. I also have a deep abiding love and appreciation for the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua-pity that more who call themselves "Christians" don't live by them. In any case, the verses translated and interpreted as condemning homosexuality-especially in the case of the New Testament-do not actually do this, don't actually use the word for "homosexual" that was used at the time, and are talking about something altogether different.

That's a *fact.* What you choose to believe, as I've said elsewhere and  will continue to say, is entirely up to you.

No where in the Bible, I might add, does it say that you'll be condemened for the sins of others. Think homosexuality's a sin? That's just fine. Don't practice homosexuality. That's pretty much the end of it, as far as I can tell.[/quote]







oftheherd1 said:


> you strongly attack the basis of my beliefs, and only when I mention it, how do you say you are not attacking me? And "specious?" Saying that about the Bible does you no credit sir.



I was fairly sure that as a Christian, the basis of your beliefs would be the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua, and not that book, written by the hands of fallible men, mistranslated by the hands and minds of fallible men, and full of the  errors of fallible men, the Bible. 

So, I'm not attacking you-not if you love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul, and love your neighbors as yourself, anyway-I'm attacking the validity of beliefs based on mistranslation, errors and political agendas.






oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps I don't correctly understand your meaning, emoticon or not. If I did not state my stance well, just let me know. But I take that as insulting. Shame on you sir!



Take it anyway you feel a need to-really, whatever gets you through the day, but I meant no insult _to you._ 

The KJV of the Bible, though, lofty language notwithstanding,* is *an insult to Biblical scholarship.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> So i ask again whats your plan to fight this great injustice?



What I have been doing.

Educating people.
Supporting law makers who support equality.
Providing support to others in the fight.

My state passed marriage equality.  It hasn't been stuck down by any angry gods. In fact, we had a delightfully mild winter.
Texas which is very anti-gay spent last year on fire, and most likely will burn again this year.
Might be that they need to suck up to some deity or another before all that's left is toast.
I suspect NC might be a bit 'wet' this coming 'cane season.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> What if they did?  What can you do?  I already told you my answer  you can move, fight it in courts, or deal with it.  Thats all do you have another option?
> 
> 
> Its not a cop out its a FACT.  You can be as mad as you want  but thats the way it is.  I think seat belt laws are stupid but they are the law you still follow it or pay the price.  The facts are people can vote for ANYTHING they want.  It does not need to be fair, lodgical, or even smart.  Majority rules.  You can argue all you want about it the FACT is gays cant marry in NC no matter what you want in Washington state.  It can change some day but thats the way it is right now.



Im not mad.  I pity you.  Your attitude is exactly the kind that allows atrocity to occur.  It's sad, and I thought you better.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Big Don said:


> WC, since you are so stuck on the religious aspect, can you name three religions that wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality, as a good thing?



In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council became one of the first major  religious organizations to support homosexuality when they issued a  statement "_Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality_".[4]

Other religions that accept same-sex relationships:
Wicca
Satanism (LaVey)
Unitarian Universalism

Taoism has no position on the matter

Confucianism is iffy, but some say it accepted it. Some disagree.

Buddhism is complicated, some branches encouraged it, others did not.


----------



## granfire

Bob Hubbard said:


> What I have been doing.
> 
> Educating people.
> Supporting law makers who support equality.
> Providing support to others in the fight.
> 
> My state passed marriage equality.  It hasn't been stuck down by any angry gods. In fact, we had a delightfully mild winter.
> Texas which is very anti-gay spent last year on fire, and most likely will burn again this year.
> Might be that they need to suck up to some deity or another before all that's left is toast.
> I suspect NC might be a bit 'wet' this coming 'cane season.



LOL, according to your theory, they all ought to fornicate like gay rabbits in Texas to get rid of that horrible drought! :lfao:

I shall pass it along, since all the normal venues, like rain dance and sacrificing virgins have failed so far!


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Im not mad.  I pity you.  Your attitude is exactly the kind that allows atrocity to occur.  It's sad, and I thought you better.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



So you still didnt give an answer.  If they outlaw blue eyed workers what can i do as a blue eyed person?

And your attitude of the govt knows better then the people is how we end up with no freedoms left at all


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> What I have been doing.
> 
> Educating people.
> Supporting law makers who support equality.
> Providing support to others in the fight.
> 
> My state passed marriage equality.  It hasn't been stuck down by any angry gods. In fact, we had a delightfully mild winter.
> Texas which is very anti-gay spent last year on fire, and most likely will burn again this year.
> Might be that they need to suck up to some deity or another before all that's left is toast.
> I suspect NC might be a bit 'wet' this coming 'cane season.


