Onnidan Fan Forum

Discussion => Politics => Topic started by: AB12 on May 06, 2012, 09:07:13 AM

Title: *
Post by: AB12 on May 06, 2012, 09:07:13 AM
*
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: The Sloping Hills and Verdent Green on May 07, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
Let's not discriminate against people.  VOTE AGAINST this amendment.   Stay out of people's bedrooms and beds.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: y04185 on May 07, 2012, 04:36:48 PM
You should vote for the amendment.  Especially if you are a Christian.  You should start standing up for something.  This has nothing to do with peoples bedrooms and beds.  Only a fool would fall for that.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: bigram$ on May 07, 2012, 05:28:17 PM
You should vote for the amendment.  Especially if you are a Christian.  You should start standing up for something.  This has nothing to do with peoples bedrooms and beds.  Only a fool would fall for that.

Well being how i dont live in NC ... how does this not have anything to do with what people do in there own homes
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: The Sloping Hills and Verdent Green on May 07, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
You should vote for the amendment.  Especially if you are a Christian.  You should start standing up for something.  This has nothing to do with peoples bedrooms and beds.  Only a fool would fall for that.
 

That is what you people would have some folks believe.  Stop trying to runs peoples private life.  Only an idiot that does not live in North Carolina would try to control someone elses life.    ::)     :nono2:    :tiptoe:
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: WileECoyote06 on May 08, 2012, 08:48:42 AM
If you're a true conservative you'd vote against more government interference in people's lives.  Vote this waste of money and time.  If you vote it down, gay people still can't get married.  What's the point? 

Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Strike79 on May 08, 2012, 09:52:26 AM
"The Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of North Carolina’s Proposed Marriage Amendment"

http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Campbell-White-Paper.pdf


(http://voteformarriagenc.com/WIDGETS/300x250-blog-graphic02.jpg)
:no:...........what really is both SAD and TRAGIC is the abysmal state of black marriages and families, and that problem doesn't have a DAMN thing to do with whether same-sex couples can marry.  :(

Yeah, I guess in a "fantasy" world, black folks would like to perceive MOST families similarly to what's depicted in this ad^^^^of a smiling, happy couple, and their two lovely children.  I really don't know whether the family depicted is real or simply models working for money, but it really doesn't matter.  When you have a fairly distracted, uninformed, and unsophisticated electorate, you can play mind games with them by running an ad such as this.

Only a FOOL would fall for this fantasy.  Your humble poster REALLY IS concerned about the future of the black family and marriage, and US black folks being used as friggin PAWNS and participating in a campaign to deny others their right to bond and love with whomever they please will come back to haunt us in a VERY bad way.  :(

Sorry, but it is NOT in black folks' best interests during these times to be ignorant.

God help us.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Bison 4 Life on May 08, 2012, 10:32:40 AM
I fully expect some bought paid for Black preachers to speak out against this in their Sunday sermons.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: WileECoyote06 on May 08, 2012, 11:27:05 AM
I fully expect some bought paid for Black preachers to speak out against this in their Sunday sermons.

I assume they already have.  But I haven't seen media coverage of black preachers.  It's been mainly white preachers being covered.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: The Sloping Hills and Verdent Green on May 08, 2012, 01:14:29 PM
Black clergy fight Amendment One
 
By News & Record Mike Kernels
Staff Writer

(http://images.www.news-record.com/files/imagecache/nrcom_article_image_landscape/Images/clergy.jpg)

Photo Caption: The Rev. William Barber II, president of the state NAACP, speaks out against Amendment One during a prayer and rally at Mount Zion Baptist Church on Sunday in Greensboro.

 GREENSBORO — The black community traditionally has been against gay rights. But that wasn’t the case Sunday afternoon in a church on the way out of town.

In an event that at times seemed more like a revival than a rally, people filled the chapel of Mount Zion Baptist Church and stood united against the most contentious issue this primary season: Amendment One. The so-called marriage amendment.

There were blacks and whites, straights and gays.

Some came here looking their Sunday best.
 
Others just made sure they were here.

“We felt like it was precedent-setting,” said Greensboro’s Bill Guill, who came with his partner of 10 years. “I think, historically, the black community has been more silent on the gay issue than not.”

If approved Tuesday, Amendment One would define marriage in the state’s constitution as between one man and one woman. Any other type of domestic partnership wouldn’t be legally recognized.

