North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Originally posted by jenlovesturtles
reply to post by grayghost

 

I think if you want to call it marriage why the heck not! I didn't get married in a religious ceremony at a church and the word god was no where in my wedding vowels but I am still married so why can't gays? Its that same mentality my grandmom had when she told me I couldnt wear white to my wedding

I told her unless she was paying for it I would wear what I wanted and I wore white.

In fairness to your grandmom (who I suspect was Christian), the Christian ceremony of marriage contains many representative elements. One of those is wearing white and the meaning behind it. From a Christian perspective, wearing white when not appropriate is introducing a lie into the ceremony from the very beginning.

Does it make a lot of sense, is it logical or "modern"? Doesn't matter, it doesn't need to be. It's a ceremony based on a religious viewpoint, all that's important is that it means something to the people involved.

I think that part of the problem the religious community has can be identified in this post. You had a ceremony without church, without God (of any kind, from any religion, not saying only Christians can get married) and a white wedding dress because you wanted it. That's not a marriage, that's just a fancy dress party with legal consequences. Call it like it is. After all, for people outside religion looking in, aren't most religious ceremonies just fancy dress and hocus-pocus anyway?

Banning civil unions - for homosexuals or heterosexuals - is daft, however.

Besides, if memory serves, the Catholic position is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality itself - all love is good, after all, and brings us closer to God - though it is wrong to... err... "physically consumate" that love, as a marriage would traditionally require.

reply to post by EvillerBob

I think that part of the problem the religious community has can be identified in this post. You had a ceremony without church, without God (of any kind, from any religion, not saying only Christians can get married) and a white wedding dress because you wanted it. That's not a marriage, that's just a fancy dress party with legal consequences. Call it like it is.

It was a ceremony to affirm their commitment in front of friends and family. Marriage is a relationship and life choice that extends well past the single day when words are spoken in front of others. You don't need any god or clothes to make that commitment. You don't even really need the paper unless you plan to claim the legal benefits.

I have known people that lived together for 12 years or more without getting legally married. Each time they were together until death. If you ask me, that is more important than whether the person was in a church, had the appropriate color dress, or mentioned god in their vows.

Do you think Solomon took time to have a church wedding with each of his 700 wives? Yeah the Bible's so called wisest man had polygamy on lock down. He also had 300 concubines. So much for the sanctity of marriage.

My other question, can a woman still wear white if she is marrying her rapist as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Amplified Bible (AMP) 28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, 29 Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not divorce her all his days.

reply to post by grayghost

Just reading this thread makes me proud to be Canadian, not only because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents discrimination based on religions AND sexual orientation, among other things, but Gay marriage is also recognized legally across the whole country, Canada was the 3rd country in the world to pass legislation legalizing same sex marriage.

I can see the day when Gay American couples are so desperate for freedom and release from oppression that they have to apply to live in Canada as political refugees, because the lack of freedoms at "home" is so bad.


I also have to say, it amazes me at the number of zealots here who are not even aware that there is a difference between "Holy Matrimony" and "Marriage"

Holy Matrimony being the Christian or Holy right of Wedding two people, and Marriage being the legal or civil right or manner of wedding two people.

Marriage IS a civil union, when talking about a "marriage" in referring to the Christian or Holy sacrament, you are talking about Holy Matrimony, not marriage.

reply to post by seabag

THERE IS NO RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT. You seem to be confusing ‘government’ with the free will of the people.

If there is no religions in government, as you seem to want to believe, then why are you so adamant about the government being right to only recognized the "religious" definition of marriage, between a man and a woman, and trampling on the rights to equality of gay couples. Does this not make you a hypocrite?

The "religious" definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman, and only that way, has no place in government, or being "enforced" by government, contrary to the natural and legal rights to equality for same sex couples.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
You don't need any god or clothes to make that commitment. You don't even really need the paper unless you plan to claim the legal benefits.