Yes because they are related your states position on gay marriage and the weather good argument your doing a fine job "educating" people. I thought it was global warming thats why my state gov. said we need to raise our gax tax to the highest in the nation to make people stop driving.


----------



## CanuckMA

elder999 said:


> English translation? None that I know of, but I've read the source documents-Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. These days, in fact, I'm kind of fond of the Kaboris Codex, the lodest extant Aramaic text, and the one I cited in this thread  , when I pointed out just one of the errors of the KJV.



The JPS and Artscroll translations are faithfull translations of the Hebrew. Even with those, when doing text study, reference to the Hebrew is still needed to clarify the meaning of the text.


----------



## Big Don

I find it somewhat entertaining that it is OK, to some of you, to be bigoted against religions,(For the sake of homosexuality) but, wrong, wrong wrong, to hold the opinion that homosexuality is wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Yes because they are related your states position on gay marriage and the weather good argument your doing a fine job "educating" people. I thought it was global warming thats why my state gov. said we need to raise our gax tax to the highest in the nation to make people stop driving.



I was being sarcastic.  Anyone here more than 1 week who has debated with me should know that I am often sarcastic. It's usually denoted by words appearing on your screen.  

As to educating, I tried that earlier. It continues to go in one ear, out the other, dribble down the pant leg and get misfiled under the velcro sneakers.
Regardless, I shall continue.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Religious Education 101

Neither God nor Jesus make any comment on Homosexuality.

There are only 10 God-Given laws in the Old Testament.
The New Testament adds only 2 new God Given Laws.

Of those 12, none apply to homosexuality.

All other laws are man-issued, not god-given.


----------



## WC_lun

Big Don, you still don't get it do you?  If you believe homosexuality is wrong, bigoted as that may be, you have that right.  You don't have the right to make everyone else march in lock step with your bigoted views.  Don't like homos, don't be a homo.  You can even tell the world that.  However, you don't get to trample others civil rights for your "religious" beliefs.  No more than I get pass laws for you to follow based upon my religious beliefs.


----------



## billc

this is an interesting article that looks at why gay rights in states always fail, then it looks at the Democrats and how they cheat gay rights advocates...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/if_same_sex_marriage_is_a_civil_rights_issue.html



> The  Democratic Party will receive the overwhelming majority of votes among same-sex  marriage supporters who define the issue as a civil or human right, yet for two  years it possessed filibuster-proof majorities in Congress and the executive  branch and did nothing on same-sex marriage at the federal level.  Is that  not rank bigotry?  Obama has modified his position only after he lost the  votes to accomplish such a goal.  He can now take one position comfortably,  knowing that he will never have to sign into law a bill that holds him to  it.  We could not say that in 2009 or 2010, when he conveniently remained  silent.  The past twelve years of Democratic presidencies have produced  only one piece of legislation in regard to same-sex marriage; the Defense of  Marriage Act (DOMA).  That legislation says that states that do not approve  of same-sex marriage do not have to recognize marriages that occur in states  which do.  Imagine if you replace same-sex marriage with slavery, which is  the far-left position on the issue.  A Democratic president, Bill Clinton,  signed into law the modern equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act.  This was  never overturned by Barack Obama, and gay rights opponents have treated the  legislation far less hostilely than the North reacted to the idea that they were  forced to recognize that certain blacks were due fewer human rights because they  hailed from slave states in the South.



So what Barak and Clinton have essentially done is tell the gay community..."you should put some ice on that..."


----------



## billc

Actually, until a vote goes the other way, or you get congress to act, yes he does.  It is called the consequences of voting.


----------



## elder999

Big Don said:


> I find it somewhat entertaining that it is OK, to some of you, to be bigoted against religions,(For the sake of homosexuality) but, wrong, wrong wrong, to hold the opinion that homosexuality is wrong.



FOr the record, I haven't been bigoted at all agianst religions, for the sake of homosexuality at all. Nor have I said that it's wrong to hold the opinion that homosexuality is wrong-I have pointed ojut where it's _mistaken_, and based on faulty inteprpretations, to base that belief on certain passages of the Bible, and have, as others have, pointed out that just because one holds that opinion, for religious reasons or even just because they think "queer stuff is icky," does not mean that's a basis for denying a whole class of people equal rights under the law in our country.

