Soo America hates North Carolina?
- Thread starter penguiin
- Start date
Huck_Norris
Active member
America hated NC before this. Hell, NC hates NC.
But there's good news! Maybe this will incite all the bigoted asshats in other states to uproot and head to this gay-free bastion of morality and piousness... You know, because gay people was clearly NC's biggest problem. Yuuuuup.
But there's good news! Maybe this will incite all the bigoted asshats in other states to uproot and head to this gay-free bastion of morality and piousness... You know, because gay people was clearly NC's biggest problem. Yuuuuup.
penguiin
Active member
you live in Winston? nice I live like 30 minutes away, I'm in statesville.
but anyways on topic...
the state held a vote for an amendment that brought some religious views into perspective. any state that is majority christian is going to vote based on the majority religious beliefs because well, they are the majority, that is just the way it is, it's there opinion so they have the right as an American citizen to believe in what they want for vote for it. it can be said the other way around as well. states that are majority not religious are probably going to pass laws based on the beliefs of non religious people, it's just the way it is, always has been and always will be.
but anyways on topic...
the state held a vote for an amendment that brought some religious views into perspective. any state that is majority christian is going to vote based on the majority religious beliefs because well, they are the majority, that is just the way it is, it's there opinion so they have the right as an American citizen to believe in what they want for vote for it. it can be said the other way around as well. states that are majority not religious are probably going to pass laws based on the beliefs of non religious people, it's just the way it is, always has been and always will be.
DrZoidberg
Active member
Well Obama probably just lost most of the south's and conservatives votes, if he had any of them to begin with.
skia4life89
Active member
None of you give two shits about gays and human rights, your just a bunch of hipsters who like to rebel everything because you feel like you have something to prove and its the cool thing to do. This country was based on Christianity, if you don't like it, you can leave. No one is stopping you I promise. Stop making Facebook status about it and stop bitching about it. The amendment passed, get the fuck over it you fucking hippy wannabees.
artfullydodged
Active member
Even jesus is ashamed of your stupidity
Piste.Off
Active member
This country was also founded on slavery, which the Bible said was totally cool. American treated african americans as second class citizens that don't deserve equal rights, similar to how gay people are treated today. I think we can all agree that the Bible got slavery wrong. So what are the chances the Bible is also wrong about gay marriage?
sir_drums_a_lot
Member
THIS
why can't people simply respect other's opinions? Props to people that think that gay marriage should be legal because they see gay couples as equals, and props to people who are against gay marriage due to their faith because they're doing and saying what they believe in.
why can't people simply respect other's opinions? Props to people that think that gay marriage should be legal because they see gay couples as equals, and props to people who are against gay marriage due to their faith because they're doing and saying what they believe in.
PON3
Active member
I would say there are more states people hate more than North Carolina. Last time I checked where I live people dont like it too much.
I come from the most bigoted state, and it proves it because I have the phelps family living here. They have actually picketed the church that I go to. I hate this state and cant wait to move out to Colorado.
I come from the most bigoted state, and it proves it because I have the phelps family living here. They have actually picketed the church that I go to. I hate this state and cant wait to move out to Colorado.
Abu_Hajaar
Active member
This is horrible. If you are against gay marriage then DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX simple as that. if you're gay you're gay; if you're straight you're straight.
artfullydodged
Active member
What if I said you cant post in this thread becuase youre (presumably) a drummer? Would you respect that opinion? Because its basically the same as people saying gays cant marry because they're gay.
GayWolf420
Active member
It's definitely based around religion. They do a good job of saying its not, but it is.
artfullydodged
Active member
No, being a drummer is part of his identity, not his opinion.
84891jnf92048
Active member
The first record of a possible homosexual couple was in 2400 BCE. 4400 years, that's a hell of a fad.
Confused as to why their parents are in a homosexual relationship? I think that one's pretty easy to figure out: because they love each other.
You dont "think from a scientific standpoint". You can think, or you can back it with science. So where is the evidence you have to show that it's not human nature? My evidence to show that it IS human nature is AT LEAST 4400 years of humans being in homosexual relationships.
Confused as to why their parents are in a homosexual relationship? I think that one's pretty easy to figure out: because they love each other.
You dont "think from a scientific standpoint". You can think, or you can back it with science. So where is the evidence you have to show that it's not human nature? My evidence to show that it IS human nature is AT LEAST 4400 years of humans being in homosexual relationships.
penguiin
Active member
not trying to get in a religious argument here but..
1) kind of hard to have absolutely 0 influence on the way the country is run when our country was founded on it and it's in our documents
2)everything you mentioned was in the old testament and are not required to be followed anymore by christians.
just wanted to point that out...
