North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Sure he does, and goblins tell me it's ok, ok. Get over it.

One should never trust the goblins. Very dishonest folk, goblins.

Get over what, precisely?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

The part you are writing about details a different scenario. It says that if a women is engaged and raped then the rapist is killed. This is mainly because at the time women were property. Raping a person's fiancee was pretty much a slight on his honor and property damage.

The part I quoted refers to a woman that is a virgin and not engaged to wed. If a man "seizes" her and then "lays with her" the person is ordered to pay for property damage. The damsel is considered damaged and no other man is going to want her. So the attacker pays for the lost dowry and takes her as a wife. It is not only about rape it is about treating women as a form of chattel.

edit on 9-5-2012 by MikeNice81 because: add a w

edit on 9-5-2012 by MikeNice81 because: change e to a

One is a scenario about rape, and the other is about premarital sex. It's very clear, in context, that rape isn't condoned, and nowhere does the Bible state someone must marry their rapist. That's a very bad interpretation, and it doesn't line up with the actual verses.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by QQXXw

 

did you even bother going to the webpage containing the data ??
here's a direct link ... users.erols.com...
from what i'm reading, it fits.

Thank you. I was just about to link that list, since they seem unable to navigate the page.

I'm done beating this dead horse. My arm is getting tired. Thanks for the help.

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

How can you prove that religion has killed more?
By my reckoning Atheism has killed a whole lot more in the last century than religion ever has.

edit on 10-5-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)

The conquest of Jerusalem in the first Crusade lead to the death of an estimated 60,000 men women and children. The battle of Antioch was said to have killed 100,000 Muslims. The grand total comes up to about 1.3 million people dead on both sides because of fighting, famine, and disease.

That is just the "Crusades." That doesn't include any of the events like the inquisitions. According to the most conservative estimates more than 2,000 people were killed during the Medieval and Spanish inquisitions.

In 1572 about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Thousands more were forced to flee the country.

The list goes on and on.

so much for wedding plans in asheville..

and honeymoon drive passin thru scenic blue ridge...

reply to post by MikeNice81


Between 1520 and 1630 around 30,000 people were put to death for being werewolves.
Really?! I was amazed at that figure. I was even more amazed at the 240,000(+) people who were tortured and put to death for witchcraft.

As you said, the numbers go on and on.

And as I warned earlier by another poster (one I should've listened to)...

reply to post by FugitiveSoul

you're welcome and you're correct, besides, that topic doesn't even fit in with this one.
perhaps a new thread is in order ??

i'm not quite sure how religion or religious deaths figure in when discussing 'rights'.
don't get me wrong, i understand how religion has bled all over this particular topic but that doesn't make it correct or acceptable.

i'm wondering do ppl realize ... even though it's a Commandment, even though it's against most laws, even though it's against most moral codes, it is still my RIGHT to kill whatever i choose.
yes, there would likely be consequences and laws exist to deter such behavior, however, it is still my right to do so.

so, if i have the natural right to kill, who are you (anyone) to deprive me of my right to liberty, pursuit of happiness or protections under the law ??

reply to post by Jobeycool


It has been overshadowed by the word Christian...

Christian

freedom

4th

reply to post by Honor93


Truth.

If homosexuality offends your religious morals, then don't go to a gay wedding or frequent a church that allows gay patrons. As a country that defines itself as the Freedom Capital of the world, how dare we deny any human being the same rights that we afford ourselves? We cannot claim religious freedom in one sentence and then deny rights to other Americans based on religious ideology in the very next sentence.

It's insanity.

reply to post by The Arbiter of Lies

ohh hell no we have enogh of them as it is we dont want more immigrants even less gay immigrants so stop with your ideas they arent helping anyone who is a true canadian

Excuse me chump, I am born and bred Canadian, it is spelled with a capitol "C" by the way, at least, that's how real Canadians spell it.

Oh, and after reading your comment, I would gladly trade you for a few NC, or Just any American Gays, at least they would not be as closed minded and judgmental like some Canadians (Again, with a capitol "C") who seem to want to be nothing more than a close minded American, not that all Americans are closed minded of course, but I think you might fit in with the majority in NC

reply to post by The Arbiter of Lies

ohh hell no we have enogh of them as it is we dont want more immigrants even less gay immigrants so stop with your ideas they arent helping anyone who is a true canadian

Excuse me chump, I am born and bred Canadian, it is spelled with a capitol "C" by the way, at least, that's how real Canadians spell it.

