Quote :

""you: It says that marriage is a union bound by God between a man and a woman. me: And what about the churches that say otherwise?""

Heretic churches are nothing new, but their rise in popularity is, to many Christians (mainly evangelicals and fundamentalists) a sign of end times.

Quote :

" - I am a Christian - I believe in the historical and traditional definition of marriage written in our Constitution, that it should be between one man and one woman - I believe in protecting the interests of children more so than protecting the interests of same-sex couples - I believe that the natural male-female dynamic of parenting serves a purpose and that a father cannot be a mother, and that a mother cannot be a father - I believe that children do best in life when raised by their married mother and father, obviously in a supportive and non-violent household - I also don’t want NC judges and politicians deciding how marriage is defined based on their own personal views. If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it. - I have gay friends and support them. But I could not attend their wedding and pray that God bless their marriage."

I agree with each of these points, and I'm still against Amendment 1.

The problem with Amendment 1 is that it goes beyond the issue of gay marriage.

The laws as they exist now are sufficient. There's no need to use Constitutionalism to prohibit people from certain actions. It failed with alcohol, and it will fail again here. Existing legislative authority is enough.

4/17/2012 10:35:59 PM

I believe in biblical marriage for myself, what anyone else wants to do is their business and I think Jesus would agree

4/17/2012 10:36:21 PM

The Episcopal Church is a heretic church?!?!

4/17/2012 10:37:13 PM

Depending on who you ask, yes.

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 10:39 PM. Reason : This is not to mean that I agree with that stance, but it is the stance of many, nonetheless.]

4/17/2012 10:38:27 PM

Man, religion is the worst.

4/17/2012 10:39:38 PM

Well, it's more than likely the reason you're able to read.

So it's not ALL bad.

4/17/2012 10:40:58 PM

It's not all bad, but it's a pretty big bummer.

4/17/2012 10:42:09 PM

in the beginning we had Religion to keep the peace

today we have nuclear warheads

4/17/2012 10:44:12 PM

...we had religion to keep the peace...


i'm trying to wrap my head around that. considering how many lives have been lost in the name of religion (for better or for worse), i'm trying to figure out how that's "keeping the peace."

4/17/2012 10:46:04 PM

Hadjuk, Jesus would absolutely be against gay marriage. The idea that Jesus was for one doing whatever they wanted to do is just rediculous.

4/17/2012 10:46:07 PM

See, that's the problem with this Jesus cat.

4/17/2012 10:46:50 PM

I don't know much about Jesus, but I'm pretty sure he was for the proper spelling of words

4/17/2012 10:47:35 PM

GUTENBERG DIDN'T DO SHIT FOR BIGUN

4/17/2012 10:48:41 PM

LOLOLOL

4/17/2012 10:49:09 PM

exactly.

im tired and making even less sense than usual.

but i think i was going along the lines of 'religion kept people in check' on a personal level, the bible was edited so that the masses wouldn't go nuts.

now we have enough government/guns/laws/special interests that have nothing to do with our religious beliefs (or DO they) to keep people in check.

sorry for not making more sense.

4/17/2012 10:49:13 PM

Jesus was pretty clear when he spoke about worldly marriage. I also seem to recall him having quite a lot to say about arbitrary laws and judging people

4/17/2012 10:49:30 PM

Please distinguish me from those who wish to speak for Jesus.


I'm not about to put words in the mouth of the son of God. I'm a believer, not a medium.

4/17/2012 10:51:01 PM

I'd put something in his mouth alright

4/17/2012 10:51:40 PM

omg. this thread.

4/17/2012 10:52:03 PM

^^^ Sadly, there a very few people who will speak for him and even fewer who will listen

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 10:53 PM. Reason : Carats]

4/17/2012 10:52:45 PM

Why speak for him, when he has already spoken?

The words are there.

4/17/2012 10:53:36 PM

^ I love you, like, the agape way

4/17/2012 10:57:00 PM

Quote :

"at least you recognize that you "feel" that way, not that it's true [Edited on April 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM. Reason : because it definitely HAS NOT always been a religious ceremony]"

Just because the state calls it marriage doesn't mean it is recognized by God. Marriage is sanctioned by God, legal unions between two people for tax and other benefits are sanctioned by governments and people. Big difference there.

