GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage

[Jazzhead]

It isn't us that needs to see the evidence of "gay" culture.   It is those who defend it that need to see what it is that they think they wish to defend.

No one here is defending promiscuity.   Heck, as I've said before,  I support gay marriage because it provides a respectable alternative to promiscuity.   You want to push gays back into the shadows,  where responsible behavior isn't rewarded or respected,  and instant gratification rules.    You want gay men to marry straight women, and deny their wives a lifetime of gratification.   

This Christian absolutist condemnation of homosexuality encourages all sorts of pathological behaviors.   See, folks are who they are.  No one chooses to be gay -  God does that.   But His church demands that those of His children who are gay must either deny themselves any outlet for sexual gratification or social respectability, or else deliberately deceive an innocent person.   In the most tragic cases,  this conflict between God's alleged "demands" for self-denial and one's God-given nature leads to suicide.   Happens all the time.   

That's sick.   What do you think lies behind the recent scandals in the Catholic church?   What's the one respectable occupation where celibacy is a requirement?   The priesthood - no wonder it attracts closeted gays.   But after decades of denial, the pain and temptation prove too much.   

The Church should be concerned with encouraging folks to do the right thing - to be honest, faithful and true - not to aspire to unattainable self-denial.  The last few pages of this thread have included statements that a "moral" Christian cannot masturbate nor even think about sex  - and must remain faithful to their spouse for a lifetime.   How many of the Bible thumpers here have been divorced?    Certainly Hoodat and txradioguy.   What about you INVAR?    Others care to admit the truth about themselves?   

I've been having these debates with Christians for years on the internet.   I'm on the good-works side of the fence - I think the basic Christian idea that all sins are washed clean so long as you repent is a racket.   It's not that easy.   Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.   Stay married,  and if you need to watch some porn to keep from cheating when your spouse isn't in the mood, or is post-menopausal,  then do that rather than cheat, and end up in divorce.

We've all sinned, and we should all strive to be better people.   All I'm saying is that the Church should help us to be better and more joyous human beings,  not saddle us with crushing guilt and fear.     

     

[musiclady]

Preach it!

One of the filthy facts about pornography being ignored by our pro-porn crusader here, is that there is a direct...... a DIRECT..... correlation between girls who have been the victims of sex trafficking and pornography.

The truth is that many of the women degraded and abused in the porn (that is supposedly innocent??) have been the sex slaves of evil men and have been forced to be in the movies that some poor fellows need to satisfy their desires.

The idea that MY head is in the sand because I understand that porn ruins lives, and that it degrades women, and that there are many men who do not give in to this particular sin is just idiotic.

Our daughter has dedicated her life to helping and ministering to women who have been trafficked, and are victims of sex abuse.   This is not a laughing matter, and the facts are staggering.

But I guess the boy with his head in the sand doesn't care about facts.......... or women.

[musiclady]

Merely thinking about sex is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?
 

Is that seriously what you think Jesus did when He told us that?  You think that the One who died an excruciating death on a Cross to atone for OUR sins........yours and mine, "cheapened" it by telling us exactly that?

Wow.

[Hoodat]

A puppy keeps peeing on my leg.   Fine, you answered my question,  so I'll answer yours.   You do know, don't you, that I wasn't "lying" about equal protection but merely stating the basis upon which the SCOTUS (in Obergefell ) ruled?

The Obergefell court failed utterly in citing where equal protection had been denied or violated by Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky marriage laws.  Which is why I asked you.  Furthermore, your claim of 'equal protection' was in reference to the Constitution itself - not Obergefell.  Care to try again?

Okay,  here's the basic deal.  Bob and Joe get married in Maryland, where same sex marriage is legal.   They later move to Ohio,  where their marriage isn't recognized.   Meanwhile,  I get married in Maryland too, and later move to Ohio.   Ohio recognizes my marriage.

Maryland recognizes my right to purchase beer on Sunday while Alabama does not.  By your reasoning, Alabama's beer law is unconstitutional.

Likewise by your reasoning, let's say Utah decides to legalize polygamy.  Then if I marry twins in Utah that then move to Ohio, according to you, Ohio's prohibition against polygamy then becomes unconstitutional.

Ohio, like most states, imposes an inheritance tax, but waives the tax if one gives their wealth to their spouse.   Bob and I both die, and leave our estates to our spouses.   But Joe, Bob's spouse, is stuck paying an inheritance tax while my spouse pays nothing. 

Whoa, wait just a minute here.  You make allowance for states having different inheritance laws while at the same time declaring it unconstitutional for them to have different marriage laws.

See, Ohio can't have it both ways.

Yet you have no problem doing so yourself.

It can apply its inheritance tax waiver with respect to all spouses,  if it wants as a matter of public policy to provide a break for married couples and their families.   Or it can repeal its inheritance tax waiver and force all spouses to pay the tax.

Again, this is based upon Ohio law.  Either both laws are allowed or neither is allowed.  You don't get to pick and choose, declaring one invalid based solely upon the validity of the other.

But what it can't do is treat Bob's spouse differently than it treats mine.

