North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[tqualey]

Hi, Hokomai,

While you state you are not a believer, you can look around and see that there is a natural law. Just as surely as you push a book off of a table, it will fall, if you stop eating you will starve, and if you ingest poison you will die - there is a right and wrong aspect to human sexuality. If the wrench could stand up and demand to be equal to the hammer so that objects could be beaten down using the wrench - the wrench would find that it is destroying itself because it was not made for this - and, it is not doing what it was designed for in the first place. Some have tried to substitute a wrench for a hammer - but, the results are always disappointing.

Equality does not mean that people do the same things as everyone else or that they can declare what is equal to suit their own misguided view of reality. First comply with the Natural Law and then see if you are being treated unfairly.

With perseverance, we will eventually have enough states that stand up and demand a Constitutional Ammendment - if the Congress does not act first. And for those who are counting down the days until we can “Change it Back”, there are 181 days to go.

God bless

This is very sad. But it is good that the trend throughout the world is in the direction of freedom and equality. I hope those campaigning for equality are not so angered by the opposition that they seek to restrict the right of Christians to marry as they wish, or to otherwise carry on their lives.

 

[Ronald_E]

Really? Have you put even a second of thought behind that statement?

That question appears to be lacking charity.

How can we have any laws without telling other people what to do and what is right?

This does not pertain to Paul’s statement.

How can we have a society without telling other people what to do and what is right?

This does not pertain to Paul’s statement.

Serious question to you. Does absolute right and wrong exist?

Peace

Tim

I am quoting Paul

 

[ignatius777]

Very, very sad. In 50-100 years everyone will look back on this with the same distaste as racism.

Oh, well, just another state that I’m never visiting if I can help it.

Also, OP; really? A DANCING EMOTICON? Yes, you can still get married in NC, just like you could before. The only thing this accomplished is banning marriage between two people of the same sex. I find it very… sad? I can’t even think of a word - deplorable that you can be so overjoyed that you beat back those icky gays and their agenda.

Again, it wasn’t your rights in question, it was those of gays. And you’re overjoyed you were able to deny them marriage rights.

You make me sick.

No rights are in question. No gay person is denied a license to marry someone of the opposite sex because they are gay. Thats the thing your side of the argument cant wrap your minds around. You prefer to make this an emotional issue rather than a rights issue. You need to claim people who oppose gay “marriage” hate gays because there is no logical argument for gay “marriage” based solely on rights.

 

[fix]

We Catholics and other Christians cannot keep our own house in order and then we try to tell other people what to do and what is right. It sickens me also.

Standing with the moral law sickens you? Why?

From 1Cor 5:9-13 “…But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolator, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber…For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside…”

You take a quote and then create an an entire new theology out of it? How do you reconcile your position with the teaching of the Church?

 

[sw85]

This is very sad. But it is good that the trend throughout the world is in the direction of freedom and equality.

That’s an interesting sentiment, and one expressed by several of my Facebook friends upset about the amendment. It’s all “This is bad, but oh well. In a generation we’ll be in power and your kind will be dead.”

Well, no, not really. The short-term trend (and I mean extremely short term – i.e., single-digits years) favors liberalism. The long-term trends don’t. Fertility-wise, your lot are contracepting and aborting and sodomizing yourselves into oblivion. Among my close Catholic friends the average fertility is about 4-5 children a couple, and these are people who’d fit in well with any SSPX or FSSP chapel, the kinds of folks who devoutly observe their First Friday and Saturday devotions and who hate the Republicans because they’re too liberal. Among my leftist friends it’s closer to 1-2 children per couple, and in many cases simply 0. How long do you think your ideology can last when its enemies are outbreeding you by a two-to-one or even three-to-one ratio? When we double every year while your population holds constant or perhaps even declines slightly y/o/y? Here we need not even point to the fact that the leftist economic system is everywhere collapsing, and with it all the little perks and quirks that keep your ideology functioning day to day – affirmative action, anti-family sexual harassment seminars, state-subsidized indoctrination in leftist universities, an endless stream of government jobs and government money for womyn’s studies majors, etc. etc. etc. Human nature is going to reassert itself, as it always does, and you’re going to lose as a result of it.

I suspect you guys know this and so are upping the stakes with every successive generation, sharpening your knives in preparation for the inevitable violent persecution you’ll have to undertake to keep your brittle vision of society from collapsing outright. Too bad for you; we’re like roaches. We can just wait you out. We’ve done it before, and with folks with much more steel in their guts than your kind can muster.

 

[Ronald_E]

Standing with the moral law sickens you? Why?

It is ignorance of how to treat others that sickens me.

You take a quote and then create an an entire new theology out of it? How do you reconcile your position with the teaching of the Church?

What is the new theology that is created?

 

[rossum]

A gay man has exactly the same right to marry as I do. I’m not sure what you are suggesting. There is no restrictions that exist for homosexuals that don’t apply equally to me.

That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. Everyone had exactly the same rights to marry someone of the same race. You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on.

rossum

 

[sw85]

That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. Everyone had exactly the same rights to marry someone of the same race. You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on.

rossum

The difference is the sex of the person you “marry” is relevant to the purpose of marriage, whereas that race isn’t.

Mwap mwap. Try again.

 

[Lapey]

What do you think about Paul’s quote?

Check your inbox, I sent you a private message.