Exactly. So why would anyone need to have all the trappings of the religious ceremony? If they want it for looks then it's a fancy dress party. I have no doubt of - and do not question - the sincerity of their intentions. I'm trying to point out that perhaps Christians are getting confused when people are asking for a Christian-style wedding but without any Christianity (or whatever religious style is used. Why not just call it a civil union ceremony because that's really what it becomes. Not better or worse than a wedding or marriage; it's just marriage without the religious connotations. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Do you think Solomon took time to have a church wedding with each of his 700 wives? Yeah the Bible's so called wisest man had polygamy on lock down. He also had 300 concubines. So much for the sanctity of marriage.

He also summoned demons and stuff. Unless a multitude of demons is an allegory for polygamy

Allowing 2 hours per wedding, that only requires around 58-59 days non-stop marrying. That still leaves him with a day per concubine to make up the first year. I have no idea what he did with the remaining 39 years of his reign. Unless... possibly... he spaced them out? Or is that too radical? Assuming he did actually have that many wives and concubines, of course. While there is evidence of his existence, there is very little evidence of whether the biblical portrayal is accurate.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
My other question, can a woman still wear white if she is marrying her rapist as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

Interesting question. No idea. I'd suggest yes, based on what I understand it to represent. What does the new testament say about it?

reply to post by Radiobuzz


Flame away...I agree with the voting,marriage is a union
between a man and a woman.

Originally posted by neo96

I wonder.

If it is, nature is hardly exhibiting intelligent selection considering the how low the bar is for those that can procreate.

Why would nature selectively end the genetic legacy of some of the greater minds of our species history, including but not limited to Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Alexander the Great.

Besides, the fact that homosexuality isn't always the result of genetic predisposition is noteworthy.

Originally posted by RyanFromCanI also have to say, it amazes me at the number of zealots here who are not even aware that there is a difference between "Holy Matrimony" and "Marriage"

Holy Matrimony being the Christian or Holy right of Wedding two people, and Marriage being the legal or civil right or manner of wedding two people.

Marriage IS a civil union, when talking about a "marriage" in referring to the Christian or Holy sacrament, you are talking about Holy Matrimony, not marriage.

In some cases the issue is not whether there is a line, but where it is drawn. I'd always divided between marriage (religious overtones) and civil union (non-relgious). If that divide should be between "holy matrimony" and "marriage/civil union" then my apologies - but the "sacrament of Holy Matrimony" is a Christian phenomenon, which rather suggests any Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or other equivalent fall into the "non-religious" category based on where you have drawn the line. Or do you consider non-Christians to "not count"?

"Matrimony" is simply the act of being married and I believe occurs in most religions. Matrimony is marriage. Marriage is matrimony. "Holy Matrimony" is a specific Christian term. I suggets it's not a good place to draw the distinction you are discussing.

I'll stand by marriage as incorporating the concept for all and any religions, and civil union for non-religious. It makes sense to me, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else. It doesn't - shouldn't - affect the social and legal position whatsoever. Two people are committing themselves to each other. Everything else is just context.

It's a very sad day when a state's Constitution is used to LIMIT rights instead of PROTECT them. I sure hope it's overturned as unconstitutional.

When a state contract grants FEDERAL benefits and states decline to allow a certain group to enter into their legal contracts, they are discriminating and the feds have the obligation to step in.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's a very sad day when a state's Constitution is used to LIMIT rights instead of PROTECT them. I sure hope it's overturned as unconstitutional.

When a state contract grants FEDERAL benefits and states decline to allow a certain group to enter into their legal contracts, they are discriminating and the feds have the obligation to step in.

Hey, that's the freedom loving, small government, Republicans for you.

You just didn't read the fine print...much like the founders...they have certain qualifications for "freedoms"...namely you have to be a straight white christian male.

Well I voted yesterday AGAINST the amendment. Even though I knew it would pass. Churches everywhere around here had "vote for" signs out. If Christians had their way we would be living in a theocracy like the middle east.

This is a perfect example of why we need a Republic and the Rule of Law and NOT a Democracy and the rule of the mob. That amendment had no place being on a ballot.

