North Carolina voters reject same-sex marriage.

asjssl

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
Too bad it's false. Substitute homosexuals for pedophiles, another group with messed up brain wiring that governs their impulses, and see if you still won't draw a distinction between impulse and actions.
Only beasts can't control their impulses.

Well there NOT pedohiles ...there people,Americans with CIVIL RIGHTS Like you and I.. what happned to the bill of rights?? Seperation of church and state??? Now your church is interfering with someone's right to happiness.because you belive there's a man in the sky....Hell I think that is weird....where are peoples rights to love who they want....JUST BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION belives diffrently ..why does that make you right..

Again this is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE...

NOW GAY PEOPLE ARE BEASTS...NICE...how nice...Eeeeerrrrrr..





Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Really? A sodomite has no choice whether or not to put his penis in another man? Really?
Not a very realistic one, no. The biological drive to have sex is a very powerful one, one which can be argued will override logic and thinking, even to the point of actually altering how one thinks so they can't help it. Did you know that when women are ovulating, they tend to dress in a manner where they show more skin? They do that without even consciously thinking about it. The urge to have sex is a powerful one because it helps ensure the continuation of the species. Just because one has a preference for one particular gender to engage is sex with doesn't mean the urge is any less powerful or that it can resisted as easily as the recommendation to do so might be.

People will have sex, by and large. Few few adults die without ever having sex. And they will have sex with people they are attracted to, and aren't very likely to have sex with those they are repelled or repulsed by. It's very easy for you and I to state uncategorically that we choose to not have sex with another man. But it's not for some magnanimous or religious reason, it's because the thought of doing that gives us the heebie jeebies, we're repulsed by it. By the same token, there are women that I'm repulsed by and have no interest in. Many women, I have no doubt, have the same thoughts about me.

I have no problem believing that these people have a birth defect--born that way--but pedophiles say the same, and there's no reason to not believe them on that, seeing as sexual attraction to children is aberrant. Will you defend them, too, seeing as they were born that way? Or would you tell them "Sorry about your accident of birth," and expect them not to act on it? God (and decent people) expect them to not act on their perverted impulses.
I have no idea why so many people, particularly the religious right, seem to be unable to discuss homosexuality without the red herring logical fallacies of either pedophilia or bestiality, or both. It's a lame argument, using absolute extremes to attempt quantify and qualify the less extreme as being more extreme than it is. Bestiality and pedophilia are, comparatively speaking, extremely rare, even when compared to homosexuality. Using such logical fallacies also dismisses or ignores the fact that there are sexual perversions that are distributed across a very wide scale, from the extremes of pedophilia and bestiality all the way to those who only practice the Missionary Position under the covers in the dark with their eyes closed once a month.

The term "Sodomites" as applied to homosexuals is a term derived from interpretation, as homosexuality is never clearly identified as the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. Yes, according to the Bible, God hates the act, but merely being effeminate also qualifies. Clearly, you don't have to witness the act to get the heebie jeebies, and clearly, you don't have to perform the act to be a homosexual.


Just a couple of thoughts from postings that were made while I was composing this...

Man is indeed a beast, albeit one arguably more intelligent than most. Man is loaded with biological processes, instincts and impulses just like every other beast. There are some basic urges that man simply cannot resist, just like every other beast.

There is no right to happiness, only the pursuit thereof.

Gay Rights is not Civil Rights, despite the propaganda of the Gay Agenda saying it is, and getting a lot of people to believe it. The right to marry isn't the same as the right to marry the one you love. It never has been. A lot of the time, maybe most of the time in recent decades or centuries, marrying the one you love is what happens. But the right to marry doesn't also necessarily guarantee you the right to marry the one you love. Compared to arranged marriages, marrying the one you love is a relatively recent thing.

The main reason it's not a Civil Rights issue is that homosexuals do, absolutely, have the same exact rights to get married as anyone else. Homosexuals are not prevented from getting married. They are merely prevented from getting married to someone of the same sax, juuuust like everybody else is also prevented from marrying someone of the same sex. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, same as anybody else. The argument that you should be allowed to marry the one you love stems from that's what happens most of the time today with heterosexuals, but then again, when heterosexuals do it it's normal. Homosexuals want to redefine "marriage" to make it fit what they want, rather than what it actually is. It's an attempt to treat abnormal as normal and have abnormality accepted as being normal.

In order for this to be a Civil Rights issue, then marriage must be defined as the legal union of two people who are in love, but it's never been about that. First and foremost, it's always been about the joining of a man and a women for the purposes of procreation.

Other than the argument of "they should be allowed to marry the one they love", there is no argument that it's a Civil Rights issue. And since marriage isn't now, nor has it ever been solely or primarily defined as such, the Civil Rights argument falls apart.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well there NOT pedohiles ...there people,Americans with CIVIL RIGHTS Like you and I.. what happned to the bill of rights?? Seperation of church and state??? Now your church is interfering with someone's right to happiness.because you belive there's a man in the sky....Hell I think that is weird....where are peoples rights to love who they want....JUST BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION belives diffrently ..why does that make you right..