I also find it more than a little amusing that it's okay for some to be bigoted against one religion (Islam) but not Chrisitianity....

:lfao:


----------



## elder999

View attachment $10 reasons.jpg


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> So you still didnt give an answer.  If they outlaw blue eyed workers what can i do as a blue eyed person?
> 
> And your attitude of the govt knows better then the people is how we end up with no freedoms left at all



What the hell??  I would hope you'd do what we're doing.  You advocate for what you believe in.  You stand up and let your voice heard when you see something that you believe is wrong.  You try to find common ground with those who oppose you.

And if all else fails, you take lessons from Mahatma Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau and you work outside the system, and recognize that "right" and "legal" are two different things.  Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they just flat out don't.   Hell, follow the example of our founding fathers, because if they believed as you do, we'd have pictures of Queen Elizabeth on our money.  

The real disappointment for me here is your entire position is, "I agree that this isn't right, but what're you gonna do?"  That is such an incredible copout.    That's exactly the attitude that the rank and file soldiers plead when on trial for war crimes, or what people said when we sent American citizens to concentration camps.  "I was just one person and they were putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.  Seemed okay at the time because we made it legal."   "What can I do?"  Just the question irritates me.  That's the essence of a victim mentality, someone who accepts no responsibility for bad things that happen, but you can be damned sure takes credit for the good things.  

Bottom line, you keep asking what people are going to do? Everyone in this thread has already done a lot more than you (who have admitted you agree that this is wrong).  I have tried to articulate my beliefs in a way that is reasonable and focuses on what I think are the real crucial implications.  Bob H. and a ton of others have done the same.  You admit that you don't disagree.  You just don't think anything can be done.   Once again, I disagree



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Big Don said:


> I find it somewhat entertaining that it is OK, to some of you, to be bigoted against religions,(For the sake of homosexuality) but, wrong, wrong wrong, to hold the opinion that homosexuality is wrong.



Never.   I would never support a ban against any religion.  Ever.  It would be the same thing.  You can worship tulips in springtime with an orgy and I'd be okay with it, provided you do no harm to those outside.  I wouldn't do it.  I wouldn't approve of it, but I would never endorse legally banning it.  

In the same way, I would never, ever endorse forcing a church to allow same-sex marriage if it is against the beliefs of that church.  If a pastor believes that it's wrong, he shouldn't have to marry gay people.  

Are you seriously failing to see the connection?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nomad

See, the reason I'm bigoted against religions isn't for the sake of homosexuality; it's for all the stupid, crazy things they say and try to force on other people, along with a number of truly horrific actions along the way that were endorsed and/or covered up by various churches.  I also don't like being told how to think by others; I prefer to weigh issues on their merits and not come down on one side or another of complex social issues simply because a supposed authority figure in a fancy hat (as an example) tells me to.

Being bigoted against religions means I'm very unlikely to join a church group, but it doesn't mean that I'm pushing to ban religions in general or tell everyone else they're no longer allowed to go to church.

Wait, this sounds familiar somehow.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> And if all else fails, you take lessons from Mahatma Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau and you work outside the system, and recognize that "right" and "legal" are two different things.


Correct they are different but we live in a world where legal is the only thing that matters.  i think its wrong for a 16 year old to be able to have sex with a 40 year old but its legal here.  Thats what we are forced to work with in.  By all means fight to get it changed thats the american way.  I have no problem with people changing their minds and changing the vote.  I just dont like to see the Govt step in and "fix" things for our own good.  In this case it may be justified for the Govt to fix it but what about the next time the Govt thinks it knows best.  id rather not give them the power.


> .   Hell, follow the example of our founding fathers, because if they believed as you do, we'd have pictures of Queen Elizabeth on our money.


Not at all I think the Founding fathers are more along my belief they were never for an all powerful federal Govt they believed the states should run their states at they see fit.



> The real disappointment for me here is your entire position is, "I agree that this isn't right, but what're you gonna do?"  That is such an incredible copout.