Government has no place in marriage.

I also voted for RON PAUL yesterday. Man did it feel good to see his name on the ballot and fill it in.

Actually, North Carolina already had a law on the books that prohibits same-sex marriage.

This week's vote was for an amendment to the state constitution that not only said the same thing but went farther, and cancelled a lot of legal recognition and benefits for unmarried hetero couples. Stuff like child custody and hospital visitation issues. Some of these benefits had actually been created by acts of the NC legislature, but now they're all revoked by this amendment. It may take awhile before the full significance of this amendment sinks in.

Originally posted by Shoonra
Actually, North Carolina already had a law on the books that prohibits same-sex marriage.

This week's vote was for an amendment to the state constitution that not only said the same thing but went farther, and cancelled a lot of legal recognition and benefits for unmarried hetero couples. Stuff like child custody and hospital visitation issues. Some of these benefits had actually been created by acts of the NC legislature, but now they're all revoked by this amendment. It may take awhile before the full significance of this amendment sinks in.

My girlfriend and I are not married. We have been "living in sin" for 19 years now. Its nobody's business why we haven't married and if they ever try to keep me out of a hospital visit they are gonna have one hell of a tough time with me.

reply to post by EvillerBob

I have no doubt of - and do not question - the sincerity of their intentions. I'm trying to point out that perhaps Christians are getting confused when people are asking for a Christian-style wedding but without any Christianity

Well you can thank mainstream culture for pushing the idea of the church wedding/union as the epitome of romance for so long. How much coverage was given to the royal wedding? How many shows like "Say Yes To The Dress" and "My Fair Wedding" are there? Our culture has stripped the religion from the wedding ceremony over the last century. The meaning of the rings and the colors are lost on most people.

All the homosexual couples are asking for is the right to be allowed to participate in American culture and be protected by the laws. They are also asking for the same legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. They want equal protection when it comes to insurance, taxes, medical decision, inheritance, communal property and other such issues that arise when you spend a life time together.

Now they are not only being denied marriage they are being denied civil unions as well. That means they are completely denied equal protection.

The amendment also extends to heterosexual couples that are not legally married. I'm waiting for the judge that tells a woman she can't have a domestic violence protective order because her relationship is not recognized by law any more. Maybe then people will start to understand what they really voted for.

reply to post by Radiobuzz


I find it very sad ppl using the bible to justify this discrimination.. Jesus said :" love one another" ...nothing in acutal love affords a space for discrimination and removal of human rights..and then there's " call no man unclean" which was the guidance given to Peter...not to judge..because people dont know what God sees knows etc... : books.google.com.au... utzw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DXSqT9HlHcaciAe9l-XJAw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22%20call%20no%20man%20unclean%22&f=false

sighs...so sad


Ro

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Radiobuzz

 

Flame away...I agree with the voting,marriage is a union
between a man and a woman.

Why don't you tell us all why you think this?

How in the world is this sad news when both people have the right to vote on this subject.This is why people get fed up with the left wings fake version of freedom.Do we understand history and grass roots of laws at all or common sense.

Originally posted by MegaMind
Well I voted yesterday AGAINST the amendment. Even though I knew it would pass. Churches everywhere around here had "vote for" signs out.

If Christians had their way we would be living in a theocracy like the middle east.

This is a perfect example of why we need a Republic and the Rule of Law and NOT a Democracy and the rule of the mob. That amendment had no place being on a ballot.

Government has no place in marriage.

I also voted for RON PAUL yesterday. Man did it feel good to see his name on the ballot and fill it in.

edit on 9-5-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

The christians all ready have their way and you are not lving in a theocracy.Called Freedom to vote.

It is a sad day here in NC......

I have some friends who are now officially considered second class citizens....

I could say more, but risk being banned.....

Its almost like this amendment was designed to further divide the people and to divert attention from the REAL issues!

Yes, I am angry!


If churches feel the need to become so heavy into politics, ITS TIME TO START TAXING THEM!