So, yeah, it has always been a religious ceremony, because marriage is a religious ceremony. Before there was modern times, the church completely controlled marriages in Europe, and they had the say so as to who got married, and who didn't. Eventually, that split, and now we have it to where you can get "married" through the courts, but not be married in a church. Quite simple.

Quote :

"just so much fail in that post. don't even know where to start. do you think that Adam & Eve were Christians? did they follow the teachings of Christ? lol at you"

Lol at you completely missing the point that they were male... and female.

Not gonna argue with people that don't have a clue what's going on. Next.

Quote :

"Which churches would these be exactly?"

A church that believes homosexuality is a sin, and that God would not sanction a marriage between them?

Quote :

"And what about the churches that say otherwise?"

Those churches are obviously choosing to ignore what the bible says. Assuming they are bible-based churches of course.

Quote :

"^^ so non-religious people can't be married?"

There is nothing that says non-christians can't be married. The bible only claims that marriage be between a man and a woman.

Quote :

"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"

Exactly, the state should hand out their legal union certificates and tax benefits and what not for people living together and trying to make it through each day together, and the church should be marrying people. I agree. It's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 1:00 AM. Reason : peanut butter]

4/18/2012 12:58:58 AM

Quote :

"people really have to stop saying "historical" here marriage predates Christianity, historically speaking not that Christians seem to know or care"

Historically, polygamy was tolerated and is rampant in the bible, selling your daughter into marriage for political social or just financial gain was common and desirable, and the Bible even has specific rules governing this practice.

History and convention are among the most despicable reasons to support oppression.

Of course, if reason, morals, ethics, or being a good Christian were guiding principles, then no one would support amendment one. It seems to boil down to ignorance, stupidity, or hate for the supporters.

4/18/2012 1:19:09 AM

Quote :

"Those churches are obviously choosing to ignore what the bible says."

Or perhaps they are following the Bible better than you care to acknowledge by teaching Jesus' message of love, fellowship and equality.

4/18/2012 1:51:39 AM

Dear Christians who are in favor of Amendment 1 for religious reasons:

Someone please show me the bible verse where Jesus says "No gay marriage."

Oh that's right, it doesn't exist. When confronted on the question of marriage, he defers to the Old Testament, where marriage isn't a ceremony and only consecrated by sexual intercourse (Jacob and his marriages to Leah and Rachael is the best place to look for it). And why is it that certain sections of the old testament (circumcision, food laws, etc) are able to be tossed out but people are still so hung up on the gay thing?

If you're going to use scripture as a talking point, which shouldn't matter in a country where we have the freedom to make our own choices regardless of religious observances and expect our politicians to act accordingly, then you better be able to tell me exactly what that scripture says.

I guarantee I know your book better than you know mine, despite the fact that your's couldn't exist without mine.

MORR1799, I respect you and your religious beliefs. But non-Christians should be allowed to make their own choices. If your beliefs are correct, then those people are already cursed to eternal damnation just for their sexual urges regardless if they can go through with a marriage or not. Let G-d be their judge and prosecution, and let man not interfere with what he knows not.

Let me break down your points one-by-one:

Quote :

"- I am a Christian"

Doesn't matter in respect to law-making...Separation of Church and State.

Quote :

"- I believe in the historical and traditional definition of marriage written in our Constitution, that it should be between one man and one woman"

Gay marriage is already not allowed, so this point means nothing.

Quote :

"- I believe in protecting the interests of children more so than protecting the interests of same-sex couples"

How does this amendment improve the life of any single child? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me. All it does is take AWAY the protection of children born or raised in any number of situations (out of wedlock, parents are divorced, one parent is deceased, etc). Say a happily married couple has a child, the father goes off to war and never comes back. That child can now be removed from the mother because of a war our government sent the father to fight. HOW IS THAT OK?

Quote :

"- I believe that the natural male-female dynamic of parenting serves a purpose and that a father cannot be a mother, and that a mother cannot be a father"

Mothers dyeing during childbirth is still a big risk in today's world. Are you saying those single fathers are unfit to raise a child because there is no mother in that child's life?