The state already bans same-sex marriage. Amendment One would put that ban in the constitution, thus making it difficult for same-sex marriage to ever become legal.

Through the weekend, rallies such as the one at Mount Zion were held across the state by both sides as they made a final push to primary day.

The Mount Zion rally was in keeping with how the local opposition has fought the amendment. Well orchestrated and well attended, it was just the latest in a series of events that have kept the issue before the public during the past several weeks.

Shouts of “amen” and applause occurred throughout.

Audience members lifted their arms to the ceiling.

The room erupted more than once with standing ovations.

For 90 minutes, black clergy took to the podium and talked about how Amendment One was the “restriction of human rights.”

“This amendment may pass, but history needs to show that those who would deceive us, did not fool all of us,” said the Rev. Gregory Headen of Genesis Baptist Church in Greensboro.

The Rev. William Barber II, president of the state NAACP, talked about how the media has wrongly “bought” into the idea that blacks are divided on gay rights.

“We did not start standing together when this amendment got on the ballot,” he said. “We’ve been standing together.”

It was a message that has been building for some time within the black community.

For the past few months, ministers have struggled about whether — or how — they should address Amendment One before their congregations.

But April saw a breakthrough.

That’s when 15 of the city’s most prominent black religious leaders came out against the proposal.

The Ministers Conference of Winston-Salem and Vicinity opposes it as well.

In total, about 100 black clergy in the Triad are against the amendment.

What portion of their congregations will join them Tuesday remains to be seen.

It was clear from audience questions that many are still trying to fully understand the amendment’s implications — a problem that has been a theme in polls.

As the rally ended, the audience lined the chapel, held hands and prayed.

Burlington’s Ken Smith, a 40-year-old in a same-sex relationship, was emboldened by the show of support.

“They know discrimination when they see it.”

Contact Mike Kernels at 373-7120 or mike.kernels@news-record.com

Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: y04185 on May 08, 2012, 01:45:05 PM
Rev. Barber pled guilty to trespassing just in time to be against the marriage amendment.  I wonder how much he got paid.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: The Sloping Hills and Verdent Green on May 08, 2012, 01:54:28 PM
Rev. Barber pled guilty to trespassing just in time to be against the marriage amendment.  I wonder how much he got paid.
 

 ::)   :no:   ::)    :crazy:
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
Where in the Bible did jesus speak out against gays???  Can any Christian on this board comment?
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: y04185 on May 08, 2012, 02:43:01 PM
Where in the Bible did jesus speak out against gays???  Can any Christian on this board comment?

Jesus didn't.  The Bible does.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Wildman78 on May 08, 2012, 03:01:52 PM
Rev. Barber pled guilty to trespassing just in time to be against the marriage amendment.  I wonder how much he got paid.

That’s when 15 of the city’s most prominent black religious leaders came out against the proposal.

The Ministers Conference of Winston-Salem and Vicinity opposes it as well.

In total, about 100 black clergy in the Triad are against the amendment.

 ::)
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Wildman78 on May 08, 2012, 03:05:05 PM
Statement of NC Clergy and Faith Leaders Against the Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment

As people of faith, clergy and leaders in our faith traditions, we are mandated by God to demonstrate and protect love in all its forms and to stand for justice for all of creation. In faithful response to this calling, we commit ourselves, along with thousands of other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith around North Carolina, to these basic principles:

While we respect the fact that debate and discussion continue in many of our religious communities as to the scriptural, theological and liturgical issues involved, we draw on our many faith traditions to arrive at a common conviction. We oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny legal equity to gay and lesbian people.

We oppose any amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit gay and lesbian couples from receiving the protections like health benefits and hospital visitation afforded by recognition of their relationships.

We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter. We recognize that the state may not require religious clergy to officiate at, or bless, gay and lesbian marriages. Likewise, a denial of state civil recognition dishonors the religious convictions of those clergy, supported by their faith communities, who officiate at and bless gay and lesbian marriages.