Again this is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE...

NOW GAY PEOPLE ARE BEASTS...NICE...how nice...Eeeeerrrrrr..






Sent from my ADR6300 using EO Forums

What civil right issue? There is no RIGHT to marry. What happened to the actual right of the people of a state to determine who may marry whom without interference from the Federal government.

There is also NO such thing as 'gay rights', 'women's rights' or 'reproductive rights'. We ALL have the exact same rights and most of what the loud mouths scream about are no business of the federal government. ALL RIGHTS belong first to the people and THEN to the States. The role of the federal government is strictly laid out in the Constitution and they should be FORCED to stay within it's limits.
 

pelicn

Veteran Expediter
Hmmm...how about taking the tax advantages away from "married" couples? Or better yet get the government out of the issue completely? No marriage license etc. Marriage was just a "religious ceremony" before the government got involved.
I believe that we were created male and female, with parts that fit together, for the purpose of reproduction. When that is altered I would consider that abnormal. That being said, I don't care if Jane loves Jane or Bob loves Bob, because what goes on in their bedroom has no effect on me. What does bother me however is being forced by the government to embrace it.

The original NC Marriage Amendment
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Hmmm...how about taking the tax advantages away from "married" couples? Or better yet get the government out of the issue completely? No marriage license etc. Marriage was just a "religious ceremony" before the government got involved.
I believe that we were created male and female, with parts that fit together, for the purpose of reproduction. When that is altered I would consider that abnormal. That being said, I don't care if Jane loves Jane or Bob loves Bob, because what goes on in their bedroom has no effect on me. What does bother me however is being forced by the government to embrace it.

The original NC Marriage Amendment


Easy fix, eliminate the income tax. It is a very bad tax any way. As it is set up now it punishes productivity and success and rewards sloth. Everyone should pay taxes. Far too many are not. No special rates for this group or that group and the bulk of the taxes should be paid to the local and state governments.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
What civil right issue? There is no RIGHT to marry.
The Civil Rights issue was determined in Loving v. Virginia where the Supreme Court ruled that there can be no basis in race for denying someone the right to marry.

The right to marry is considered a universal civil right. The right to redefine what marriage means, on the other hand, is not.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Or better yet get the government out of the issue completely? No marriage license etc. Marriage was just a "religious ceremony" before the government got involved.
Of course, the primary reason for marriage has always been for procreation, but before religion got involved, it was mostly a financial arrangement between families. In many cultures it still is. The government (states) doesn't necessarily have to be involved, but the marriage license is a legal document that comes with certain legal responsibilities. If you remove that, there are several problems that will arise, such as community property and property ownership in the event of a divorce or death, who is allowed to visit a loved one in the hospital, who can make medical and health decisions, even who can make simple every day decisions about the household.

That's one huge problem with North Carolina's new Constitutional Amendment, in that it also forbids civil unions of any kind, including common law marriages. Let's say an old gay couple has been living together for 40 years and one of them dies. The house and all their property is in the deceased's name, and the deceased's family swoops in and takes over everything, booting the surviving partner out. That's not right, being a homosexual or a heterosexual couple. A marriage license provides protection for the married couple, and so would a civil union for the gay couple.

But the NC Amendment bans any "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, so a domestic couple, unless they are actually married, cannot enter even a domestic partnership to co-own property. Forbidding same-sex marriage is one thing, but to prevent them from simple legal domestic partnerships is pure judgmental and/or religious persecution. As one Raleigh resident noted, it's mean-spirited. He and his wife voted against it specifically because it also banned civil unions and domestic partnerships, and said that if that part had been left out, and it was solely about same-sex marriage, he'd have voted for it.
 

moose

Veteran Expediter
"The term "Sodomites" as applied to homosexuals is a term derived from interpretation, as homosexuality is never clearly identified as the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. Yes, according to the Bible, God hates the act, but merely being effeminate also qualifies"

while i do understands that there might be some differences between the 2 bibles.
here is a short version of what is describe at the Hebrew one.
Gods sends 2 angels to Abraham, and his wife Sarah. the 2 angles revile gods plan to destroy Sdome for their 'crimes' .(it dose NOT say what the crime is).
Gods then sends the 2 angels,(looking as mans), into the city in search of 10 'righteous people'.(courtesy of Abraham negotiation skills).
they are being hosted by LOT (the 'mayor'). at night they go to sleep @ LOTs house, and are being awaken by a group of residents asking to have sex with the new arrivals.
the term being used is 'to know them', which is used many times in the Bible to describe sex.
LOT then offered the groups his own 2 Virgin daughters, but they refused to take them and ask for the Males.
the group then surrounds the house, and LOT and his family are being rescued by the 2 angels.
not founds even 10 righteous mans, they leave, and the city is destroyed.
in recap, the 2 angels cam to town looking for a 10 good mans. not finding what they looked for, they then destroyed the city.
meanwhile while searching, the 2 angels were exposed to the 'crime' of homosexuality, which may or may not be the original 'crime' ,and may or may not effect gods decision to destroy the 2 city's. but certainly shorthanded the search period and did not help the city's survival chances.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Then you have this:
In October, university president Don Dowless defended the new policy, while claiming that the higher educational facility can both discriminate in its hiring practices and make specific requirements of employees.