Quote :

"- I believe that children do best in life when raised by their married mother and father, obviously in a supportive and non-violent household"

My previous two responses should cover this as well.

Quote :

"- I also don’t want NC judges and politicians deciding how marriage is defined based on their own personal views. If we’re going to redefine marriage in the future, I want the citizens to have a say in it."

If you don't want politicians making these decisions, then you should be upset that they spent any time at all with this in the legislature.

Quote :

"- I have gay friends and support them. But I could not attend their wedding and pray that God bless their marriage."

No one is asking you to. But why can't they have a non-Christian wedding if that's their religious choice?

I hope I didn't come off as offensive against your views, but I don't see how any of your views dictate a belief system where rights should be stripped away from citizens.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 2:37 AM. Reason : -]

4/18/2012 2:23:49 AM

Quote :

"I guarantee I know your book better than you know mine."

This seems like a contradictory statement...

Quote :

"Surely he scorns the scornful: but he gives grace unto the lowly."

Quote :

"Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar."

Quote :

"But non-Christians should be allowed to make their own choices"

And they do, and who is to say homosexuality is more sinful then robbery, pornography, etc...


These are just things in the world. Hence:

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

"You adulterers and adulteresses, know you not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

4/18/2012 2:51:53 AM

Where's the contradiction? I've studied the New Testament as academic study, literature, theology, philosophy...but very few of those who go around throwing out Jesus quotes have been able to hold their ground in a conversation based on the Hebrew Bible (I don't call it old testament since I don't have nor need a new one).

My point is don't just tell me "Oh the bible says so" without giving me a citation.

The quotes you've put out there don't make any sense in the context of this conversation. Especially the last one...can't be an adulterer if you can't get married.

4/18/2012 2:58:34 AM

I was agreeing with your sentiment for the latter quotes. There is no call to save the world from its fallen state. There is a call for separation from the things and works of the world. I was also saying that there are no laws against other vices that would be deemed sinful, so it's odd that this one gets so much play.

My first quotes are a gentle suggestion that perhaps boasting that you know more about something than everyone else is not a good way to go about establishing your knowledge of scripture.

4/18/2012 3:05:50 AM

Makes sense.

My statement was just really in response to the posts in this thread so far using religion as a shield who clearly don't know the scripture. As someone who works in religious education, it upsets me when religion is brought into places where it doesn't belong.

4/18/2012 3:47:06 AM

posting in troll thread

4/18/2012 4:08:43 AM

theologians itt

4/18/2012 7:28:34 AM

Quote :

"Just because the state calls it marriage doesn't mean it is recognized by God. Marriage is sanctioned by God, legal unions between two people for tax and other benefits are sanctioned by governments and people. Big difference there. So, yeah, it has always been a religious ceremony, because marriage is a religious ceremony. Before there was modern times, the church completely controlled marriages in Europe, and they had the say so as to who got married, and who didn't. Eventually, that split, and now we have it to where you can get "married" through the courts, but not be married in a church. Quite simple."

Amendment One would call into question all legal unions which are not marriage. So even as you argue for gays to be able to obtain legal unions for the purpose of legal benefits, you are willing to codify an assault on this position into the state constitution created to protect the rights of ALL citizens. Why are existing laws not enough?

I'll tell you why. Bigotry. Plain and simple. Religious and homophobic bigotry. I have seen dozens of legal arguments for why this amendment will be bad for the state, but I have yet to see one articulated legal reason FOR it. I urge everyone who is planning on voting for this amendment to please take a step back and examine why they plan to vote for it. If your reasons are based on the teachings of your chosen religion, or all begin with the words "I believe," realize that your beliefs will cost fellow citizens their civil rights. Not just gay people either. All legal unions will be jeopardized if this legislation passes.

And even if it does pass, the legal challenges to this law will never cease. In 2-3 years time, this law WILL make its way to the NC Supreme Court, and possibly the US Supreme Court. I guarantee you this. It will cost the state of NC even more money than it already has? Why? All so fundamentalist Christians and homophobes can feel good about stripping away the rights of people they deem inferior. And don't be fooled, these are the only people who are voting FOR this amendment. Anyone who believes in a secular government is voting against this amendment regardless of their personal beliefs on homosexuality. If you are Christian, let God judge gay people. But here in North Carolina, please let's not double down on a law we already have in place.

