Special Dispensation to Punch Your Children

#51
#51
hog88 said:
The constitution clearly lays out the proccedure to change/amend the document, which takes a majority vote (opinion), 3/4 of the states to ratify. So in reality the opinion of the majority rules.

I really don't give a dam^ about homosexuals, they can do whith each other as they please. I do not think they should be able to marry, you are opening pandora's box. If homosexuals can marry then why can't a person have more than 1 wife/husband, why can't a brother-sister marry or mom-son ext ext?
Click to expand...

OK, but small quibble. Majority = 51%, and 51% cannot amend the constitution, so the law still rules over the majority. The law states that a super-majority of 3/4 can change the law. Once again, small quibble, but I think it's important that we note it is not majority rule. It's rule of law.

In theory you could have a majority of the population against amending (the 12 biggest states), and the 38 smallest states choosing to amend. So once again, it's not majority opinion.

I'm all for plural marriage, incest, if that's what people wants. Doesn't bother my existence.
 
#52
#52
Gramps said:
Do you believe in Free Will?

Same sex marrige is something that I personally do not agree with but if other choose to be in a same sex relationship, it is their choice to do so.

I agree per the Bible homosexuality is a sin.

Do you think it is more of a sin than :

Fornication
Adultry
Rape
Murder


Is homosexuality more of an abomination than the things listed in the Bible that the Lord hates ?

Provers 6: 16-19

There are six things which the Lord hates,

Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,

A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil,

A false witness who utters lies,

And one who spreads strife among brothers.


I do not understand why some Christians pick homosexuality and dwell on it as if it were the king of all sins. IMO, it is wrong but in the eyes of God it is no more of a sin than any other.




Do you think a homosexual is going to a different hell than those that commit other sins?
Click to expand...


I don't believe one sin carries more weight than another...any sin without salvation will result in damnation. Of course homosexuals are punished with the same hell as everyone else. I don't choose this issue to harp on...its the only one that's going to be voted on in my state in the next week. I didn't start a thread to "gay bash"...I started a thread to encourage people to vote.
 
#53
#53
volfanjustin said:
My guess is any one registered to vote can vote against it. The people in NC have the right to vote it down.
Click to expand...

This. If you live here...vote. if you don't, do something about it in your state. Or sit at home and criticize people that actually get off their butts and try to stand up for what they believe in...whatever floats your boats.
 
#54
#54
therealUT said:
...if they are gay, of course.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfOr8rnc6Yk&t=45s[/youtube]



I am less shocked that there are Christian preachers who believe this than that there is a room full of individuals cheering him on; or, maybe I am not shocked at all.
Click to expand...

that's why it's called FayetteNam, that city is nuts..
 
#55
#55
hog88 said:
There are social norms and things that are just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

So let those that feel that they should conform to some sort of "social norms" do so. No problem.

Let all the other consenting adults do whatever they want. Everybody shut the hell up about what other consenting adults want to do.

"Plain wrong" is telling consenting adults what they should or should not do.
 
#56
#56
Danl said:
So let those that feel that they should conform to some sort of "social norms" do so. No problem.

Let all the other consenting adults do whatever they want. Everybody shut the hell up about what other consenting adults want to do.

"Plain wrong" is telling consenting adults what they should or should not do.
Click to expand...

So consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to do? Come on surely you don't believe that? By your standards anything would go.
 
#57
#57
hog88 said:
So consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to do? Come on surely you don't believe that? By your standards anything would go.
Click to expand...

as long as their behavior doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, why not?
 
#58
#58
Perhaps no marriage should be recognized legally and no couples should receive extra benefits. Perhaps marriage should only be a religious institution. That would be equality, would it not?

At some point, there will be a gay rights amendment. You would think this country had learned it's lessons about equality, but apparently not. It's a shame we'll have to amend the Constitution once again to guarantee people their rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
hog88 said:
So consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to do? Come on surely you don't believe that? By your standards anything would go.
Click to expand...

As it concerns designating one's "spouse(s)", I do believe that pretty much anything goes. Not my business, not your business, certainly not the govt's business.
 
#61
#61
marcusluvsvols said:
I don't believe one sin carries more weight than another...any sin without salvation will result in damnation. Of course homosexuals are punished with the same hell as everyone else. I don't choose this issue to harp on...its the only one that's going to be voted on in my state in the next week. I didn't start a thread to "gay bash"...I started a thread to encourage people to vote.
Click to expand...