“We have a right to hire only Christians,” he said. “I think that anybody who adheres to a lifestyle that is outside of what the biblical mandate is and of what the board has passed, including the president, would not be allowed to continue here.”


Employees Resign From Shorter University Over Lifestyle Pledge | Homosexuality | Video | TheBlaze.com


Education 50+ Professors & Staff Resign From Christian University After Refusing to Sign Homosexuality Pledge



Last October, news broke that Shorter University, a Christian college in Rome, Georgia, had decided to ask its employees to sign a controversial pledge that affirms that they are not engaging in homosexuality, among other forbidden activities. Now, after scores of employees refused to sign the document, the college, which is affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention, has reportedly received a massive number of resignations.

Rather than renewing their contracts with the private school, around 50 staffers (the NY Daily News reports that the number is closer to 60) refused to sign the “Personal Lifestyle Statement,” and simply decided to throw in the towel. The Christian Post has more:
Dr. J. Robert White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, which Shorter is a part of, told The Christian Post that the “lifestyle statement” is consistent with the convention’s position.

“We have not taken a specific position related to the ‘lifestyle statement,’” said White, “but the history of our convention, which goes back to 1822, has approved many resolutions regarding homosexuality as a sin and alcohol use as ill-advised.”

Despite the outcry from some faculty and staff regarding the statement, White did not believe the measure would be overturned.

“I do not believe there will be any changes in the ‘lifestyle statement’ due to people who are opposed to it,” said White. “I think that at any educational institution the faculty and the administration are responsible for following the guidelines set by the board of trustees who provide this whole governance for the university.”

Plainly stated: the opposition to the regulatory mechanism isn’t likely to lead Shorter University to reverse course. Aside from forbidding an active role in a gay relationship, the lifestyle pledge also bans pre-marital sex, adultery and drug use and abuse. Additionally, employees are asked to be active members of a church and to live their lives as committed, Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ.

“Shorter University will hire persons who are committed Bible believing Christians, who are dedicated to integrating biblical faith in their classes and who are in agreement with the University Statement of Faith,” the document reads. “Moreover, employees are expected to be active members of a local church.”

Michael Wilson, a tenured librarian who has worked at the school for 14 years, had originally planned to stay until retirement. Now, in light of the statement’s enforcement, he has handed in his resignation. Wilson, who is gay, naturally refused to sign the document, calling his choice “a matter of conscience.”

In October, university president Don Dowless defended the new policy, while claiming that the higher educational facility can both discriminate in its hiring practices and make specific requirements of employees.

“We have a right to hire only Christians,” he said. “I think that anybody who adheres to a lifestyle that is outside of what the biblical mandate is and of what the board has passed, including the president, would not be allowed to continue here.”

For now, it seems Shorter University is digging its heels into its decision and will likely be in need of quite a number of new staffers. In responding to the latest news of mass departures, Dowless says that the university wishes those who choose to leave well.
 
Last edited:

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
"The term "Sodomites" as applied to homosexuals is a term derived from interpretation, as homosexuality is never clearly identified as the sin for which Sodom was destroyed. Yes, according to the Bible, God hates the act, but merely being effeminate also qualifies"

while i do understands that there might be some differences between the 2 bibles.
here is a short version of what is describe at the Hebrew one.
Gods sends 2 angels to Abraham, and his wife Sarah. the 2 angles revile gods plan to destroy Sdome for their 'crimes' .(it dose NOT say what the crime is).
Gods then sends the 2 angels,(looking as mans), into the city in search of 10 'righteous people'.(courtesy of Abraham negotiation skills).
they are being hosted by LOT (the 'mayor'). at night they go to sleep @ LOTs house, and are being awaken by a group of residents asking to have sex with the new arrivals.
the term being used is 'to know them', which is used many times in the Bible to describe sex.
LOT then offered the groups his own 2 Virgin daughters, but they refused to take them and ask for the Males.
the group then surrounds the house, and LOT and his family are being rescued by the 2 angels.
not founds even 10 righteous mans, they leave, and the city is destroyed.
in recap, the 2 angels cam to town looking for a 10 good mans. not finding what they looked for, they then destroyed the city.
meanwhile while searching, the 2 angels were exposed to the 'crime' of homosexuality, which may or may not be the original 'crime' ,and may or may not effect gods decision to destroy the 2 city's. but certainly shorthanded the search period and did not help the city's survival chances.

Your facts are mixed up. Taking cross-references into consideration, there is no doubt that sexual perversion was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
In Canada....that was the case with the Catholic school boards as the parents paid separately as in no tax money...Then they wanted more and be treated aka funded like the public schools...they got their wish....BUT....once they received taxpayer money from non Catholics the hiring practices were deemed discriminatory....Soooo IF this college receives any Federal subsidies aka tax money....I'd say they can not do it...
 
Top