NC Gay Marriage Constitutional Ban

Originally posted by ax412 Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by ax412 Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by ax412 Regardless, the same way the LBGT movement used the civil rights movement... Next we will see, Men wanting to marry animals. Sex offenders wanting to marry kids etc etc. Eventually a line will have to be drawn. That line should be drawn somewhere beyond two adult human beings wanting to get married because they love each other !   But yeah right, because gay people can be considered equal to animals or sex offenders.. jeez what the hell ?!? Lol that's not what I'm saying. I saying will it ever end? There has to be a line. The same is true of everything. Otherwise laws get pushed to the breaking point. Marriage between two adult humans, regardless of sexual orientation and both actually wanting to do it. There's a line. That is acceptable. Christians need to look at their I.D cards and realize it does not say native of New Jerusalem. (yet) We live in secular countries. As long as they don't force Christian pastors/ministers to marry them, then that is fine.

That my stance exactly.  Legal marriage and traditional marriage.  Same rights and tax benefits.  No forcing pastors/ ministers/ churches to marry those involved in the legal marriage.  The only place where the law is involved is what's married. (It has to be two adults who really want it, but no kids, animals, dead animals, or inanimate objects.)

Originally posted by chisox666 I could give a sh!t about gay marriage but here's my view... A marriage recognized by law should only be allowed between a man and a woman. Civil unions provide all the same tax breaks/benefits to gay couples that married couples receive. If a gay couple would like a wedding, ceremony, and the whole 9 yards, that's great! I fully support whatever makes them happy (except a lawful gay marriage). It just should not be recognized as being a marriage under state/federal law. Flame away.

Why??? if your worried about taxes and what not i would i would go after the richer man's pocket's seeing as they get to keep more even tho they could do without, while the lower class gets the full brunt of it. If your worried about people trying to abuse this new system, that happens either way in other areas. It's nothing new.

either way i find it unfeasible for a religion to allow something they have denied as a whole. that would just be admitting to an error in what they preach, giving way to the thought of more errors.

edit- double i would XP -edit

Originally posted by Tacote_del_Orno Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Laissez faire. Meanwhile: soldiers are dying in the Middle East, children are dying of starvation, and Americans are arguing about things that don't even matter. As a Christian, I don't really care. The Church should focus more on the plank in our own eyes. soldiers don't have to be soldiers so they have a choice... starving children don't have a choice, and its my #1 issue period... the thought of a child being hungry and not having any food is just awful... it has to be the most needless death there is... we all could do more though marraige is a religious issue, and it can only be valid if its a man and a woman... the issue of gay couples wanting to be married is mute, because even if it were legal it still wouldn't be valid... its not my opinion its just the reality of the matter... i agree with you though Phantasi... there are far bigger issues then gay marriage It wouldn't be valid ?   Getting married with another person comes out of love and fu.ckheads like you are telling two people that love each other and want to marry each other to spend the rest of their lives together and thus have a special bonding that it's invalid ? And that's the reality of the matter ?   Sry, this is not meant to be some sort of attack, I just think it's highly unfair and yours is not an opinion that I can respect. I think the point that was being made was that the idea of marriage is union through the eyes of religion. Thus the religion it's self would dictate what is and isn't acceptable, hence why it is invalid. The main issue i think is that lgbt individuals were raised under religious family backgrounds, therefore still wanting to be accepted thru their religion. I've nvr looked into it, but ithink you can be married as a couple by the state, no church or nothing, i dont know if the same applies to lgbt unions. WOW... BRAVO... you understood what you read... not everyone has that ability though lol