Thats not at all my position.  My position is the people should be free to run their state how they want.  I dont live in NC so I shouldnt have a say in their laws.  The pro-gay groups had just as much a chance as the anti-gay groups they both put their beliefs out and gave there pro and con arguments to the people and the people decided.  The loosing side is free to keep trying.  I hope they do.  id rather the people decide on their own to reverse the law then the Govt to step in for our own good.    Thepro-gay group can petition to get the law voted on again and again.  



> That's exactly the attitude that the rank and file soldiers plead when on trial for war crimes, or what people said when we sent American citizens to concentration camps.  "I was just one person and they were putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.  Seemed okay at the time because we made it legal."   "What can I do?"


Thats not true at all and in fact helps my argument.  The internment camps were never voted on by the people it was the Fed Govt that knew what was best "for our own good"  That was a presidential executive order and was never voted on.  As far as I can tell it was never even voted for in congress.  And it was upheld by the supreme court the "champions of civil rights" that everyone wants to come save NC.


> Just the question irritates me.  That's the essence of a victim mentality, someone who accepts no responsibility for bad things that happen, but you can be damned sure takes credit for the good things.


Im not taking credit for anything and im not playing any victim card.  This country has a system thats not perfect but works.  That system is based on the will of the people not the whim of the Govt.



> Bottom line, you keep asking what people are going to do? Everyone in this thread has already done a lot more than you (who have admitted you agree that this is wrong).  I have tried to articulate my beliefs in a way that is reasonable and focuses on what I think are the real crucial implications.  Bob H. and a ton of others have done the same.  You admit that you don't disagree.  You just don't think anything can be done.   Once again, I disagree



I never said nothign can be done.  I said I dont want the Govt to decide for the people.  There is plenty that can be done.  The Pro-gay supporters need to get their postiton out in an way to help change the minds of the citizens of NC.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Correct they are different but we live in a world where legal is the only thing that matters.  i think its wrong for a 16 year old to be able to have sex with a 40 year old but its legal here.  Thats what we are forced to work with in.  By all means fight to get it changed thats the american way.  I have no problem with people changing their minds and changing the vote.  I just dont like to see the Govt step in and "fix" things for our own good.  In this case it may be justified for the Govt to fix it but what about the next time the Govt thinks it knows best.  id rather not give them the power.
> .


Okay.  So, if Congress passed a law banning underage pregnancy and forcing any female under 21 who gets pregnant to abort the child, you'd be okay with it... if it was the law?  Oh well...  right?  "legal is the only thing that matters."  What if you were only allowed to have two children and after that the women were forced to have a hysterectomy to ensure zero population growth.  If it were the law, you'd be fine with it?  You'd help enforce it?  Because "legal is the only thing that matters."    You'd just say, "Aw shucks. I guess i didn't get my message out enough."   

What if we voted on it and it won?  They spent a lot of money getting out the no-teen pregnancy message and no one read the small print.  Still okay.  Right?  Even more okay because we VOTED.  Sweet.  Must be right because it's LEGAL.  Must be just because we passed a law.  

You're all caught up in the voting thing, but you're arguing from a position of legality. Concentration camps were "legal" within the USA.  We put American citizens in these camps.  We forced them to leave their homes and their jobs and move into what were essentially jails.  It was legal.  It was not right.  It was not just.  

As I said before, it's attitudes like yours that allow things like that to happen.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, if Congress passed a law banning underage pregnancy and forcing any female under 21 who gets pregnant to abort the child, you'd be okay with it... if it was the law?  Oh well...  right?  "legal is the only thing that matters."


Would I be ok with it? NO  Could it happen? Sure if you got enough people to vote for it.  You seem to think the Govt knows best and they will of the people should not matter.  


> What if you were only allowed to have two children and after that the women were forced to have a hysterectomy to ensure zero population growth.  If it were the law, you'd be fine with it?


Nope Id not be fine with it.  Im not fine with outlawing gay marriage either but I think it needs to be left up to the people to make that choice not the Govt.  If that were proposed Id try to make sure it wouldnt pass.  If it passed Id try to get more votes and bring it back up for a vote again or Id move.  


