Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

"They" is a word used when you have described people earlier in the text. In this case, "they" refers to the people out there who are "lobbying for more torture or fighting for harsher jail sentences for children or clubbing to death baby seals or whatever the heck it is they're up to these days."

Happy?

In this case "they" is quite vague as it refers to a wide ranging group of bad people you have somehow connected to the same sex marriage debate. If you can't name them that's all right, I'm just puzzled as to why.

I'm I happy? Always.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Remember the bolded part - we are going to come back to it.....



Struggle to read? Galatians 5:4 is not what you quoted. It is:
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"

I assume you meant Gal 5:14?

The commandments were in 2 parts - love your neighbor completes the final 6 - which is dealing with your fellow man. It entirely neglects the first 4. This is NOT a Biblical error - its is about the context of the passage - those who held to "law" alone were not justified - for redemption and salvation comes only through Christ, not through the law.



Context - Romans 12:9
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Count em up - there are not 10 commandments there. Given that this was in reference to the dealing of a man to his society - and not to God, its accurate. However, your showing a distinct lack of scholarship and understanding if your suggesting that loving your fellow man (as in mankind - not as in gay sex) somehow equates to accepting salvation, following the will of the Lord and worshipping HIM.



Really? Yet the law is repeatedly held in abeyance under the direct command of God. Or were orders to kill ever man, male child and non-virgin woman of the Midianites love that did no harm? There are multiple examples of that in the Bible too.

Oh - and since you want to quote Paul - and I find it quite funny given the original topic as well... perhaps you would like to address and explain Romans 1:27-32 - in which Paul clearly states that homosexuals - along with others - are "worthy of death". Kind of a harsh statement from a guy who later says "just love everybody", isn't it?



Yes - just like everyone else can. But anyone can take something out of context to make it LOOK like something else. Its a favorite tactic of those who don't like what the Bible actually has to say - who feel it just doesn't fit their own personal morals. Its also readily transparent and easily pointed out.



And as someone who is doing your best to continue the perversion of the Christian faith by throwing out such misinformation - take a bit of correction. You forget or are intentionally ignoring the fact that Paul was writing to fellow believers and those who would be fellow believers. To seek to apply its tenents globally is yet another fallacy often put forth by those that seek to ultimately discredit the Word of God. Again - nice try - but its a failure.

Oh - and fulfill the law - remember Matthew 5:17 - we don't need to "fulfill the law" - for the Lord Jesus came and did exactly that.

You said the term "do no harm" was pagan and not in the bible, I simply showed you otherwise and you went into some silly lecture instead of admitting your error.

Show me anywhere where I said loving your fellow man or doing no harm equals salvation....didn't say it, I said it's the new law in which we should live by, because love and doing no harm fulfills the law. The 10 commandments fit because they're moral law, it is the levitical law that was put away, which only the jews lived by anyway. However, I don't accept that all levitical law was given by God, much was cruel and cultural, moreso to women, course I suspect you believe it was God given and probably believe the earth is 6000 years old, a global flood happened, etc..

If the bible was so poorly translated to latin and english, you would find the subject material related more to prostitution and pederasty which was common.

However, I don't take everything literal in the bible as you, much spoken was due to culture, women still property with no rights, etc....

All you had to do was say you made an error, but I guess you would rather
put gays behind electric fences and let them die out like the nut preacher
here in NC would do.

All cultures gave credit to their God or Gods for battle, saying God told them to do this or that, much like Bush and Palin would do, we killed a lot of women and children ourselves in our God blessed wars.

Geesh, no reason fundy christians scare me, thankfully we have secular law or many christians here would be no better than the Taliban. Maybe we should bring back Polygamy since God endorsed it and concubines "shacking up" as other God blessed forms of relationships

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Armistead

You said the term "do no harm" was pagan and not in the bible

No, I said it originated as a pagan idea - which paganism predates the age of grace as found in the NT. As for the "scripture" that says "do no harm" - if you want me to admit I misunderstood your reasoning fine. Yes - its "in the bible" - but not as a commandment or instruction except in dealing with other believers. So if you want a "well I was wrong", there ya go. I am not to big to admit that we were on different pages.

The problem is that you tried to state that people should "live by the scripture" that states do no harm - but you totally ignore the fact that this is only in regards to other believers. Given that - according to the same scripture - including Paul in Romans whom you quoted - homosexuality is worthy of death - its clear that a person worthy of being killed obviously doesn't fall under "do no harm". Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him. By definition, since homosexuality is a choice in its ACTION - a person who practices such cannot be in Christ - and therefore does not fall under "do no harm" - and in "Biblical" times would have been killed for their action.

See - you want people to follow a suggested path of action - but not even in the way it was put forth. This was my point - and while I may have stated it badly - I suspect its clear now.

Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him.

wow pluck a duck.
haplo is continuing to dig himself into a hole.
I do like how his latest attempt to try and save his viewpoint puts him directly at odds with the central tenets of the faith he claims he follows.
But hey what did jesus know eh "christians"?


poor haplo has slid into bad old time religions death to the unbelievers

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

No, I said it originated as a pagan idea - which paganism predates the age of grace as found in the NT. As for the "scripture" that says "do no harm" - if you want me to admit I misunderstood your reasoning fine. Yes - its "in the bible" - but not as a commandment or instruction except in dealing with other believers. So if you want a "well I was wrong", there ya go. I am not to big to admit that we were on different pages.

The problem is that you tried to state that people should "live by the scripture" that states do no harm - but you totally ignore the fact that this is only in regards to other believers. Given that - according to the same scripture - including Paul in Romans whom you quoted - homosexuality is worthy of death - its clear that a person worthy of being killed obviously doesn't fall under "do no harm". Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him. By definition, since homosexuality is a choice in its ACTION - a person who practices such cannot be in Christ - and therefore does not fall under "do no harm" - and in "Biblical" times would have been killed for their action.

See - you want people to follow a suggested path of action - but not even in the way it was put forth. This was my point - and while I may have stated it badly - I suspect its clear now.

Nope, when I said we should follow the scripture " do no harm" your reply was "Because such "scripture" does not exist." In the bible this message was preached to all people, not just followers of Christ, but it certainly is how christians should live by, not all the codes they make up deciding what is right and wrong, judging others, etc..

There is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice, as stated, PET and MRI scans now show several parts of the brain of gay men match exactly those of s8 women, gay women matches s8 males. Here is one study...look at the imaging.
http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com...s-homosexuals/

Course I agree every scientist either excludes or includes evidence based on his or hers presuppositions and views, but say homosexuality is a choice, our constitution and BOR protect that choice as long as it follows the law "basically doing no harm" to other people. They have the right to happiness without my morals standing in the way as long as they abide by all the same laws I do.

I don't see Paul condoning the death of gays anywhere, in the greek this verse is complex and would read somewhat different than the many translations today, but even most fundies agree that it refers to spiritual death. I see no where in the bible for any sin that denotes people should be tortured or killed, cept sin against the spirit. The apostles preached more against other sins, seems if homo behavior was worthy of death they would be consistent in preaching physical death for other sins they preached more strongly against.

However, religion has nothing to do with it, we're not a theocracy, sadly instead of living by the constitution and BOR, we're letting religious morals decide law, no better than the Taliban. If our laws are based on religious morals, where does it stop and end, what other morals...be a mess of conflict the same reason we have 1000's of denominations of Christians that can't agree on doctrine. What's the future, will women be forced to be property again because they were in the bible by God's law, no more eating pork, stoning bad children...well, that may be worth considering.

When we deny rights based on sects of morals, be careful, eventually it may be you on the end of bias, what if one day the majority tires of the hate spewed by many churches and limits speech, closes the doors and votes in enough politicians to do so...you'll scream constitution and BOR then should protect your rights.

By your views, people that divorce, commit adultery, etc...should not be allowed to legally remarry, but even most fundy churches have a 50% or more divorce and remarriage, they are hypocrites. morals only go so far with most christians.

It's only when we insure the civil rights of all people that we protect our own, regardless of who is in the majority.

[andwii]

TLDR all of it, but I will say yes its the states rights, but then again gov is involved in marriage with tax benefits, why not allow the gays to have these? Have a judge marry them and get it over and done with! im sick of hearing about it, from both sides!

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Armistead

It's only when we insure the civil rights of all people that we protect our own, regardless of who is in the majority.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by andwii

TLDR all of it, but I will say yes its the states rights, but then again gov is involved in marriage with tax benefits, why not allow the gays to have these? Have a judge marry them and get it over and done with! im sick of hearing about it, from both sides!

Yea, states rights. the reason blacks were enslaved for so long, Obama was wrong for saying this should still be a state issue.

Civil rights trump state rights, this is a done deal. We're starting to look like the 1800's, where states will be split into gay and non gay states. Civil unions don't cut it, like people saying " we'll give you rights, but we want to call it something different" how silly and immature.

Many gays are religious, go to church, it is illegal to say they can't have religious weddings if they choose to do so.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Many gays are religious, go to church, it is illegal to say they can't have religious weddings if they choose to do so.

While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

Oh-oh. Can of worms there.

While it may or may not be desirable what you(somebody) say (depending on where you(somebody) come from), the duty of a governemnt is far less romantic and much more pragmatic. In a nutshell the duty of a government is to execute on behalf of the policies a state is aiming to realise in legislation and executive. These can be prioritizing your goal of "equal rights for all", or can instead prioritize for example common good before individual good - or can prioritize some very other general direction.

By example practiced in reality, most modern western states, including America and Germany, are of the second category, prioritizing national interest, communal interest, by securing longterm survivability of the community and civilisation. And often it is the jurisdiction, the courts, that are used to tip the balance more in favour of the first category of prioritizing equal rights for everybody that you desired.

I also have a far less romantic view of what governments in Wetsenr states are. Governments simply are political parties that are in power. That they won power in elections, or a coup, does not make them any less a political party, with all disadvanatges that brings: block-thinking, corruption, lobbyism, ideological missionising, etc. None of the many miseravble problems we expoerience from the hands of poltical parties seizes to exist just because this party claims government office for the next couple of years.