Originally posted by Tacote_del_Orno Originally posted by chisox666 I could give a sh!t about gay marriage but here's my view... A marriage recognized by law should only be allowed between a man and a woman. Civil unions provide all the same tax breaks/benefits to gay couples that married couples receive. If a gay couple would like a wedding, ceremony, and the whole 9 yards, that's great! I fully support whatever makes them happy (except a lawful gay marriage). It just should not be recognized as being a marriage under state/federal law. Flame away. Why??? if your worried about taxes and what not i would i would go after the richer man's pocket's seeing as they get to keep more even tho they could do without, while the lower class gets the full brunt of it. If your worried about people trying to abuse this new system, that happens either way in other areas. It's nothing new. either way i find it unfeasible for a religion to allow something they have denied as a whole. that would just be admitting to an error in what they preach, giving way to the thought of more errors. edit- double i would XP -edit

I'm not worried about anything. Like I said, I could give a damn about gay marriage. I just think legal marriage should be reserved only for a man and woman. Simple as that.

What I am passionate about is: liberals wanting to take away/regulate my firearms, lack of stricter border control, conservatives wanting to take away my future Pell grants, conservatives wanting the rich to pay less taxes, liberals just wanting to spend their way out of problems, and the list could go on. Both sides of the fence f*cking s*ck. Conservatives just happen to respect my gun rights so I tend to swing that way because it's an important issue for me.

Rant off.   

Keep our guns, it helps make sure invading America is a bad idea :)
besides the fact that are navy/air force>>> china & russia's combined

NATO ? That's 27 states obligated to help you, should a foolish country ever decide to attempt to invade the US..

LOL

Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by Tacote_del_Orno Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Laissez faire. Meanwhile: soldiers are dying in the Middle East, children are dying of starvation, and Americans are arguing about things that don't even matter. As a Christian, I don't really care. The Church should focus more on the plank in our own eyes. soldiers don't have to be soldiers so they have a choice... starving children don't have a choice, and its my #1 issue period... the thought of a child being hungry and not having any food is just awful... it has to be the most needless death there is... we all could do more though marraige is a religious issue, and it can only be valid if its a man and a woman... the issue of gay couples wanting to be married is mute, because even if it were legal it still wouldn't be valid... its not my opinion its just the reality of the matter... i agree with you though Phantasi... there are far bigger issues then gay marriage It wouldn't be valid ?   Getting married with another person comes out of love and fu.ckheads like you are telling two people that love each other and want to marry each other to spend the rest of their lives together and thus have a special bonding that it's invalid ? And that's the reality of the matter ?   Sry, this is not meant to be some sort of attack, I just think it's highly unfair and yours is not an opinion that I can respect. I think the point that was being made was that the idea of marriage is union through the eyes of religion. Thus the religion it's self would dictate what is and isn't acceptable, hence why it is invalid. The main issue i think is that lgbt individuals were raised under religious family backgrounds, therefore still wanting to be accepted thru their religion. I've nvr looked into it, but ithink you can be married as a couple by the state, no church or nothing, i dont know if the same applies to lgbt unions. WOW... BRAVO... you understood what you read... not everyone has that ability though lol

LMAO  do I sense an air of condescension

Originally posted by Tacote_del_Orno Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by Tacote_del_Orno Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by SIZZLE [QUOTE=ax412] Laissez faire. Meanwhile: soldiers are dying in the Middle East, children are dying of starvation, and Americans are arguing about things that don't even matter. As a Christian, I don't really care. The Church should focus more on the plank in our own eyes. soldiers don't have to be soldiers so they have a choice... starving children don't have a choice, and its my #1 issue period... the thought of a child being hungry and not having any food is just awful... it has to be the most needless death there is... we all could do more though marraige is a religious issue, and it can only be valid if its a man and a woman... the issue of gay couples wanting to be married is mute, because even if it were legal it still wouldn't be valid... its not my opinion its just the reality of the matter... i agree with you though Phantasi... there are far bigger issues then gay marriage It wouldn't be valid ?   Getting married with another person comes out of love and fu.ckheads like you are telling two people that love each other and want to marry each other to spend the rest of their lives together and thus have a special bonding that it's invalid ? And that's the reality of the matter ?   Sry, this is not meant to be some sort of attack, I just think it's highly unfair and yours is not an opinion that I can respect. I think the point that was being made was that the idea of marriage is union through the eyes of religion. Thus the religion it's self would dictate what is and isn't acceptable, hence why it is invalid. The main issue i think is that lgbt individuals were raised under religious family backgrounds, therefore still wanting to be accepted thru their religion. I've nvr looked into it, but ithink you can be married as a couple by the state, no church or nothing, i dont know if the same applies to lgbt unions. WOW... BRAVO... you understood what you read... not everyone has that ability though lol