> You'd help enforce it?  [/qote]
> I enforce several laws I dont agree with.  Seatbelts for instance if you dont want to wear them why should it matter to me?   But once a year we have Operation Click it or ticket and I go out and write people $50 seatbelt tickets its my job.
> 
> 
> 
> Because "legal is the only thing that matters."
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry thats life.  The law says no gays can marry in NC and guess what you can moan all you want about it not being fair but its the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd just say, "Aw shucks. I guess i didn't get my message out enough."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Id go about trying to change people opinions but I wouldnt expect the Govt to come to the rescue for my own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if we voted on it and it won?  They spent a lot of money getting out the no-teen pregnancy message and no one read the small print.  Still okay.  Right?  Even more okay because we VOTED.  Sweet.  Must be right because it's LEGAL.  Must be just because we passed a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said right and legal were the same.  But LEGAL is the only thing thats enforcable. Just because its right does not make it legal and jut because its legal dont male it right.  Id MUCH rather the people make that decision then the Feds.   Id rather have the people take longer to make the right choice then allow the Govt the power to make things all better because this time they may fix Gay marriage for the good of the people and next week they may take away Guns, or freedom of speech for the good of the people.  The People are supposed to run the Govt not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> You're all caught up in the voting thing, but you're arguing from a position of legality. Concentration camps were "legal" within the USA.  We put American citizens in these camps.  We forced them to leave their homes and their jobs and move into what were essentially jails.  It was legal.  It was not right.  It was not just.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Im arguing from the position of the peoples choice not the Govt.  The people didnt make camps legal the president (Govt) did with an exec order.  The PEOPLE never got a vote.  The Govt said "we know whats best for you so shut up and take it"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, it's attitudes like yours that allow things like that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope its attitudes like yours that allowed the president to open the camps in the first place.  Im of the belief that the States are allowed to run there states and so were the founding fathers that why we are the United STATES of america.  Each state is free to be its own state.  The fed is supposed to be limited in its power but its not that way anymore.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Would I be ok with it? NO  Could it happen? Sure if you got enough people to vote for it.  *You seem to think the Govt knows best and they will of the people should not matter*.


No way.   Exactly the opposite in fact.  And that you are saying this is just further indication that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> No way.   Exactly the opposite in fact.  And that you are saying this is just further indication that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.


Maybe I dont.  It sounds to me like you want the govt to step in and ignore the will of the people and change a law.   Id rather have the people overturn the law themselves when they are ready.  The outcome would be the same just the process would be different


----------



## Josh Oakley

Bob Hubbard said:


> Religious Education 101
> 
> Neither God nor Jesus make any comment on Homosexuality.
> 
> There are only 10 God-Given laws in the Old Testament.
> The New Testament adds only 2 new God Given Laws.
> 
> Of those 12, none apply to homosexuality.
> 
> All other laws are man-issued, not god-given.



Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men. 

Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate. 

I obviously don't believe it, but there are plenty on this site that do. 
However, I maintain that law being based on the bible is an affront to the first amendment.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun

Josh Oakley said:


> Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men.
> 
> Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate.
> 
> I obviously don't believe it, but there are plenty on this site that do.
> However, I maintain that law being based on the bible is an affront to the first amendment.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



The thing is Josh, hardly any Christian believes _"that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God."  _There are so many things in the old testament that just aren't relevant in today's world, such as slavery laws.  Other things, for instance wearing polycotton blend clothes or eating pork or shell fish, are just ignored.  That means Christians are picking and choosing which laws of the old testament to follow.  They are picking and choosing for reasons other than devine commandment.


----------



## Josh Oakley

WC_lun said:


> The thing is Josh, hardly any Christian believes _"that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God."  _There are so many things in the old testament that just aren't relevant in today's world, such as slavery laws.  Other things, for instance wearing polycotton blend clothes or eating pork or shell fish, are just ignored.  That means Christians are picking and choosing which laws of the old testament to follow.  They are picking and choosing for reasons other than devine commandment.



Whet here they follow it or not, anyone who believes the Bible is the literal word of god believes exactly that. And there are plenty of people who believe it.

 It yes, they are indeed picking and choosing.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe I dont.  It sounds to me like you want the govt to step in and ignore the will of the people and change a law.   Id rather have the people overturn the law themselves when they are ready.  The outcome would be the same just the process would be different


The way I see it, you're caught up in the mechanism for creating a law, and I'm suggesting that this is irrelevant in the face of an unjust law.  At the point where we have a law that is clearly unjust, it doesn't matter by which pathway of stupidity it came to be, we have to step back and as a group identify it as unjust, articulate the ramifications of it and then do whatever we can to get rid of it.

There are a ton of stupid laws.  This one sets a potentially far reaching and destructive precedent.  Whether we (they) voted for it or it was passed through the State legislature, it remains a law that is clearly unjust and sets a very dangerous precedent of government enforced discrimination.  