4/18/2012 8:38:15 AM

everyone needs to get over the use of the word "marriage"

it's not a Christian idea (or word) originally

a legally-binding ceremony performed by the government (secularly) is still a marriage, and that's what the certificate says

I really don't care if my secular marriage is recognized by God; in fact I couldn't care less

what I care about is my legal rights should my spouse be injured, etc: these rights stem from the state, not God

if you Bible-beaters honestly cared about marriage like you say you do, you would also try to outlaw secular marriages between men and women

since you're not, I can only conclude that you're a bunch of bigots

Quote :

"And don't be fooled, these are the only people who are voting FOR this amendment. Anyone who believes in a secular government is voting against this amendment regardless of their personal beliefs on homosexuality. If you are Christian, let God judge gay people. But here in North Carolina, please let's not double down on a law we already have in place."

this.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2012 9:25:16 AM

I came in here to post but it looks like StillFuchsia and bdmazur have this one under control.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : maybe other but I'm not about to read all this shit]

4/18/2012 9:32:04 AM

Man get this shit out of Chit Chat. Why the fuck hasn't a mod moved this to the Soap Box yet?!?!

4/18/2012 10:11:26 AM

"NC friends and family – if you’ve decided to vote in favor of Amendment One because you oppose gay marriage, please consider this. Amendment One really isn't about gay marriage.

If passed, it would prevent unmarried heterosexual couples who live together basic freedoms, too - like the right to see their boyfriend/girlfriend in the hospital (they’re technically not family); protection against domestic violence (they wouldn’t technically be “domestic”); or the right to make decisions about a companion’s remains if they die. And about 91% of committed, unmarried couples in NC are … NOT GAY!

If you have an elderly parent who has a “friend”; if you have a 30-something cousin who has chosen not to marry her boyfriend if you and your girlfriend are committed to each other – and perhaps have kids together – but aren’t married – all of these groups are in danger of being adversely affected if Amendment One passes.

I’m voting against it because I believe everyone – straight, gay, bi – should have the right to love and marry whoever they want. But even if you and I don’t agree with that ideology, please make sure you know exactly what this amendment stands for before you cast your vote."

4/18/2012 10:22:44 AM

Don't have time to reply to all the other people that quoted, so I'm only going to take the time to discuss the quotes of people attempting to use Jesus to justify gay marriage. First of all, Christianity is not based completely on what Jesus says. In fact, in order to become a christian, most churches agree on a certain plan of salvation, that was actually never completely outlined by Christ, but by writings of Paul and other disciples under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If Christianity was only based on what Christ said, then technically, we'd never know how to come to Christ. Everything in the bible is valuable, and meaningful. New testament and old testament. Inb4 someone tells me I should have a long beard, and not cut my hair.

Quote :

"Or perhaps they are following the Bible better than you care to acknowledge by teaching Jesus' message of love, fellowship and equality."

Jesus loves everyone, but hates sin. So then why would he endorse a sinful relationship involving homosexuality? That's absurd. Look at John chapter 8 verse 1-11. He shows his love for the adulterous woman by saving her from being stoned, then tells her to leave her life of sin. This clearly illustrates that you can love someone, but despise sin.

What is also absurd is suggesting that you can't love gay people unless you are for them getting married. If you would have kept reading, I could care less if the government gives people living together and people that are dependent upon one another legal rights and tax benefits. If I am not badly mistaken that means everyone would receive equal rights.

You can preach love, fellowship, and equality and not endorse gay marriage while holding true to all biblical truths. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, that has nothing to do with equality. Man and a woman =/= Man and a man. Simple formula. Jesus did not preach that kind of unnatural equality.

Quote :

"Someone please show me the bible verse where Jesus says "No gay marriage.""

Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus is confronted with a question about divorce, and cites scripture from Genesis 1:27 to answer it. This shows that he is agreeing with his father's plan for marriage, and also shows that marriage is far more than just a sexual union when he adds: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." implying that God has his hand in the marriage between a man and a woman.

I can settle with someone denouncing religion and refusing to believe in anything it says, but no one should use Jesus or any parts of the bible to justify homosexuality. It's impossible.