Do you think there should be an amendment to outlaw lying? gluttony? lust? greed? pride? envy?

Or, you just want to specifically target homosexuals and ensure that those sinners are not treated equally under the law.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
Do you think there should be an amendment to outlaw lying? gluttony? lust? greed? pride? envy?

Or, you just want to specifically target homosexuals and ensure that those sinners are not treated equally under the law.
Click to expand...

You see thiis as targeting a group of people to deprive. I see this as protecting something established by God himself. To each his own. Yet to read from a single poster that they were actually going to do something about it where they live. Besides whine and hope it gets defeated where I live.

By the way...isn't it a marriage penalty? Don't you pay MORE taxes as a man and wife than you would individually? Where is the benefit being deprived? Insurance? Why don't the homosexuals take that up with insurance companies? That policy is not legislated its private business policy unless Obama gets his way.
 
#63
#63
Weezer said:
Perhaps no marriage should be recognized legally and no couples should receive extra benefits. Perhaps marriage should only be a religious institution. That would be equality, would it not?

At some point, there will be a gay rights amendment. You would think this country had learned it's lessons about equality, but apparently not. It's a shame we'll have to amend the Constitution once again to guarantee people their rights.
Click to expand...

This. The only aspect Government should be involved in, is as a mediator for the contract the couple signs when they join their assets together as a partnership. I know it sounds cold, but honestly I think this whole argument could be solved by that. And if a church or any business does not want to service your marriage, you have no claim for discrimination as that is their private choice.

These "Christians" seem to forget the one important message Jesus tried hammering into everyone's heads when he was on earth: LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.
 
#64
#64
marcusluvsvols said:
You see thiis as targeting a group of people to deprive. I see this as protecting something established by God himself. To each his own. Yet to read from a single poster that they were actually going to do something about it where they live. Besides whine and hope it gets defeated where I live.

By the way...isn't it a marriage penalty? Don't you pay MORE taxes as a man and wife than you would individually? Where is the benefit being deprived? Insurance? Why don't the homosexuals take that up with insurance companies? That policy is not legislated its private business policy unless Obama gets his way.
Click to expand...


You refer to God in the masculine when in fact God is a black African female.
 
#65
#65
marcusluvsvols said:
You see thiis as targeting a group of people to deprive. I see this as protecting something established by God himself.
Click to expand...

And, this is the very problem. You want to institute something based solely on your theological beliefs. Moreover, allowing a secular institution to recognize heterosexual and/or homosexual marriages in no way either derides or protects those marriages. Marriage insofar as the institution is protected is protected when individuals decide, based upon mutual love and respect, to marry and then mutually continue to respect and love each other. The only thing government involvement does is provide benefits based upon the contract/covenant to the individuals. By refusing these benefits to homosexuals, you are not protecting marriage you are simply refusing equal benefits to others based solely on your religious beliefs.

marcusluvsvols said:
To each his own. Yet to read from a single poster that they were actually going to do something about it where they live. Besides whine and hope it gets defeated where I live.

By the way...isn't it a marriage penalty? Don't you pay MORE taxes as a man and wife than you would individually? Where is the benefit being deprived? Insurance? Why don't the homosexuals take that up with insurance companies? That policy is not legislated its private business policy unless Obama gets his way.
Click to expand...

There are numerous benefits, aside from tax benefits, that are attached to marriage. These include insurance, adoption privileges, next-of-kin privileges, employee-spouse benefits, etc.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
And, this is the very problem. You want to institute something based solely on your theological beliefs. Moreover, allowing a secular institution to recognize heterosexual and/or homosexual marriages in no way either derides or protects those marriages. Marriage insofar yas the institution is protected is protected when individuals decide, based upon mutual love and respect, to marry and then mutually continue to respect and love each other. The only thing government involvement does is provide benefits based upon the contract/covenant to the individuals. By refusing these benefits to homosexuals, you are not protecting marriage you are simply refusing equal benefits to others based solely on your religious beliefs.



There are numerous benefits, aside from tax benefits, that are attached to marriage. These include insurance, adoption privileges, next-of-kin privileges, employee-spouse benefits, etc.
Click to expand...