1) kind of hard to have absolutely 0 influence on the way the country is run when our country was founded on it and it's in our documents
2)everything you mentioned was in the old testament and are not required to be followed anymore by christians.
just wanted to point that out...
artfullydodged
Active member
shibby
Active member
this is where you need to source your shit. i am not american but as far as i know there is almost NO mention of religion in the constitution or the bill of rights except the FIRST ammendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
sherwood4099
Active member
Ding ding ding. Government shouldn't be involved at all it should be a private legal matter when it comes to finances, assets etc and taxes shouldn't be involved at all. If the government wasn't involved we wouldnt even be having the gay marriage debate because it's not illegal to love, live with, fuck or have children as a same sex couple so they would be able to enjoy everything heterosexual couples do with out having to ask anyone's permission
artfullydodged
Active member
"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
That's the first amendment. This country was not founded on Christianity. I cannot fucking comprehend how many people don't understand that.
That's the first amendment. This country was not founded on Christianity. I cannot fucking comprehend how many people don't understand that.
penguiin
Active member
yes...but it was founded on christianity still, ever read the declaration of independence?
first line... "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
creator=God
many other examples as well
link... http://www.aproundtable.org/issues.cfm?issuecode=history
first line... "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
creator=God
many other examples as well
link... http://www.aproundtable.org/issues.cfm?issuecode=history
84891jnf92048
Active member
I.... i can't even.... you..... you just used a passage that gives people UNALIENABLE RIGHTS to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which not allowing gay marriage is most certainly obstructing, to try to prove why gay marriage shouldn't be legal..........
I'm sort of in between enraged, bewildered, and sorry for you.
I'm sort of in between enraged, bewildered, and sorry for you.
penguiin
Active member
http://www.aproundtable.org/issues.cfm?issuecode=history
just read...and quit trying to deny the fact it wasn't founded on it, obviously now it's not run on christianity but when it started you can't deny it
just read...and quit trying to deny the fact it wasn't founded on it, obviously now it's not run on christianity but when it started you can't deny it
penguiin
Active member
you missed the word "certain" unalienable rights, that were endowed by a creator (god), and the creator doesn't allow gay marriage...so a country founded on rights that god sees fit does not include gays...
just think through before you go off posting what you think something said
just think through before you go off posting what you think something said
selkirks
Active member
not trying to get in a religious argument here but..
1) kind of hard to have absolutely 0 influence on the way the country is run when our country was founded on it and it's in our documents
Our nation was founded on the fundamental truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (changed from "property" under John Locke's estimation). It was not founded by religious people. It was founded by Deists (Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington...all Deists). They believed in a clockmaker god who set the Universe in motion, but didn't take an active role in daily life. So no predestination, salvation, etc. At least in their minds.
2)everything you mentioned was in the old testament and are not required to be followed anymore by christians.
Nothing has to be followed by Christians. That doesn't make sense. If anything had to be followed, that would undermine the Christian idea of free will. Besides, the Old Testament is still relevant, and many extremist Christians do place the basis of their beliefs on it. Is it unfair to cite? Probably. But then you cannot cite it either. Where in the New Testament is a "right to marry" specifically defined as "belonging only to a man and a woman engaging in a heterosexual relationship with the intention to procreate"?
This is totally disregarding the fact that we're referring here to legal matrimony. Not religious matrimony. Religion is not a part of this; Churches would still be totally free to disregard or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. That's protected under the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. We're talking here about legal matrimony, which is very different and has very different purposes. Its purpose is to establish certain tax and visitation benefits, as well as adoption procedures and other things. Nothing do do with procreation whatsoever.
We simply cannot utilize religion when adjudicating our laws. It's a violation of the First Amendment "establishment" clause, barring the "establishment" of a religion. The moment we adopt laws that define marriage on the basis of a religious argument, we have violated the Constitution of the United States of America.
Thus, religion is not a part of this argument.
just wanted to point that out...
So, in conclusion, perhaps we need to define our terms here...
Religious Matrimony is issued by Churches and only by Churches. It is the exercise of the idea that a man and a woman wed in order to procreate. It is a mutual, loving commitment.
Legal Matrimony is issued by the State and only by the State. It is the exercise of the idea that two individuals wed in order to establish certain benefits. It is a mutual, loving commitment.
The two ideas are exclusive to one another. They do not intersect. And the issue at hand in the same-sex marriage debate is Legal Matrimony. Not Religious Matrimony.
Sorry to reply in bold. It as easier to embolden my text than his.