As people of faith, we, the undersigned, urge the North Carolina State Legislature to protect families in North Carolina by opposing the anti-LGBT constitutional amendment (organizations listed for identification purposes only):

Stan C. Kimer, President, NC Council of Churches, Raleigh, N.C.

http://www.equalitync.org/clergy
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 04:21:14 PM
If we went by what the bible says, we would still be killing our sons for being bad.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Decks on May 08, 2012, 04:57:32 PM
Black churches break with top Democrats on gay marriage


(http://www.qcitymetro.com/uploads/image/1fOHF3_Em_138.jpg)

By The Charlotte Observer – April 22, 2012 Font Size:       


By Michael Gordon and Tim Funk
mgordon@charlotteobserver.com

 
Bishop Phillip Davis delivers his sermon during Sunday's service at Nations Ford Community Church. He is encouraging his members to vote for Amendment One, which President Barack Obama and others call discriminatory. Robert Lahser - rlahser@charlotteobserver.com
Bishop Phillip Davis had not planned to talk about marriage and politics, but five minutes into his sermon at Nations Ford Community Church in Charlotte he changed his mind.

Not only should the 6,000 members of the overwhelmingly African-American congregation pray with one voice, he said, come May 8 they should vote with one, too.

“You know, we got this amendment on the ballot,” Davis said, walking to the back of the church stage, then throwing his arm around a member of the men’s choir as laughter grew.

“If I was your pastor, and I was married to him, how many of y’all would be here today? ”

Thirty-one states – in 31 tries – have approved amendments to block gay unions. Based on the polls, North Carolina is a good bet to extend the streak May 8, due in part to African-American congregations like Nations Ford.

A March 23 survey by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh showed that black voters statewide support the measure 61 percent to 30 percent. Whites: 58-38 percent in favor.

More than 80 percent of the state’s African-Americans voters are Democrats. Their support for the amendment represents a rare break with the party’s leaders and civil rights groups.

President Barack Obama, who in 2008 received more than 90 percent of the North Carolina black vote, took the unusual step this year of wading into the amendment debate, calling it discriminatory. Gov. Bev Perdue, all three major Democratic candidates for governor and many other party leaders have also spoken out against it.

The state NAACP has led the fight to defeat the amendment, which would make traditional marriage the only legal union in the state. In Charlotte, political leaders from Harvey Gantt to Mayor Anthony Foxx, both black, also oppose it.

Some black ministers, most prominently the Rev. Ricky Woods of First Baptist Church-West, have spoken out against it. And two weeks before the vote, a few other high-profile black pastors have begun questioning the need and impact of changing the state’s constitution.

“The amendment would not change the law – same-sex marriage is already not legal in this state,” the Rev. Sheldon Shipman said he told the 800 members of Greenville Memorial A.M.E Zion Church last week. “So it becomes a civil rights issue, sanctioning discrimination and making it part of the constitution.”

Yet, most of the state’s African-Americans appear ready to rely on the Bible as their voting guide. They cite Genesis and the Gospels as defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and quote from Leviticus in the Old Testament and Paul in the New, which call same-gender sex abominable, perverse and shameful.

As such, the marriage amendment has hammered a wedge between two enduring traits of African-American believers – a tradition of political and social activism, and a streak of moral conservatism, especially when it comes to gays and lesbians.

“That’s the quandary: They can’t see that they will be voting against someone’s ability to live their own life,” says Tracy Godfrey of Charlotte, a gay black man raised in a conservative Baptist church who joined Caldwell Memorial Presbyterian a year ago.

“… On a faith level, they will vote against the very thing they’ve been taught in church, ‘that whatever you did to the least of these, you did for me.’ ”

Amendment opponents call the referendum a waste of time and money, given the existing state law against same-sex marriage. They say the wording threatens the legal status and benefits of all unmarried couples, including heterosexuals, and writes discrimination into the constitution.

Based on his sermon, Davis buys none of it. “You’ve heard the talk. As African-Americans, we ought to know that this is discrimination. Discrimination? Black people have been discriminated against because of the color of our skin, not by our behavior or a choice of lifestyle.”

“I was born like this!” Davis shouted while he pointed at his bare hand, “amen ” and “preach-it” rising up from the congregation. “I need you to understand that you and I must stand for what God says!”

‘Conservative moral streak’

The Rev. Rodney Sadler, an African-American associate professor of the Bible at Union Theological Seminary in Charlotte, says such feelings track with the conservative theology of many black Protestant churches.

For example, many of them believe being gay is a matter of choice, not genetics. And like Davis, they bristle when gay marriage is compared to their long fight for civil rights.

In 1991, Sadler was working with the Congress of National Black Churches when in the height of the AIDS plague, the group decided to focus on African-American churches and sexuality. The conversation had not gone well. “It was odd to see that at that critical juncture, so much resistance revolved around homosexuality,” he says.