If anyone is hiding behind the pleaded skirt of the government, it is you, my friend, who is repeatedly retreating behind the rhetoric of legality.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.

Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot. 

Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.
They fail at this alot unfortunately.

It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.

Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.

The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect.  Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.

Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?


----------



## Steve

Bob Hubbard said:


> We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
> Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.
> 
> Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot.
> 
> Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.
> They fail at this alot unfortunately.
> 
> *It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.
> 
> Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.
> *
> The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.
> 
> Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect.  Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.
> 
> Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?


Yes.  As usual, Bob says exactly what I'm saying, but much more clearly and concisely.  Particularly the part bolded.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> we have to step back and as a group identify it as unjust, articulate the ramifications of it and then do whatever we can to get rid of it.
> .



What Group gets to make the choice?  According to national polls they are pretty much 50 / 50 split.  Chage the geographic location for the poll and the south where NC is is much more anti gay marriage then pro gay marriage.  So you say as a goup we need to identify it as unjust but where does this group come from and who gave this group that power to decide for the people whats just and unjust?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> What Group gets to make the choice?  According to national polls they are pretty much 50 / 50 split.  Chage the geographic location for the poll and the south where NC is is much more anti gay marriage then pro gay marriage.  So you say as a goup we need to identify it as unjust but where does this group come from and who gave this group that power to decide for the people whats just and unjust?



Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?

To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.

There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?

If that answer is no, then allow the rights.

IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.
A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.
Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.
Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
etc.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
> Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.


There is not much left of this modern Govt our Founding Fathers would agree with.  Patroit Act, TSA screeners, Income tax, ect.  The founding Faters were against a storng Fed Govt and believed the Ststes should be the biggest form of Govt.  Ive read trasncripts of the constitution convention, and federalist papers and other doccuments written by our founding fathers most didnt want a fed govt at all and none wanted a Fed as powerful as we have today. 
While its true we dont live in a true democracy we are a representitive democracy so the will of the people is taken into an account.  And when there is a topic that the people feel is too important to leave up to the representitives then we do have a way to allow everyone to vote on it.  So we do have a method to be a democracy on certain issues.



> Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot.


That happens everyday. The Govt can take your property if it wishes all it need to do is say "it for the good of the people"  and Poof your front yard has a side walk going thru it.  Ask me how I know.



> Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.


So when are they going to start doing that?  There are plenty of bad laws on the books. Clinton sigend the defense of family marriage act in 2006 which specifically had parts that are against the constitution and when is the checks and balances goign to start? 


> They fail at this alot unfortunately.


You think



> It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.


The constitution was a Limit on the Federal Govt.  Whatever was not put into it was to be left to the states to decide.  Marriage laws were not put into the Constitution so its left up to the states to decide.



> Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.


Supreme Court also affirmed Internment Camps were ok as well.  The Patriot Act is Ok, ect , ect 



> The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.


I agree we should have never allowed the Govt to get involved in marriage laws in the first place but people allowed the Govt in and now were stuck with it.



> Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect.  Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.


True and Id rather allow the people to decide that then the Govt tell us whats best for us.  The trend has changed over the last 20 years and will contiune to change.



> Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?


You cant legislate kindness or understanding


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?


Ask it to who?  They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no



> To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.
> There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?
> If that answer is no, then allow the rights.


Again who are we asking?  And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?



> IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.


to you but others say it does hurt society


> A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.


Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys


> Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.


To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society


> Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
> etc.


Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion.  It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.


----------



## Steve

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?
> 
> To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.
> 
> There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?
> 
> If that answer is no, then allow the rights.*
> 
> IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.
> A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.
> Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.
> Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
> etc.


Yes, yes.  A thousand times, yes.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Ask it to who?  They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no
> 
> 
> Again who are we asking?  And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?
> 
> 
> to you but others say it does hurt society
> 
> Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys
> 
> To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society
> 
> Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion.  It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.




man you are ornery this week!

:lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Ask it to who?  They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no
> 
> 
> Again who are we asking?  And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?
> 
> 
> to you but others say it does hurt society
> 
> Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys
> 
> To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society
> 
> Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion.  It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.



Ask yourself.

NC didn't ask these questions.  