You pay more taxes as a married couple than two separate individuals. There may be exceptions to this rule that I'm unaware of...but that is where the term "marriage penalty" comes from.
Not being married does nothing to disqualify homos from adoption. My mom was a foster parent in NC for 17 years. Took children with challenges, more than 40 in all. My 2 sisters (adopted) were among them. One (black) was born hiv positive and still is. The other (biracial) was born to a mother who smoked crack while she was in the womb. Many of the other foster families in her organization both fostered and adopted. Strangely about 25% of these couples were homosexual. if there were legislation in nc to keep gays from fostering / adopting this would never have been possible. Marital status does nothing to keep them from getting children.
As far as the insurance situation goes maybe the responsibility for that falls on the insurers. They make their own policies as to how they do business and who is eligible for benefits. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage God established thousands of years ago in order to cater to insurance desires of a small percentage of the population. Perhaps they could seek insurance from companies that are more gay oriented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
Again, for about the tenth time in 2 threads...do something about it. You want to be a champion for gay rights? Get out your checkbook. Call your congressman. Start a movement. Vote for people who see things the way you do.

Or you can sit at home and complain about the people that are doing something. That's fast becoming the American way. I wonder how many posters in this forum even vote. Bet my butt its about half. Don't like the direction government is headed in your state? Initiate a change by taking action. I have, and will.
 
#69
#69
marcusluvsvols said:
Again, for about the tenth time in 2 threads...do something about it. You want to be a champion for gay rights? Get out your checkbook. Call your congressman. Start a movement. Vote for people who see things the way you do.

Or you can sit at home and complain about the people that are doing something. That's fast becoming the American way. I wonder how many posters in this forum even vote. Bet my butt its about half. Don't like the direction government is headed in your state? Initiate a change by taking action. I have, and will.
Click to expand...

negative, Ghostrider

I just wish I could vote in North Carolina.
 
#70
#70
marcusluvsvols said:
You pay more taxes as a married couple than two separate individuals. There may be exceptions to this rule that I'm unaware of...but that is where the term "marriage penalty" comes from.
Click to expand...

The "marriage penalty" is, according to all government data, the exception to the rule. The majority of married couples in the US pay less income taxes by filing jointly than they would had they filed separately.

marcusluvsvols said:
Not being married does nothing to disqualify homos from adoption. My mom was a foster parent in NC for 17 years. Took children with challenges, more than 40 in all. My 2 sisters (adopted) were among them. One (black) was born hiv positive and still is. The other (biracial) was born to a mother who smoked crack while she was in the womb. Many of the other foster families in her organization both fostered and adopted. Strangely about 25% of these couples were homosexual. if there were legislation in nc to keep gays from fostering / adopting this would never have been possible. Marital status does nothing to keep them from getting children.
Click to expand...

Currently, in the US, states may restrict adoption on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation. Gay adoption is illegal in Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. Arkansas specifically restricts adoption to couples in a valid marriage. Your anecdote is nice; but, actually legal statutes present a much different picture.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in December of 2011 against homosexual adoption.

marcusluvsvols said:
As far as the insurance situation goes maybe the responsibility for that falls on the insurers. They make their own policies as to how they do business and who is eligible for benefits. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage God established thousands of years ago in order to cater to insurance desires of a small percentage of the population. Perhaps they could seek insurance from companies that are more gay oriented.
Click to expand...

God neither established the English language nor the definition of terms within the English language. God never legislated any granting or denying of state benefits connected to the definition of terms.
 
#73
#73
Weezer said:
Perhaps no marriage should be recognized legally and no couples should receive extra benefits. Perhaps marriage should only be a religious institution. That would be equality, would it not?

At some point, there will be a gay rights amendment. You would think this country had learned it's lessons about equality, but apparently not. It's a shame we'll have to amend the Constitution once again to guarantee people their rights.
Click to expand...
Let the government recognize cival unions whether they are hetrosexual or homosexual couples, then let the churches define marriage however they see fit.
 
#74
#74
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
Let the government recognize cival unions whether they are hetrosexual or homosexual couples, then let the churches define marriage however they see fit.
Click to expand...

This. Except, I would get rid of the civil union part as well. Let the government ensure that Powers of Attorney are respected and upheld.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top