Some of those same issues still exist, he says, due largely to a “very conservative moral streak” in many black churches.

“For a group that’s only been free since the 1960s,” he says, “we’re still trying to figure out how we fit in the larger spectrum of human rights and what does it mean to be fully free.”

As far as the marriage amendment is concerned, longstanding religious beliefs appear to be trumping traditional political considerations.

“There’s a big disconnect between African-American political leaders and African-American religious leaders,” says Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling. “On this one, African-American voters are paying more attention to their pastors.”

Dwayne Walker, pastor of Charlotte’s Little Rock AME Zion Church, gave the prayer at last year’s local kickoff for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte that will renominate Obama in September. Walker and his 1,000-member flock believe the definition of marriage goes back to Adam and Eve.

“We have great admiration for the president and stand with him on many things,” he said.

“But we don’t have to agree with him on everything.”

Such positions have opened a potential rift in the traditional coalition of black churchgoers and liberal-to-moderate whites.

Bishop Tonyia Rawls of Unity Fellowship Church says the amendment is part of a conservative strategy to divide longtime political allies by “screaming gay and trying to rile up the black community.”

Up to now, she says, amendment supporters have succeeded in framing the decision as a vote in support of marriage. As a result, she says, many clergy members, black and white, are laying low.

“It’s a case of ‘If I stand publically, I’m standing for gay marriage,’ and nobody wants that perception,” says Rawls, a lesbian and a leader of Clergy for Equality, an interfaith group opposing the amendment.

“Many people who stand progressively on all sorts of issues don’t want to touch this.”

‘The same page’

Jensen, the pollster, says the amendment has the backing of a rare political alliance.

“What’s going to make it so hard to beat is that conservative Republicans and African-Americans are very much on the same page,” Jensen says.

Jeremy Kennedy, executive director of the anti-amendment Protect All NC Families, says opponents will be launching a late advertising blitz to reframe the debate beyond gay marriage. Part of that effort will be aimed at black voters, he says.

The Rev. William Barber, executive director the state NAACP, says blacks will vote no if “they are asked the right questions.”

For example, “Do you believe that discrimination, hate and division should be legalized in our Constitution? Do you believe that at any point in our democracy, the majority should vote on the rights of a minority?’’ he says.

“We’ve been down that road before. It doesn’t work. It’s bad for the very soul of the nation and our state.”

Yet Mark Harris, the white pastor of First Baptist Church in Charlotte and a statewide leader in the campaign for passage, says the vote will show “how out of touch the state NAACP is with most African-Americans” on the issue.

Harris is counting on the same black support that helped pass Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. There, almost 60 percent of black voters backed the measure.

Davis of Nations Ford Church, a black Southern Baptist congregation, says he has worked closely with Harris. Efforts to make gay marriage a civil rights issue, he says, “dishonors the blood, sweat and tears African-Americans have laid on the line.”

Any civil rights comparison, Davis says, “assumes I’m just too ignorant to see past the smoke screen.”

Gantt, the city’s first black mayor and a member of Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, acknowledges such resentment. “But the facts are the facts,” he adds. “Discrimination is discrimination.”

He believes voters can adhere to their biblical beliefs and still be leery of constitutional change. “I try to remind them that, not too terribly long ago, segregation was written into the law,” he says


Read more:

http://www.qcitymetro.com/faith/articles/black_churches_break_with_top_dems_on_gay_marriage033527761.cfm
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: y04185 on May 08, 2012, 05:58:05 PM
If we went by what the bible says, we would still be killing our sons for being bad.

The Bible didn't say you killed your sons for being bad.  Something must be done first.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: CU1994 on May 08, 2012, 06:35:27 PM
Where in the Bible did jesus speak out against gays???  Can any Christian on this board comment?

Jesus didn't.  The Bible does.
[/quote
If this is what you believe, then don't be gay and don't get married. Let other folks live their lives as they see fit so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 06:59:01 PM
DEUTERONOMY 21:18-21


If a man has a stubborn and rebelliious son and does no obey his father and mother and will not listen to them, when they discipline him, his father and moter shall take hold of him and bring him to th elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders , this son of ours is stubborn and rebelliious. He will not listen to us. He is  a profligate and a drunkard. The men of his town shall STONE him to DEATH,
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Nomenclature on May 08, 2012, 07:13:10 PM
Where in the Bible did jesus speak out against gays???  Can any Christian on this board comment?