LMAO  do I sense an air of condescension

Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Keep our guns, it helps make sure invading America is a bad idea :) besides the fact that are navy/air force>>> china & russia's combined thou shalt not kill... what kind of Christian are you Phantasi lool gun toten Christians must not believe GOD can protect them :) or maybe its a "just in case" thang? haha if Russia and China invaded us that would means that our navy is gone,,, without our navy we'd be screwed anyway lol id just invite them over for a cookout and some cornhole

Lol it says thou shall not murder. (theres a difference in my eyes)
Lol Dagon NATO is more of a the US has got your back. In all honesty who besides maybe Britain has the capability of sending a decent number of troops to the western united states. Hell I doubt britain could.( The eastern united states sure.)

We  all may have different opinions about gay marriage, but I bet even the most hc gay haters love these good'n moist fruitcakes  

Originally posted by -DaGoN- Originally posted by ax412 Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Keep our guns, it helps make sure invading America is a bad idea :) besides the fact that are navy/air force>>> china & russia's combined thou shalt not kill... what kind of Christian are you Phantasi lool gun toten Christians must not believe GOD can protect them :) or maybe its a "just in case" thang? haha if Russia and China invaded us that would means that our navy is gone,,, without our navy we'd be screwed anyway lol id just invite them over for a cookout and some cornhole Lol it says thou shall not murder. (theres a difference in my eyes) Lol Dagon NATO is more of a the US has got your back. In all honesty who besides maybe Britain has the capability of sending a decent number of troops to the western united states. Hell I doubt britain could.( The eastern united states sure.) haha, of course that's how the US see things ;D Yes there's not one state like that probably..but you know the nato consists of several big states, all together forming a great military alliance. I'm just saying, besides the fact that the military force of the US is protection enough, there is still a huge alliance having your back of course thats how the US see's things? so we're a collective now? lool your opening sentence seems to possibly have a little bit of distain for America in it? to which my response is Germany makes sh1tty beer :o :)

Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Originally posted by SIZZLE Originally posted by ax412 Keep our guns, it helps make sure invading America is a bad idea :) besides the fact that are navy/air force>>> china & russia's combined thou shalt not kill... what kind of Christian are you Phantasi lool gun toten Christians must not believe GOD can protect them :) or maybe its a "just in case" thang? haha if Russia and China invaded us that would means that our navy is gone,,, without our navy we'd be screwed anyway lol id just invite them over for a cookout and some cornhole Lol it says thou shall not murder. (theres a difference in my eyes) Lol Dagon NATO is more of a the US has got your back. In all honesty who besides maybe Britain has the capability of sending a decent number of troops to the western united states. Hell I doubt britain could.( The eastern united states sure.) to take a persons life is about as bad as it gets... i've thought a lot about "though shalt not kill" from time to time because of war and our soldiers... plus things like geneside... and also police protection situations... to not intervene in the case of geneside seems inhuman to me... a whole village being hacked up by machete's including women and children is too horrible to allow imo, but "thou shalt not kill"    has no exception in it... it doesn't say thou shalt not kill unless your presedent tells you to, or thou shalt not kill except in the case of geneside... so again thats not my call... GODS judgement in the end is all that matters i can only say that i'll never take a life for any reason... if everyone on earth would live by that then there would no killing or murders... the evils of man have no boundry's unfortunantly though