This is not meant as hair-splitting. I indeed think it is of utmost importance that people become clear about what means what in our current systems. Else people cannot make it transparent, cannot become aware of the consequences and why they are like they are (and not different), cannot make educated judgements, and cannot emancipate themselves from the system of the status quo. And I see it as indispensable that people start to show this system the middlefinger. The failed wars we have had and the missionary attitude that where behind them, this megalomaniac idealism I mean, the financialand economical crisis, and the destruction of Europe by the EU due to the criminal example this Soviet-style organisation has set, should make it clear to the open mind that the political mechnaism we took for granted to function properly, have failed. If we do not realise that and correct what is to be repaired and replace what is FUBAR, our passivity and lacking determination will only realise right those threads and destruction that we want to avoid, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

On that issue, if you look at jurisdictions which have legal gay marriage, like Canada or New York state, they usually have a provision which gives churches/practitioners the right to refuse to perform Gay marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs, so everyone is happy: Gays can legally marry and anti-gay churches/practitioners are not obliged to marry them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh-oh. Can of worms there.

While it may or may not be desirable what you(somebody) say (depending on where you(somebody) come from), the duty of a governemnt is far less romantic and much more pragmatic. In a nutshell the duty of a government is to execute on behalf of the policies a state is aiming to realise in legislation and executive. These can be prioritizing your goal of "equal rights for all", or can instead prioritize for example common good before individual good - or can prioritize some very other general direction.

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...

It goes on from there, but the point is that while governments are created for many reasons, not all of them altruistic, good government is created for that very reason. This is the purpose for which the United States was created in the first place. While we have never followed that purpose as well as we should have, "liberty and justice for all" is and should ever be our guiding light.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

I totally agree, you can't force any private or religious group to marry. Many Pastors refuse to marry people for numerous reasons, they should have that right, but they're many religions that will marry gays, it's not a matter of forcing denominations to marry gays, it's the right to a religious marriage in a church that will. I don't see this as an issue that even concerns lawmakers.

Much is the same with free speech. They're are liberals that would love to shut down what they deem is hate speech by pastors in their own church. This could be a legal test in the future as we now deem certain speech as hate and criminal. The issue I see if a church opens it's door to the public that anyone can enter, a gay walks in, pastor makes a gay killing comment.......criminal hate speech or religious rights, on the street you can be charged? If this ever happens you'll have people filling out mass legal agreements before they can walk in and churches will start accepting only members. With many pastors making radical statements towards gays, this could be an issue in the future. What happens when one of their members decides he needs to kill a gay because the pastor said all gays should die?

We know religions have numerous legal civil protections to protect them, the result is the many fake TV pastors making millions off trickery, no taxes, free speech, even if hate, etc....the church demands all these civil rights, yet would refuse civil rights to others based on their codes of morality.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

We know religions have numerous legal civil protections to protect them, the result is the many fake TV pastors making millions off trickery, no taxes, free speech, even if hate, etc....the church demands all these civil rights, yet would refuse civil rights to others based on their codes of morality.

Agreed, it's a tricky, sticky situation. I believe the best we can do is use the government to monitor things and take action when someone actually crosses the line. The problem is always where the line actually is and what action government should be allowed to take. That has always been one of my basic tenets: That in any situation government needs to be allowed to do whatever it does, rather than expected to or trusted to.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Agreed, it's a tricky, sticky situation. I believe the best we can do is use the government to monitor things and take action when someone actually crosses the line. The problem is always where the line actually is and what action government should be allowed to take. That has always been one of my basic tenets: That in any situation government needs to be allowed to do whatever it does, rather than expected to or trusted to.

I agree, many fine lines. Churches know the civil freedoms they have result in much fraud, but willing to accept it to insure their rights, simply, if obvious frauds abuse the system, we accept that to protect our tax status, etc...

The issue is government has connected so much legality to marriage, tax codes, property rights, insurance laws, etc...be better if they had stayed totally out of it, but we can't go back. With so many rights government made marriage a civil issue with civil rights, instead of a spiritual agreement only.

Marriage today is a civil union more than spiritual, but churches only want to recognize the spiritual part and enforce their codes of morality, why still taking advantage of civil laws/laws that benefit them...taxes, etc...and deny others rights based on spiritual morality.

It's very difficult, norms of society versus civil rights, since marriage is a government legal process we will somehow have to define marriage as other groups will eventually step up, polygamist, etc...Imagine if polygamist demand the civil rights to multiple partners, all adults that don't harm others, it could certainly open up a lot of abuse, mass people marrying to get medical insurance, tax breaks, etc...Heck, Canada had a big debate on it and almost passed it, thinking combined families would have better lives in bad economies. Somewhere a norm will be set, as the youth today become more liberal, the norm will be to allow other forms of marriage. Regardless, our nations operates more on the norms of the majority, civil rights be damned...