Genesis 18:20
Genesis 19:1–13
Lev 18:22
Lev 20:13
Romans 1:26-27
1Cor. 6:9-10
1Tim 1:10
Jude 1:7
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: y04185 on May 08, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
Ken, if you knew how to read with comprehension you would know the son does not get stoned to death simply by being bad. 
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
not listening to mom and pop is being bad
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 08:25:05 PM

First the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Karl-Maria kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a TRUE reading of a particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is.  So is man changing the words of the Blble to spread hate?

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 --both verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, and there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also the word, abominations was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type of idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticu 18;22 and Levitucus 20:13.  Toevah has been translated in our bibles as "abominiation" or "detestable. The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Tesstment for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry.  Toevah refers to things that were ritually unclean-like eating pork.  It is significant that another Hebrew word "zimah" also tranlated "abomination" which means intrinsic evil or evil by it very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13. it is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament.  THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IDOLTROUS PRACTICES.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 08, 2012, 08:43:39 PM
The Bible says that eating shrimp is an abomination. It says that  slavery is permissible, unless the person you are enslaving is from your tribe, in which case they should be released after seven years.  it say that disobedience to one's parents should be punished with death. It says that homosexuality should be punished with death, for that matter, yet none of these rules are followed.  you don't see Christians following these rules BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE THE BIBLE AS THE SOLE BASIS OF THEIR MORAL CODE.   They include some other source as part of their basis for right and wrong.  That they dont follow the teachings of the Bible ( at least not literally) suggests that whatever this other source is, IT IS GIVEN MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE RULES OF THE BIBLE.  What it comes down to is Christians using their own judgment, which is based  on their upbringing combiined with social norms or laws, to interpret the Bible and decide which parts are valid, and which parts were written for the people of the time, which were meant as METAPHOR OR ALLEGORY, which were not divinely inspirred.


So if you are going to follow the tenants of the Bible then explain to me why slavery is wrong while at the same time pointing out homosexulity is wrong according to the Bible???? What we have is people interpreting the Bible when it runs contrary to their opinions,  and  at the same time set it up as uninterpretable when it aligns wiith their prejudices.  The truth is , the Bible gives us near limitless interpretations and the absolute rules people extract from it say more about their OWN morality than any that could have been given by God.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: CU1994 on May 08, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Great posts Ken, I've been arguing some of these same points for years. It's refreshing see your articulate response to the often peculiar inerpretation of religion.  :bow:
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Wildman78 on May 08, 2012, 09:37:24 PM
NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage

By EMERY P. DALESIO, Associated Press – 17 minutes ago

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

North Carolina law already bans gay marriage, like nine other states, but an amendment would effectively slam the door shut on same-sex marriages. The amendment also goes beyond state law by voiding other types of domestic unions from carrying legal status, which opponents warn could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples.

Six states - all in the Northeast except Iowa - and the District of Columbia allow same sex marriages.

The North Carolina amendment was placed on the ballot after Republicans took over control of the state Legislature after the 2010 elections, a role the GOP hadn't enjoyed for 140 years.

Joe Easterling, who described himself as a devout Christian, voted for the amendment at a polling place in Wake Forest.

"I know that some people may argue that the Bible may not necessarily be applicable, or it should not be applicable, on such policy matters. But even looking at nature itself, procreation is impossible without a man and a woman. And because of those things, I think it is important that the state of North Carolina's laws are compatible with the laws of nature but, more importantly, with the laws of God."

Linda Toanone, who voted against the amendment, said people are born gay and it is not their choice.

"We think everybody should have the same rights as everyone else. If you're gay, lesbian, straight — whatever," she said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMc52sVsFTFWWyrhx6CZZlko3Omg?docId=3e14159cd8044b958b3d26ef8e32c0d4
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Decks on May 08, 2012, 11:42:47 PM
Measure approved by a whopping 61% to 38%. African Americans overwhelmingly supported this amendment.

 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Cats4ever on May 09, 2012, 12:18:30 AM
Measure approved by a whopping 61% to 38%. African Americans overwhelmingly supported this amendment.