 

[Lapey]

It is ignorance of how to treat others that sickens me.

What is the new theology that is created?

How should we treat people who act in immoral ways, the charitable thing to do is to inform them of their sin, not allow them to believe we condone such behavior?

Look at the Scripture again, in context this time along with the commentary; you may see on your own what new theology your view would be.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. Everyone had exactly the same rights to marry someone of the same race. You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on.

Loving v Virginia pertained to heterosexual marriage as a universal right. It restored that right which had been illegitimately removed. It had nothing to do with homosexual “marriage.” You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on, especially since you continue to bring up this false “argument” which has no legal legitimacy.

Have a nice day.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!
"Arkaeus:

…You make me sick. …

…your lot are contracepting and aborting and sodomizing yourselves into oblivion…

…How long do you think your ideology can last when its enemies are outbreeding you …

…you’re going to lose…

…I suspect you guys know this and so are upping the stakes with every successive generation, sharpening your knives in preparation for the inevitable violent persecution you’ll have to undertake to keep your brittle vision of society from collapsing outright. …

…We can just wait you out. We’ve done it before, and with folks with much more steel in their guts than your kind can muster.

It saddens me to see such rhetoric, particularly from people, like the second poster quoted above, whom I know to be thoughtful Christians.

We do ourselves no great service when we commit ourselves to devisive rhetoric, the root of which is always this question: who has power over whom? The question of who has power over whom belongs to the sphere of sin, of violence and death, because power in this context is* always* related to violence as the rhetoric above eloqently demonstrates.

In the light of the Resurrection–revealing to us the union of Heaven and Earth, showing us definitively that the nature of God is a Love that has no part in death and violence, but is lovingly willing to become a victim of that death and violence in order to empty it of meaning and power–in such a light, using the language of violence and death, of us v. them, is un-Christian, to say the least.

Drawing these lines in the sand gives us an incredible sense of self-identity, granted. But this identity is always forged at the expense of and over against the other whom we see as our enemy and who will ultimately be seen as worthy of execution or obliteration. This is no way to form a healthy self-understanding, particularly when God has freely given us his own self-understanding to be our own self-understanding: Jesus Christ.

In these sorts of heated debates where religion and politics appear to overlap, it often seems that being “right” or “correct” (regardless of one’s leaning on the political spectrum) begins to be seen as a substitute for being the Deathless Love of Christ in the world. This is lamentable, particularly because it shows a tendency in us to trust in the apparatus of the modern liberal state to engineer a more moral citizenry or validate a holy or religious end. But using the apparatus of the modern liberal state to accomplish or validate what is believed to be a holy or religious end does not make us or the modern liberal state more holy or religious, but merely recasts the holy, the moral, or the religious in the terms of the modern liberal state. We might do well to remember the Psalmist’s words: “Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses : but we will remember the Name of the Lord our God.”

With regard to the NC vote, the people of NC have spoken and will get what they wanted. That’s fine. Whether or not we or they will ultimately like what they’ve gotten is beside the point. “All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well,” as Our Lord told his servant, Dame Julian of Norwich.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[ignatius777]

Loving v Virginia pertained to heterosexual marriage as a universal right. It restored that right which had been illegitimately removed. It had nothing to do with homosexual “marriage.” You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on, especially since you continue to bring up this false “argument” which has no legal legitimacy.

Have a nice day.

Excellent post! On top of that Loving v Virginia addressed a specific law that said whites and blacks couldnt marry because of race. There is no law in any American state or on a federal level that says a gay person can not marry someone of the opposite sex because they are gay.

 

[Orogeny]

That question appears to be lacking charity.

Right. A bit sensitive, are we? Oh, well, since you refused to answer I will take it that the answer is no.

This does not pertain to Paul’s statement.

This does not pertain to Paul’s statement.

So?

I am quoting Paul

How does the Church interpret that citation in light of the topic we are discussing? Hmm?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia. Everyone had exactly the same rights to marry someone of the same race. You would do well to find a better argument to base yourself on.

rossum

How does that in any way even address my post? What rights do I have that a gay man doesn’t?

Peace

Tim

 

[ASimon]

How does that in any way even address my post? What rights do I have that a gay man doesn’t?

Peace

Tim

You have the right to marry whom you love.

 

[ignatius777]

You have the right to marry whom you love.

So? Love is not a requirement to obtain a state issued license to marry

 

[ASimon]

So? Love is not a requirement to obtain a state issued license to marry

Correct - So if the gays would just stop falling in “love” with people of their own gender, they wouldn’t have their rights violated when the state tells them they aren’t allowed to marry them.

Really, it’s the gays’ fault. They should’ve considered the implications of being gay before they became gay.

 

[fix]

Correct - So if the gays would just stop falling in “love” with people of their own gender, they wouldn’t have their rights violated when the state tells them they aren’t allowed to marry them.

Really, it’s the gays’ fault. They should’ve considered the implications of being gay before they became gay.

I guess three bothers can “marry” if they claim love.

 

[Orogeny]

You have the right to marry whom you love.

Wrong. I don’t have the right to marry another woman that I love while I am married to my wife. I don’t have the right to marry my daughter. I don’t have the right to marry another man’s wife. And, just like gay men, I don’t have the right to marry another man.

Exactly the same rights as a gay man.

Peace

Tim