1) kind of hard to have absolutely 0 influence on the way the country is run when our country was founded on it and it's in our documents
Our nation was founded on the fundamental truths of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (changed from "property" under John Locke's estimation). It was not founded by religious people. It was founded by Deists (Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington...all Deists). They believed in a clockmaker god who set the Universe in motion, but didn't take an active role in daily life. So no predestination, salvation, etc. At least in their minds.
2)everything you mentioned was in the old testament and are not required to be followed anymore by christians.
Nothing has to be followed by Christians. That doesn't make sense. If anything had to be followed, that would undermine the Christian idea of free will. Besides, the Old Testament is still relevant, and many extremist Christians do place the basis of their beliefs on it. Is it unfair to cite? Probably. But then you cannot cite it either. Where in the New Testament is a "right to marry" specifically defined as "belonging only to a man and a woman engaging in a heterosexual relationship with the intention to procreate"?
This is totally disregarding the fact that we're referring here to legal matrimony. Not religious matrimony. Religion is not a part of this; Churches would still be totally free to disregard or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. That's protected under the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. We're talking here about legal matrimony, which is very different and has very different purposes. Its purpose is to establish certain tax and visitation benefits, as well as adoption procedures and other things. Nothing do do with procreation whatsoever.
We simply cannot utilize religion when adjudicating our laws. It's a violation of the First Amendment "establishment" clause, barring the "establishment" of a religion. The moment we adopt laws that define marriage on the basis of a religious argument, we have violated the Constitution of the United States of America.
Thus, religion is not a part of this argument.
just wanted to point that out...
So, in conclusion, perhaps we need to define our terms here...
Religious Matrimony is issued by Churches and only by Churches. It is the exercise of the idea that a man and a woman wed in order to procreate. It is a mutual, loving commitment.
Legal Matrimony is issued by the State and only by the State. It is the exercise of the idea that two individuals wed in order to establish certain benefits. It is a mutual, loving commitment.
The two ideas are exclusive to one another. They do not intersect. And the issue at hand in the same-sex marriage debate is Legal Matrimony. Not Religious Matrimony.
Sorry to reply in bold. It as easier to embolden my text than his.
HitTheJim
Member
Any
legislation addressing marriage, gay or traditional, is
unconstitutional. In terms of legality, New York is just as at fault as
North Carolina. One's right to marriage should be handled exclusively by
their religion. It's
hypocritical to celebrate pro-gay marriage legislation and then condemn
the neglect of separation of church and state when anti-gay marriage
legislation is passed.
legislation addressing marriage, gay or traditional, is
unconstitutional. In terms of legality, New York is just as at fault as
North Carolina. One's right to marriage should be handled exclusively by
their religion. It's
hypocritical to celebrate pro-gay marriage legislation and then condemn
the neglect of separation of church and state when anti-gay marriage
legislation is passed.
selkirks
Active member
Creator: deist, clockmaker god who set the Universe into motion but didn't take an active role in daily life.
Inalienable Rights: Rights granted to humanity by the so-called Natural Law, which is God's revelation of self through his "eternal law," governed by the principles of Deism, not Christianity. Literally this means "in the absence of an active force (i.e. god), here are the rules which govern under natural conditions."
It's an expansion of John Locke's ideas. He believed that the "inalienable rights" included life, liberty, and property. The Framers then changed the last one to "the pursuit of happiness," because they wanted to allow slavery. True story.
It's not that difficult to understand. Deism. Not Christianity.
(And again, your argument doesn't make any sense, because by disallowing same-sex marriage, you are restricting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But still, go on.)
Inalienable Rights: Rights granted to humanity by the so-called Natural Law, which is God's revelation of self through his "eternal law," governed by the principles of Deism, not Christianity. Literally this means "in the absence of an active force (i.e. god), here are the rules which govern under natural conditions."
It's an expansion of John Locke's ideas. He believed that the "inalienable rights" included life, liberty, and property. The Framers then changed the last one to "the pursuit of happiness," because they wanted to allow slavery. True story.
It's not that difficult to understand. Deism. Not Christianity.
(And again, your argument doesn't make any sense, because by disallowing same-sex marriage, you are restricting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But still, go on.)
artfullydodged
Active member
The word "Creator" is vague as fuck and in no way implies with any certainty that this so called creator is the christian god. Its written that way because we are free to practice whatever beliefs we wish here. I don't consider any of that evidence that this country was founded as a christian nation.
Besides, the declaration of independence is not a piece of legislature. Our laws our based on the Bill of Rights, which I've already quoted in this thread to support my argument.
Besides, the declaration of independence is not a piece of legislature. Our laws our based on the Bill of Rights, which I've already quoted in this thread to support my argument.