If they think is does harm, they can justify it.  
"It lessens my marriage" Really? How?
"Gods against it.", No, he's silent on the subject.
"Jesus preached against it." No, he was silent on the subject.
"It's against my faith". So what? They aren't your faith, so why should they follow your rules?
"It hurts society" Prove it.
"It changes the definition of traditional". That's been changing for a millennium.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> man you are ornery this week!
> 
> :lfao:


This is a serious topic to me.  It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.

It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit.  It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves."  Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> This is a serious topic to me.  It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.


I'm already married, Ballen. 


> It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit.  It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves."  Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.


Sometimes, people are too stupid to make their own laws.  That is a demonstrable fact.  Sometimes, the government overreaches its authority.  That is also a demonstrable fact.  

But in either case, where the process has failed, we must have the courage to stand up for what is right.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> But in either case, where the process has failed, we must have the courage to stand up for what is right.



Whos standard of right do we use?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Whos standard of right do we use?



Bob has shared the one provided for whthin the constitution.  How about we start there?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> This is a serious topic to me.  It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.
> 
> It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit.  It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves."  Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.



The States do have that right. 


> *Article 1 - Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States*
> 
> No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any     Title of Nobility.
> No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> *Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.* _Note_
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



They also agreed to honor each others public records.



> *Article 4 - Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others*
> 
> Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



That includes marriage registrations.



> The Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state  to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in  the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in  one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith  and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.


http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

So logically, if a m-f marriage must be recognized by the Full Faith  and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution,
then a MM or FF marriage must also.

Which means, NC is contractually obligated to honor NY's gay marriages.


Unless NC would like to try seceding again.  

The fact that this simple logic escapes so many people, simply amazes me.

Which this shows:


> [h=2]Application to family law[/h] The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to orders of protection, for which the clause was invoked by the Violence Against Women Act, and child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B).
> Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage  and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other  states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state  to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.[SUP][17][/SUP]
> The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved, as is its relationship to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.  Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional  amendments that define marriage as consisting solely of different-sex  couples. Most explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex  marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, same-sex  marriage is legal in several states and the District of Columbia. In  August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma  to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a  child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple  married in another state.[SUP][18][/SUP] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, _Adar v. Smith_.[SUP][19][/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause


----------



## ballen0351

.  I dont see how NC can not accept marriage licenses from other states.  That part of the NC law i believe is illegal except there is already a federal law that says no state can be forced to honor another states gay marriage license.  That needs to be over turned  but until then NC is with in its right to not honor the licenses.

But i also think NC can deny gay marriage licenses in its state if it wishes but if im gay and get married in Md and then move to NC they shoukd be required to honor the license.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> .  I dont see how NC can not accept marriage licenses from other states.  That part of the NC law i believe is illegal except there is already a federal law that says no state can be forced to honor another states gay marriage license.  That needs to be over turned  but until then NC is with in its right to not honor the licenses.
> 
> But i also think NC can deny gay marriage licenses in its state if it wishes but if im gay and get married in Md and then move to NC they shoukd be required to honor the license.



pretty much the whole point of this thing.

And once they have to honor another state's license, why not allow it their own....what is going to happen when gays go to NY to get married...they go back home and are no better off than the stranger on the street? Flies in the face of the Vegas wedding!


----------



## ballen0351

Maryland court of appeals legalized same sex divorce here today.  Supporters for same sex marriage call it a step in the right direction?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ballen0351 said:


> Maryland court of appeals legalized same sex divorce here today.  Supporters for same sex marriage call it a step in the right direction?



Yep.  Can't have 1 without the other.


----------



## ballen0351

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yep.  Can't have 1 without the other.



Yeah it was just funny how they reported it.  "Gay marriage supporters call the decision to allow same sex divorce a step in right direction"


----------



## Master Dan

Bob just currious but in reference to the electorate/voters being stupid? I was told long ago that Jefferson's opinion of one man one vote was in his mind only one type of person educated enough to make good judgments on behalf of the country. That seems to have stretched into the nether worlds of many faction including uniformed voters voting for alot of different reasons.

Point in fact here in Alaska Sara Palin????? I wanted the previousl governor a very good man Democrat able to run again and I asked the girls at the bank who they were voting for and they shook thier little heads back and for and said Oh Sara she is so cute??? Gee what a good reason for electing someone but in American today politics and voting don't seem to be doing much better?? The country is in such dire straits and congress and senate is such a mess nothing is getting done that needs to be done. Some times I have to turn the news off its horrible and wonder if there is much hope for it getting better for a two party system. Clinton went on the other night and listed all the things that would not have been passed including the constitution if the two parties could not work together since Boner said that nothing will improve untill one party destroys the other. I know its Bayner but I call him Boner


----------



## Bob Hubbard

People vote based on a lot of things, most have nothing to do with positions or informed decisions unfortunately.


