north carolina legislates ban on gay marriage

[IrishGuy 178]

I just don't understand why this issue would appear on ballots.....I mean seriously, shouldn't the ministers / churches be one ones to decide if it is within their religious beliefs to wed gay couples?

Edited May 15, 2012 by IrishGuy

[AlabamaDuck 0]

yeah the bible is just a goldmine of enlightenment.

 

 

 

Try reading it sometime. You might learn something.

[Soko 128]

Try reading it sometime. You might learn something.

 

 

 

Keep posting, please.

[AlabamaDuck 0]

Keep posting, please.

 

Not sure if you are serious or not but if you might want to, check this out. Genesis 19: 4-5

 

BTW, I am not a bible thumper but from going to Church (sometimes) that when this subject came up I wanted to know how others felt when a gay man or woman wanted to be friends. And a poster wrote "hate the sin not the sinner". That made everything much easier.

[Rockets Revenge 0]

I just don't understand why this issue would appear on ballots.....I mean seriously, shouldn't the ministers / churches be one ones to decide if it is within their religious beliefs to wed gay couples?

 

There is much more to it than that. The new ammendment affects civil unions, survivorship benefits, etc.

[Tenacious_ND 0]

Try reading it sometime. You might learn something.

 

already have and all i learned is that god is an asshole. ;D

 

 

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7

Edited May 15, 2012 by Tenacious_ND

[AlabamaDuck 0]

already have and all i learned is that god is an asshole. ;D

 

 

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7

 

 

!st - We don`t think a like.

2nd - If we did think a like, I wouldn`t have the guts to call God an asshole.

[NDhoosier 1,232]

I expected more religious people on a Notre Dame board, why do you cheer for Notre Dame if you are not religious???

 

anyway, on a serious note... IrishGuy, it doesnt really have much to do with what the church wants, it is how the state recognizes a relationship between two people and the benefits they get. I dont like homosexuality on a personal level, but I believe they should get the same legal rights if they consider themselves life partners... but a church doesnt have to recognize a gay relationship, the state cannot tell the church how to conduct their actions regarding religious beliefs.

[Tenacious_ND 0]

I expected more religious people on a Notre Dame board, why do you cheer for Notre Dame if you are not religious???

 

anyway, on a serious note... IrishGuy, it doesnt really have much to do with what the church wants, it is how the state recognizes a relationship between two people and the benefits they get. I dont like homosexuality on a personal level, but I believe they should get the same legal rights if they consider themselves life partners... but a church doesnt have to recognize a gay relationship, the state cannot tell the church how to conduct their actions regarding religious beliefs.

 

i was raised catholic. i ditched the religion but kept the team. ;D

[Rockets Revenge 0]

I expected more religious people on a Notre Dame board, why do you cheer for Notre Dame if you are not religious???

 

anyway, on a serious note... IrishGuy, it doesnt really have much to do with what the church wants, it is how the state recognizes a relationship between two people and the benefits they get. I dont like homosexuality on a personal level, but I believe they should get the same legal rights if they consider themselves life partners... but a church doesnt have to recognize a gay relationship, the state cannot tell the church how to conduct their actions regarding religious beliefs.

 

So then, following your logic, shouldn't a person be allowed to marry an animal, child, or even an inanimate object? After all, those people were "born that way" just like homosexuals, it isn't something they can change. Once you start changing the original definition of what a marriage is how do you decide where to draw the line?

[Rockets Revenge 0]

already have and all i learned is that god is an asshole. ;D

 

How can you say something so religiously offensive while arguing that banning gay marriage is morally offensive?

 

You sir are a walking hypocrite...

[jfschellcrna 11]

I expected more religious people on a Notre Dame board, why do you cheer for Notre Dame if you are not religious???

 

I consider myself very religious, but do i have to agree with a hypocritical story book written centuries ago?? i also don't believe the earth is flat, or that the planets revolve around the earth.. I don't believe in creationism or that some white guy with a white beard put two white people in a garden and started procreating... If you do, that's fine. Short sighted imo, but fine....however, don't assume i'm not religious because I don't believe in your whimsical fairy tale world, and don't be so closed minded to believe that yours is the only one true religion, because those of us who have been enlightened know that the one true religion is actually FOOTBALL.....there, you answered your own question......

[Tenacious_ND 0]

So then' date=' following your logic, shouldn't a person be allowed to marry an animal, child, or even an inanimate object? After all, those people were "born that way" just like homosexuals, it isn't something they can change. Once you start changing the original definition of what a marriage is how do you decide where to draw the line?[/quote']

 

u draw the line between humans ;D and u call it civil union or something else besides marriage because religious people are hung up on that term.