Oh, and after reading your comment, I would gladly trade you for a few NC, or Just any American Gays, at least they would not be as closed minded and judgmental like some Canadians (Again, with a capitol "C") who seem to want to be nothing more than a close minded American, not that all Americans are closed minded of course, but I think you might fit in with the majority in NC

reply to post by The Arbiter of Lies


OK, I am sorry, but I have to be utterly blunt, you say maybe (well, actually "mabey"), it is not bad, that leaves me with one question for you, Did you read your own post?


Do you think there is a possibility that maybe your education suffered from being raised in a single parent home?

reply to post by Keeper of Kheb


No, Holy Matrimony is a covenant between two people of opposite sexes, and God.

Marriage is a civil binding of two people for legal protection and rights.

"Copied" not rewritten and accurately copied/translated. We have proof. ever hear of the dead sea scrolls? Also Marriage is an institution beginning in religion. Just because you didn't get married in a church, have God in your vows, it is still a covenant instituted by God from the very beginning. So even the act of marriage is a pattern that you followed that began with God. If you knew anything about covenants you would know that Man and Woman were created to enter into a covenant marriage relationship that is consummated by blood. That is why a woman bleeds she first has intercourse. And to top it off according to the government you are joined together in a contract (new world term) old world "Covenant". So, you got married and have a covenant with your spouse. You have participated in a religious act.

Copied, translated, mistranslated, then copied again, then mistranslated a few times, often from ancient languages containing words that no longer had finite meanings. Oh, and I hate to spill it to you, but a girl bleeds the first time she is penetrated Is related to vaginal tearing caused by lack of lubrication and stress, not because of God, unless God of course, intended that all women bite the pillow and go dry their first time.

Exploring the Hymen: The Virginity Question Revisited

I wonder how many radical Christians like you would take a real crapper to find out that in some countries, (in fact, the one right next door too) have had Gay couples entering into civil "religious covenants", as you like to think they all are, and have bloodless first acts of passion because they use lube, and lots of it.

Hi People,

Can we please keep it focussed on the topic...and not eachother.

You all know how it goes by now...


Cheers

Even if those morons get 'married', what the hell will change??
They will get the same lollypops from their daddy aka state. thats it.
If God says that marriage is between a man and a woman, why should we fear some insanes emulating us??
they cant overrule God.
We should be bothered about protecting the sanctity of marriage and not about some weirdos and their loony supporters...

This is democracy for you.

Majority rules.

Some you win some you lose.

Deal with it..

Originally posted by Radiobuzz


I'm not from the US and I think this is insane. Not only for denying the LGTB community of their basic rights but also because now 'marriage' is the only legal domestic union valid on NC, and hence everyone, including straight people, will be affected by this.

I'm sorry if it offends any US citizen but it seems to me that it's a huge distortion of democracy when a majority choses if a minority will have basic rights or not. Democracy should actually protect any minority because the sum of all minorities is what makes a population, so it's a huge hit to the system when any group get its liberties taken away. It's a sadden news and I don't think you have to be gay to understand how bad this is.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

No offense taken!

And i'd like to believe most people would agree.

It is a distraction. Keep the people distracted and fearful. And divided.

And during times like these, the people need to unite, and put aside differences.

Nobody should have to be oppressed over issues that we each have our own definition's for.

I dunno, i'm just so sick of it. I'm at at a loss for words, not in this day and age..this shouldn't even be an issue.

reply to post by EvanB


No, this isn't democracy.

and if it is, it shouldn't be.

Under a democracy each citizen should have all "human rights" ..if anything this is anti-democracy. Pushing the beliefs of a few on the many.

reply to post by dannotz


What rights do gays have that heteros do not?? Apart from marriage?? The people voted, and majority ruled.. THAT IS democracy..

I personally think that it is all about the wording.. There is nothing wrong with a civil union..

But in this case it seems that the majority have voted against that too..

Which will cause problems for straight people too..

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The point is, that voters of any kind shouldn't have any say in this. It's like voting to keep blue eyed children out of your school. Those without blue eyes might be all for it, but it shouldn't matter what people think, gays are humans and deserve every bit as fair a treatment as straight men and women, the USA is backwards enough.

People supporting this and thinking it's slightly ok to dictate to others what they can or can not do is very disturbing.

You should address this complaint to those who have been clamoring for a "democracy" these past several years. Now they have one in operation, and seem not to like it.

Blue-eyed children are not "deviants"... at least not until the proletariat says so... demand a return to the Republic, and problems like this go away. Don't ask for permission or validation, and it can't be denied.