 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:
Down goes NC!  For a minute I thought NC was going to overtake Atlanta and GA as the major area in the South, but I think this measure will hurt in the long run.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: WileECoyote06 on May 09, 2012, 12:26:52 AM
Great posts Ken, I've been arguing some of these same points for years. It's refreshing see your articulate response to the often peculiar inerpretation of religion.  :bow:

“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” - Bird by Bird, Anne Lemotte.

I wonder if they were serving shrimp cocktail and barbecue at the victory celebration.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Cats4ever on May 09, 2012, 12:31:53 AM

First the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Karl-Maria kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a TRUE reading of a particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is.  So is man changing the words of the Blble to spread hate?

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 --both verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, and there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also the word, abominations was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type of idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticu 18;22 and Levitucus 20:13.  Toevah has been translated in our bibles as "abominiation" or "detestable. The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Tesstment for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry.  Toevah refers to things that were ritually unclean-like eating pork.  It is significant that another Hebrew word "zimah" also tranlated "abomination" which means intrinsic evil or evil by it very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13. it is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament.  THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IDOLTROUS PRACTICES.
Thanks Ken. Most people need to understand some of the translation errors in the Bible. As I always stated that people need to view the various laws in the OT from a worship point of view. If you look at it that way, you can understand why the Jews were call God's chosen people because he set them aside to be the role model for the rest of the area and point them to the one true God. As the bible tells us that God is a jealous God who will have no other God before him, and the wages of sin is death which is why the people in the OT were put to death for breaking certain laws pertaining to certain forms of worship. Most people have been trying for years to understand why certain foods God considered unclean, but if you look at those food from a worship standpoint, you will find that the pig is still used by devil worshipers, and shellfish we believe help with our sex life which was part of those people worship  
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Ken on May 09, 2012, 09:12:44 AM
Also people need to understand that the Bible was from Greek translations--the Greek alphabet does not have the letter a or f--thus the meaning of certain words are quite different when they are translated into English.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Nomenclature on May 10, 2012, 12:58:38 AM

First the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by Karl-Maria kertbeny. So how it happens to be included in a TRUE reading of a particular biblical passage should make you ponder how accurate the interpretation actually is.  So is man changing the words of the Blble to spread hate?

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 --both verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, and there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also the word, abominations was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type of idol worship.

The Hebrew word "toevah" was used in Leviticu 18;22 and Levitucus 20:13.  Toevah has been translated in our bibles as "abominiation" or "detestable. The "toevah" was used throughout the Old Tesstment for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry.  Toevah refers to things that were ritually unclean-like eating pork.  It is significant that another Hebrew word "zimah" also tranlated "abomination" which means intrinsic evil or evil by it very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13. it is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament.  THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IDOLTROUS PRACTICES.

1 Cor 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate , nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The text there is the term arsenokoites which means sodomites. This was the desire of the men of Sodom toward the angels who came to liberate Lot. Zimah is not used anywhere in Scripture, so its use or lack thereof has no bearing at all.

Speaking of modern coining of words, sexual orientation is not terminology in the Scriptures at all. Sexual acts are. The only references that can be attributed to sexual have to do with marriage between a man and woman, Homosexual acts are extramarital according to the Scriptures. Those who persist in extramarital sex acts either heterosexual or homosexual will reap the eternal consequences thereof: separation from God because of sin.
Title: Re: Meaning and Potential Legal Effects of NC’s Proposed Marriage Amendment
Post by: Cats4ever on May 10, 2012, 10:23:18 PM
Devin, the word that people have used to describe homosexuality is very debatable because it was a word that Paul coined and was not used everywhere in history besides the bible. Arsenokoites is a compound word where Arseno means man and koites means bed, so if we were to take it literally we have manbed; some would say that he was trying to convey that meaning of having intercourse with a man; however the Greeks already had a word for that androkoitEs.  The issue is we really can define that word and assume Paul meant by the term.

Finally, some scholar have raised question about the relation between the Roman Centurion and his honored slave. We know that Roman went to Jesus for help, but what we do not know is the relationship between this man and the young boy. We need to understand how they view relationships during that time. It was not uncommon for older men to engage in intercourse with a slave, pupil, or a defeat enemy as a means of asserting his dominance. There is a good chance that the Roman Centurion engaged in intercourse with the young slave, so would Jesus confirm this relationship by healing the young boy.   

Devin, according to the bible, why did God destroy Sodom?