NationStates

Christ is Risen wrote:

Hallistar wrote:
Does it make Jesus feel happy inside or something? Is he preparing those barbecue skewers in hell for the billions of humans who dared to enjoy their lives and be themselves?

Plain and simple, The act of homosexuality is a sin. Now please read this whole post. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yeah, I am. But in no way does that mean that I believe homosexuals will burn in hell. I agree that attraction to the same sex for some people is not a choice. Some people are born to be attracted to the same sex. That is not a sin. Acting upon that attraction though is a sin. Homosexuality is not the worst sin and in no way is unforgivable. Homosexuality is not even in the ten commandments which tells me that adultery, stealing, and lying are worse sins. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as fornication or pornography. Homosexuals are able to go to heaven as long as they except Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins, just like every other Christian.

Gallogach wrote:Don't say that gays, lesbians, trans are not being afforded the same freedoms as everyone else. They are as I have explained above. NOTHING has been taken away from them.

Moon Cows wrote:

Christ is Risen wrote:
Romans 1:26-27 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were SINNING GREATLY against the Lord.

Genesis 19:4-5, 11-13, 24 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. [5] They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX WITH THEM.” ... [11] Then [the messengers from God] struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. [12] The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here — sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, [13] because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that HE has sent us to DESTROY it.” ... [24] Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens.

Romans 1:18, 24-28, 32 The WRATH OF GOD is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... [24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the DEGRADING of their bodies with one another. [25] They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. [27] In the same way the MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION. [28] Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.... [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Matthew 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the CREATOR ‘made them MALE AND FEMALE,’ [5] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

I think people need to learn to accept others beliefs before they can begin to understand them. Please, don't deny what is right in front of you.

Avalar wrote:

Moon Cows wrote:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were SINNING GREATLY against the Lord.

Genesis 19:4-5, 11-13, 24 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. [5] They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX WITH THEM.” ... [11] Then [the messengers from God] struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. [12] The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here — sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, [13] because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that HE has sent us to DESTROY it.” ... [24] Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens.

Romans 1:18, 24-28, 32 The WRATH OF GOD is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.... [24] Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the DEGRADING of their bodies with one another. [25] They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. [26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. [27] In the same way the MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION. [28] Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.... [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Matthew 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the CREATOR ‘made them MALE AND FEMALE,’ [5] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

I think people need to learn to accept others beliefs before they can begin to understand them. Please, don't deny what is right in front of you.

John 8;7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her

Now shut it!

WhoseyWhatzIt wrote:

Christ is Risen wrote:
Plain and simple, The act of homosexuality is a sin. Now please read this whole post. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yeah, I am. But in no way does that mean that I believe homosexuals will burn in hell. I agree that attraction to the same sex for some people is not a choice. Some people are born to be attracted to the same sex. That is not a sin. Acting upon that attraction though is a sin. Homosexuality is not the worst sin and in no way is unforgivable. Homosexuality is not even in the ten commandments which tells me that adultery, stealing, and lying are worse sins. Homosexuality is as much of a sin as fornication or pornography. Homosexuals are able to go to heaven as long as they except Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins, just like every other Christian.

Quick, slightly unrelated question to the thread: since I'm Jewish, does that mean I'm automatically going to Hell because I don't believe in Jesus?

Gallogach wrote:Don't say that gays, lesbians, trans are not being afforded the same freedoms as everyone else. They are as I have explained above. NOTHING has been taken away from them.

Nothing is being taken away from us, but something is being held from us.

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

Frisivisia wrote:

Avalar wrote:

John 8;7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her

Now shut it!

Fris 1:1 Bible quotes mean nothing to most everyone.

WhoseyWhatzIt wrote:

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

Actually, LGBTs are almost always at risk from being fired/not being hired in Right to Work states, like mine, South Carolina. We could be fired on the spot just for being gay and there's really nothing we can do if there's no protection laws in place. And same goes from housing.

Gallogach wrote:

Northern Dominus wrote:How dare I use my experience and viewpoints to shine a light into hatred and bigotry? No, the outrage should be how dare the citizens of North Carolina who voted in favor of Amendment One deny same-sex couples the same rights and privileges afford to straight couples. My service and sacrifice entitles me to a viewpoint and perspective that most of those voters don't have, and their votes sicken and disturb not only me but the vast majority of men and women in the armed forces.
Furthermore how dare you belittle me for detailing how I am personally offended by the blatant attack on civil rights and liberties? As I said I served my country defending those rights and liberties for ALL Americans, and while that does mean I was obligated to protect the bigoted ignoramuses who think this is a good thing, I also was obligated to protect the people they so adamantly hate and fear. Furthermore, the same gay lesbian bisexual and transsexual people that they so fear also put themselves in harms way, and to have their sacrifices rewarded with a state so publicly stating that they're unworthy of the rights they fought to defend is a vile travesty of justice to say the least.