----------



## elder999

All manner of arguments here are moot, really.

First off, though:



Josh Oakley said:


> Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men.
> 
> Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate.



So Chrisitians should be stoning witches, not eating cheeseburgers and not wearing polyester/cotton blends.....:lfao:

Almost all of the arguments presented here, especially those that insist they are in favor of "civil unions," are moot.

As I've posted before, all state-sanctioned marriages *are* "civil unions," a contractual conjoining of property and custodial rights. Make that the solution-start calling the state sanctioned conjoining of property and custodial rights a "civil union," and leave marriage to the religious and other institutitions as the couple sees fit.....

In any case, someone like Billi might meet Jenna Tacklova, a competitor in the Miss Canada pageant, and think her to be quite the catch, have lights out fulfilling sexual relations with her, be enchanted by her wit, poise and beauty, and take her home to meet mom and dad/ Never mind that "she" *"*_used to be_*"* a *"he,"* she no doubt possesses what is, by all accounts anyway, a fully sexually fulfilling orifice resembling a vagina-if not a functional vagina," and she is also quite stunning looking, by any objective apparaisal. More to the point, she has a birth certificate that says she was born female, and could-and probably *will* marry a man at some point-legally. She might not even tell him that she used to be a man.....

Even though she was born a "man." 

Even though she really isn't a "woman," at least, not in the physical sense.

In a world where 52% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, where people set their own children on fire, or drown them, and where so many are condemned to live a life alone, keeping people who choose to legally commit to each other from doing so-to what end, I *still* don't understand-is not only cruel, unnecessary and vindictive, but downright pointless-*especially* in a world where a "man" can become a "woman" with a few surgeries and hormones, and a "woman" can do likewise, with a few more surgeries, and hormones.....


----------



## elder999

And, as predicted:




> Appeals Court Turns Back Marriage Act as Unfair to Gays[h=6]By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and ETHAN BRONNER[/h][h=6]Published: May 31, 2012 [/h]
> A federal appeals court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal law declaring marriage to be a union solely between a man and a woman discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples  a ruling that could set the stage for the Supreme Court to review the issue as early as next year


----------



## WC_lun

I have to wonder how the supreme court will rule.  The 5 conservatives are put in a spot.  On one hand they have personal rights, which seem to be a pet issue of conservatives.  On the other hand, to come down on the side of personal rights will go against social conservatism.  Guess we'll find out what is more important to those justices.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

My feeling is that they will focus on rights base, and expand on the previous ruling that allowed racial intermarriage.


----------



## Ken Morgan

Not all Conservatives are social conservatives. They are usually the loudest part of the movement, but they themselves do not define the movement.


----------



## Blade96

NC reminds me of this.


----------



## Blade96

ballen0351 said:


> and?



You're kind of evil Ballen.

Steve, Bob, you're beating a dead horse me thinks. If the people voted for a law saying everyone should be allowed to torture kittens like luka magnotta, this shmoo here called ballen would probably say Meh.....its what they wanted and its law now so.....


----------



## Steve

Blade96 said:


> You're kind of evil Ballen.
> 
> Steve, Bob, you're beating a dead horse me thinks. If the people voted for a law saying everyone should be allowed to torture kittens like luka magnotta, this shmoo here called ballen would probably say Meh.....its what they wanted and its law now so.....



Beating a dead horse? I haven't posted on this thread in almost three weeks!   in D&amp;D terms, ballen is playing what we would call a lawful stupid paladin.  (not calling ballen stupid, cause I know hes not.)  It's a reference to people who think being lawful means meekly and thoughtlessky obeying laws in the game.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I'm chaotic neutral. Or Sith.  Whichever one gets me free crab legs at the buffet.


----------



## Carol

My characters were lawful neutral.  Controlled ambivalence


----------



## Blade96

ok well carcass beating's been stopped for 3 weeks then


----------



## Steve

I liked to play then all, but I enjoyed chaotic good the best.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

blade96 said:


> you're kind of evil ballen.



true


----------