4/18/2012 10:41:07 AM

Quote :

"if you have a 30-something cousin who has chosen not to marry her boyfriend if you and your girlfriend are committed to each other – and perhaps have kids together – but aren’t married – all of these groups are in danger of being adversely affected if Amendment One passes."

Why not just get married then?

Why should you expect to get the benefits of being married without getting married?

4/18/2012 10:44:22 AM

Quote :

"If passed, it would prevent unmarried heterosexual couples who live together basic freedoms, too - like the right to see their boyfriend/girlfriend in the hospital (they’re technically not family); protection against domestic violence (they wouldn’t technically be “domestic”); or the right to make decisions about a companion’s remains if they die. And about 91% of committed, unmarried couples in NC are … NOT GAY!"

North Carolina already has laws in place that only require legal documents filed to grant heterosexual couples the right to hospital visits and to decide about a companion's remains. As for the domestic violence, I am too uneducated about the subject to comment on it, but I do agree that protection against domestic violence should span all couples, not just married ones if what you are saying is true.

4/18/2012 10:44:39 AM

Quote :

"Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus is confronted with a question about divorce, and cites scripture from Genesis 1:27 to answer it. This shows that he is agreeing with his father's plan for marriage, and also shows that marriage is far more than just a sexual union when he adds: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." implying that God has his hand in the marriage between a man and a woman."

So a question about divorce is a denouncement of gay marriage? I've heard it all now.

Quote :

"North Carolina already has laws in place that only require legal documents filed to grant heterosexual couples the right to hospital visits and to decide about a companion's remains."

And this amendment could potentially overturn such laws depending on how the courts decide to rule on cases that will crop up as a result.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : a]

4/18/2012 11:12:20 AM

Quote :

"So a question about divorce is a denouncement of gay marriage? I've heard it all now."

Must not have read all of my post, or either the actual bible verse I posted. It's quite clear what I'm getting at if you read it.

4/18/2012 12:50:39 PM

Why do christians see nothing wrong with using the state to enforce their religious beliefs? Is it just because they've always been a majority in this country?

4/18/2012 1:20:16 PM

That and they are just plain dumb.

4/18/2012 1:25:19 PM

lol at all the internet tuff guys bashing christians

so predictable

4/18/2012 1:27:57 PM

Has any Christian in this thread (or anywhere) made a valid reasonable point why this vote should pass?

4/18/2012 1:29:37 PM

^NO

(I is Christian)

4/18/2012 1:31:58 PM

How about you other goofballs start acting like divababy

4/18/2012 1:33:24 PM

Quote :

"Why do christians see nothing wrong with using the state to enforce their religious beliefs? Is it just because they've always been a majority in this country?"

Accepting Roflpack was merely stating that homosexuality is a sin. Not saying anything about what the state should do. And he is correct.

Also Leviticus sex morality establishes uncleanliness for homosexuality.

Quote :

"You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Quote :

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans:

Quote :

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting."

I'll make it clear before anyone freaks out. I'm not weighing on in the Amendment at all. But to say that homosexuality is not transgression is a mistake. Of course if you have no lot with Christ I don't see why you would care what I'd think about transgression. Everyone who doesn't trust in the salvation of Christ is in the same boat.

Psalm 53:

Quote :

"2God looked down from heaven on the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. 3Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that does good, no, not one."

Fallen state of man means everyone not just homosexuals. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I sinned and fell short of the glory of God, you sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Christ bore our sins as propitiation and first born from among the dead(free from sin). I accepted Christ as my savior because he was the only way for me to go back to being with God after my fallen state.

John 6

Quote :

". 44No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, comes to me. 46Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen the Father. 47Truly, truly, I say to you, He that believes on me has everlasting life. "

An important note of course is that I am not claiming to be better than anyone else. Believing in Christ does not make me exalted, he is exalted among the nations not me.

4/18/2012 5:42:05 PM

Quote :

"Accepting Roflpack was merely stating that homosexuality is a sin. Not saying anything about what the state should do. And he is correct."

Excepting that I didn't reference roflpack specifically, and nor do I care what anyone considers personal sin, the vast majority of support for this amendment is religious in nature.

4/18/2012 9:34:53 PM