Are you even aware of what the ban entails? This isn't marriage in the sense of going into some building and having some holy person bless your union while relatives look on, this is a ban on a valid legal state-recognized marriages. This ban means that same-sex couples aren't allowed the same tax breaks for cohabitation as other couples, not allowed to see each other in the hospital or be informed of their status, not able to collect bereavement benefits when a partner dies. It is the start of a slippery slope.
Here is just a partial list of the benefits and privileges of marriage. This is what same-sex couples are now denied in North Carolina.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

And before you go further how this isn't constitutional, marriage is a fundamental right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights
And justifying Amendment One as anything other than unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights is not only flawed and flat-out wrong, as I stated earlier I view it as a personal slap in the face and wholly unworthy of my efforts and sacrifices while serving in the US Military.

I am fully aware of the fact that you won't be given the same legal privileges. That is why I said that the issue is merely legal. They don't stop you from getting married according to your faith so that has not been infringed upon. You won't get a tax break and you can't get legal privileges automatically is all that is at stake. Let me debunk the privileges argument right now. There is nothing you can't get through marriage that you cannot do for anyone else through a legal process. A perfect example of this step would be power of attorney (you should be familiar with this if you have ever deployed). And you not being able to collect benefits is a lie. Ever heard of a will or the SGLI? Being in the military, you can designate whoever you want your military insurance to go to. The majority of everything else in that list is negligible because they can't have children. They won't need divorce protection if they are never married. They especially wont be needing it if they can't open up joint accounts (which is also a blatant lie). They still get veterans benefits if they serve. And the rest is pretty much covered with what I said above.

Fundamental rights aren't being abridged here. Marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman in a legal sense. It has been since our foundation so guess what? None of our FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS have been infringed upon. Take that opinionated fallacy elsewhere.

So the only argument you really have here is that a person cannot get a tax break. That is it.



And don't claim that you are somehow championing a cause of shedding light on bigotry and hatred because you are in the military service. There is no attack on civil liberties as I have stated before and you have yet to give me an example of how there is one. Since you have yet to give me a substantive argument (the few you have were wikipedia and some homemade website. Neither of which would survive a high school paper for scrutiny), I have to conclude you have NONE.

Don't say that gays, lesbians, trans are not being afforded the same freedoms as everyone else. They are as I have explained above. NOTHING has been taken away from them.

By the way, the fact that you are spouting about your service and sacrifice (and combining it with the disclaimer you had at the top of not wanting to talk about what you did in the military) leads me to believe you were a staff wienie chaptered out of the military for being worthless. The kind of glory hog who goes to bars wearing their old uniforms letting everyone know they've been deployed in hopes that they will pick up a girl or somehow get free drinks. In reality you probably ate Burger King every day on deployment and the closest thing you got to combat was an IED exploding halfway across the city. One that caused you to piss yourself and get a CAB for doing so. You glorify your 'sacrifice' to offset the real scumbag you are. People like you give real Soldiers a bad name and you sicken me. <= That is mere speculation however. I am sure that you have a completely different reason for the way you behave.

Northern Dominus wrote:And you've provided how many sources to defend your position exactly?

Yes I'm familiar with POA and the other concepts you mentioned. However there's always a legal loophole, and in the case of North Carolina that amendment could be used to circumvent any Power of Attorney privileges or written wills. Again the amendment is a slippery slope.
And you didn't like one source? Ok how about another:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 30190.html
Gee they say the same things.

And since you have yet to support your own argument with anything other than hyperbole, exaggeration, and feigned outrage, I also have to conclude that your arguments are baseless and invalid.

As for my service... I don't have to justify or explain myself to you. I was no REMF and was frequently in harms way, and that's all or anybody else on this site really needs to know.

As far as behavior goes, I'd wager that championing civil rights and equality for all US citizens and humans trumps ranting and hyperbole any day of the week, but hey whatever turns your crank.

Northern Dominus wrote:

WhoseyWhatzIt wrote:
Quick, slightly unrelated question to the thread: since I'm Jewish, does that mean I'm automatically going to Hell because I don't believe in Jesus?



Nothing is being taken away from us, but something is being held from us.

And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

Christ is Risen wrote:

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

I would wholeheartedly oppose an effort to deny LGBT individuals the right to serve In state jobs and deny housing due to sexual orientation. I believe that LGBT individuals should have the same rights as everyone else. I just don't think that the government should recognize a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.

Christ is Risen wrote:

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

I would wholeheartedly oppose an effort to deny LGBT individuals the right to serve In state jobs and deny housing due to sexual orientation. I believe that LGBT individuals should have the same rights as everyone else. I just don't think that the government should recognize a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.

Christ is Risen wrote:

Northern Dominus wrote:And I've explained to him in no uncertain terms (and he's ignored of course), that state amendment is the start of a rather slippery slope.
First it's ok to ban a state recognized marraige. What's next? Are LGBT individuals barred from serving in certain state jobs? What about housing?
The slide could potentially go to segregated water fountains all over again.