[Tenacious_ND 0]

How can you say something so religiously offensive while arguing that banning gay marriage is morally offensive?

 

You sir are a walking hypocrite...

 

because if there is a GOD whos all powerful etc. its not the one that is described in the old testament.

[PJacksonsDred15 110]

This Bible stuff is humorous.

 

If we were to define marriage today as they did in Biblical times, then we would have to condone middle aged men marrying and impregnating pre-teens; men having concubines and having multiple wives; men marrying their direct relatives; men buying women and leaving them no choice in the matter; men stoning to death any woman who tried to leave the marriage. These things were all were acceptable under the "traditional" definition of marriage. Therefore, it is pretty clear that marriage in the time of Jesus is not the same way we define marriage today.

 

And please show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus specifically denounces gay marriage. If it was such an important issue/problem, don't you think he'd say something about it? In fact, if anything, Jesus accepts that gay's were born different:

 

“Not everyone can accept this teaching (man joining with a woman), but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth..." Matthew 19:11-12.

 

And animals don't have the gift of a human mind, which is why they don't have the capacity agree to enter into a marriage relationship. Please get real with those ridiculous statements.

Edited May 15, 2012 by PJackson'sDred15

[AlabamaDuck 0]

This Bible stuff is humorous.

 

If we were to define marriage today as they did in Biblical times, then we would have to condone middle aged men marrying and impregnating pre-teens; men having concubines and having multiple wives; men marrying their direct relatives; men buying women and leaving them no choice in the matter; men stoning to death any woman who tried to leave the marriage. These things were all were acceptable under the "traditional" definition of marriage. Therefore, it is pretty clear that marriage in the time of Jesus is not the same way we define marriage today.

 

And please show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus specifically denounces gay marriage. If it was such an important issue/problem, don't you think he'd say something about it? In fact, if anything, Jesus accepts that gay's were born different:

 

“Not everyone can accept this teaching (man joining with a woman), but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth..." Matthew 19:11-12.

 

And animals don't have the gift of a human mind, which is why they don't have the capacity agree to enter into a marriage relationship. Please get real with those ridiculous statements.

 

I think you are mistaken on just about everything you wrote and confusing Muslims and Christains.

If God killed them for being a homosexual, I doubt he would condone a marrage between two.

[jfschellcrna 11]

I think you are mistaken on just about everything you wrote and confusing Muslims and Christains.

If God killed them for being a homosexual, I doubt he would condone a marrage between two.

 

alabama duck...is your god an all loving and forgiving god??

[AlabamaDuck 0]

alabama duck...is your god an all loving and forgiving god??

 

 

That is what my Catholic wife believes but growing up as a Babtist, God is to be feared.

[PJacksonsDred15 110]

I think you are mistaken on just about everything you wrote and confusing Muslims and Christains.

If God killed them for being a homosexual, I doubt he would condone a marrage between two.

 

Duck,

 

You're the one who is mistaken. You keep bringing up stories in the Old Testament. I said JESUS. Jesus is in the New Testament. Jesus never condemns gays in the New Testament. If being gay was such a horrible sin, you'd think he'd mention that. And like I said, he acknowledges that gays are born and created that way by God.

 

And yes, Judiasm and Christianity began in the Middle East just like Islam, and those religions had the same social norms and views of marriage during this time period. Men stoning women, daughters raping their father, men marrying multiple wives, family members marrying each other, men marrying children...its all in your Bible, Duck.

Edited May 15, 2012 by PJackson'sDred15

[NDhoosier 1,232]

So then' date=' following your logic, shouldn't a person be allowed to marry an animal, child, or even an inanimate object? After all, those people were "born that way" just like homosexuals, it isn't something they can change. Once you start changing the original definition of what a marriage is how do you decide where to draw the line?[/quote']

 

they arent born that way bro... are furries born that way? Do you even know what a furry is? I draw the line where my ideals are, its quite simple actually. Slippery slope doesnt apply to me in this debate, I believe what I believe, no more no less. I dont agree with Homosexuality, but if they consider each other partners, then they should get the benefits of hospital visits and such. The problem with animals, children, and inanimate objects is that they do not reciprocate the same feelings you have. the animal doesnt consider you his/her partner, the object doesnt consider you its partner and a child doesnt really understand the concept, they see you as a friend, they simply do not know the boundaries of the different relationships.

 

I consider myself very religious, but do i have to agree with a hypocritical story book written centuries ago??

 

If you are trying to say that you dont take the Bible literally, then I agree 100%, Catholics dont take the Bible literally, so I am completely on your side... You simply sounded as though you were mocking the Bible, which is what atheists live for it seems. It seems I interpreted your words incorrectly, my apologizes.

Edited May 15, 2012 by NDhoosier