I would wholeheartedly oppose an effort to deny LGBT individuals the right to serve In state jobs and deny housing due to sexual orientation. I believe that LGBT individuals should have the same rights as everyone else. I just don't think that the government should recognize a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.

Ende wrote:I don't understand why religious people like me think they can deny other humans rights because of religion.

If I swear off ice cream, and refuse to eat it, than that rule applies to me. If I declare by the word of Harry Potter that I must wear wizard robes, than so be it. But I can't enforce that on anyone else who isn't part of my movement. That's just nonsensical.

Christian Democrats wrote:Children who come from two-parent households tend to be better off. Civil marriage makes it more difficult for couples to separate. Some of the benefits of civil marriage are aimed at making it easier for couples to raise their children.

Ende wrote:I don't understand why religious people like me think they can deny other humans rights because of religion.

If I swear off ice cream, and refuse to eat it, than that rule applies to me. If I declare by the word of Harry Potter that I must wear wizard robes, than so be it. But I can't enforce that on anyone else who isn't part of my movement. That's just nonsensical.

Gallogach wrote:There is no need for me to provide proof or support the fact that one can get a power of attorney

Gallogach wrote:or that one can put whatever they want into their wills

Choronzon wrote:

Christ is Risen wrote:
I would wholeheartedly oppose an effort to deny LGBT individuals the right to serve In state jobs and deny housing due to sexual orientation. I believe that LGBT individuals should have the same rights as everyone else. I just don't think that the government should recognize a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman.

So you don't think they should have the same rights.

Northern Dominus wrote:

Ende wrote:I don't understand why religious people like me think they can deny other humans rights because of religion.

If I swear off ice cream, and refuse to eat it, than that rule applies to me. If I declare by the word of Harry Potter that I must wear wizard robes, than so be it. But I can't enforce that on anyone else who isn't part of my movement. That's just nonsensical.

Because pious people who champion the subjugation of and stripping rights away from LGBT people cloak themselves in religion to hide the fact that they're just bigots, plain and simple.

We'd have more respect for them if they came out of the closet and admitted that they are in fact monumental real-life trolls. Not a lot, possibly a micrometer, but more than hiding behind some sort of proverbial shield with a cross emblazoned on it.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Gallogach wrote:There is no need for me to provide proof or support the fact that one can get a power of attorney

It is not at all clear that North Carolina will continue to honor powers of attorney; that issue has been in limbo in Michigan for years after enactment of similar language. On the face of it, the amendment does not permit the state to do so. It is possible the courts will honor powers of attorney in all cases except same-sex couples, since this was the evident intent.

Gallogach wrote:or that one can put whatever they want into their wills

In many states the family can set aside a will that leaves property to a lover; that is called "undue influence". The problem particularly arises in cases where the family has been hostile to the deceased for decades (an unfortunately common scenario). The only way to make sure the will is upheld is to get a legal recognition of the relationship.

Gallogach wrote:

Tmutarakhan wrote:It is not at all clear that North Carolina will continue to honor powers of attorney; that issue has been in limbo in Michigan for years after enactment of similar language. On the face of it, the amendment does not permit the state to do so. It is possible the courts will honor powers of attorney in all cases except same-sex couples, since this was the evident intent.

In many states the family can set aside a will that leaves property to a lover; that is called "undue influence". The problem particularly arises in cases where the family has been hostile to the deceased for decades (an unfortunately common scenario). The only way to make sure the will is upheld is to get a legal recognition of the relationship.

As for the legal limbo; you are using the slippery slope fallacy. The right has not yet been taken away, so there is no slight.

For the undue influence; guess what? Family members do that to each other all the time when grandma dies and the children fight over the leftovers. Meaning everyone has to deal with it and that people are instantly secured through direct marriage or 'family' status. Therefore no protection or 'right' has been removed since there really is no protection granted to anyone in the realm of law. Any person can challenge a will whenever they feel the need to.

Desperate Measures wrote:

Gallogach wrote:

As for the legal limbo; you are using the slippery slope fallacy. The right has not yet been taken away, so there is no slight.

For the undue influence; guess what? Family members do that to each other all the time when grandma dies and the children fight over the leftovers. Meaning everyone has to deal with it and that people are instantly secured through direct marriage or 'family' status. Therefore no protection or 'right' has been removed since there really is no protection granted to anyone in the realm of law. Any person can challenge a will whenever they feel the need to.

How is it a slippery slope fallacy to point out that a spouses rights to the deceased trumps the rights of other relatives?

Gallogach wrote:

Desperate Measures wrote:How is it a slippery slope fallacy to point out that a spouses rights to the deceased trumps the rights of other relatives?

I was referring to the power of attorney he mentioned previously and how it was in 'legal limbo'.