Bob's 'spouse' isn't a spouse under Ohio law.  If Bob wants to live under Maryland law, then he should stay in Maryland.  Because there is zero Constitutional basis for imposing Maryland law on any other state.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

That's an arbitrary denial of the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.   That's unConstitutional.   

Funny how the reverse isn't true.  I mean by your reasoning, isn't it the state of Maryland that is in error here by not enforcing Ohio law?  Come to think of it, Massachusetts' bans on firearms is unconstitutional because South Carolina allows them.  And Illinois' allowance of third-trimester abortions is unconstitutional because Mississippi bans them.  This is your definition of 'Equal protection', right?

In your argument, you cited inheritance laws not being equally applied.  But nowhere did you indicate where equal protection was being denied in the marriage law itself.

[Smokin Joe]

No one here is defending promiscuity.   Heck, as I've said before,  I support gay marriage because it provides a respectable alternative to promiscuity.   You want to push gays back into the shadows,  where responsible behavior isn't rewarded or respected,  and instant gratification rules.    You want gay men to marry straight women, and deny their wives a lifetime of gratification.   

Wow. So many false dichotomies, so few words. And, as all relationships have proven, especially in the last few decades, a piece of paper does nothing to guarantee fidelity. The actions of the 'gay community' are not what I would call 'responsible'  nor 'respectable', by any metric. While there may be individuals within that group who do behave responsible and respectably, at least in public, there is a conspicuous component which is neither, and glories in that fact.
I wouldn't wish a 'gay' husband on any 'straight' woman. Why would I want her in a relationship doomed to failure and misery from the onset? Again, that would not stop him from buggering around, either, but it might expose her to diseases she wouldn't be likely to catch otherwise (along with over 1.3 million dead people walking, and counting.)

This Christian absolutist condemnation of homosexuality encourages all sorts of pathological behaviors. 

I condemn murder, I condemn theft, I condemn child molestation, for a short but not all inclusive (by any means) list of things I condemn. They are condemned in scripture as well, but my condemnation of those things does not make anyone else do them. Put the cart back on the correct end of the horse and quit the ridiculous falsehood.

[INVAR]

See, folks are who they are.  No one chooses to be gay -  God does that.

And by your demonic application of logic , no one chooses to be a rapist, or a thief, or a liar, or an adulterer either.  Had those been your pet causes as homosexual behavior is, you would be blaming those behaviors on God too. God has no part with evil, yet you - being the Accuser, attributes sinful behavior to God.

How many of the Bible thumpers here have been divorced?    Certainly Hoodat and txradioguy.   What about you INVAR?    Others care to admit the truth about themselves? 

Happily married 31 years, never been divorced. 

I think the basic Christian idea that all sins are washed clean so long as you repent is a racket.

So you are not a Christian at all then considering the fact you think the blood of Christ poured out for sin is a 'racket'.  But, like the liar you are when it comes to deceiving others by insisting you are a Conservative, you lie to the board to suggest you are a Christian as well.

I'm on the good-works side of the fence

No you're not.  You are on the promoting of evil and wickedness side of the fence as 'good works', which according to scripture is not gong to earn you salvation.   Whatever god it is you worship, it isn't the one revealed in the pages of the Bible, that is for certain.

[Jazzhead]

And by your demonic application of logic , no one chooses to be a rapist, or a thief, or a liar, or an adulterer either.  Had those been your pet causes as homosexual behavior is, you would be blaming those behaviors on God too. God has no part with evil, yet you - being the Accuser, attributes sinful behavior to God.

You speak of behavior.  Behavior isn't the fault of God.  But one's sexual orientation - that's inborn.  My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner.   Your position is all that counts for nothing.     

Happily married 31 years, never been divorced.

  Congratulations.   I admire you for that.   

So you are not a Christian at all then considering the fact you think the blood of Christ poured out for sin is a 'racket'. 

I'm saying that sin being washed clean by prayerful repentance is too easy.  You need to have good works too.   Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.   I know you disagree - I've been having this debate on the internet for years.

Put it another way:   Your position is one of hubris - you know without doubt that you are saved.   Mine is one of humility - I know without doubt that I am unworthy,  and throw myself on His mercy.     

[driftdiver]

Isn't genetics inborn or hormones?  I believe the latest scientific study is homosexulality  are cause by epi markers. I personally believe it it is is caused by a hormonal/chemical regulation problem while in the womb. Most gay people I have known I knew they were different at a very early age . My classmates just discussed the passing of one of our gay classmates (heart attack, not Aids) on FB  and we knew he was different/a  was a "sissy" in kindergarten.

None of the 4-5 gay people I know well were ever abused.

@driftdiver

Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this.   Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience.  For others its the influence of others during their formative period.   Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it.  Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.

I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Bizarre accusation.  I haven't used the word "gay" on this thread because I don't use it.

I'm a choral singer who loves madrigals, and you can't sing half of them because of the hijacking of the word to mean what it doesn't even come close to meaning.  The left steals our vocabulary and distorts it, and this is but one example of their theft.

But thanks for getting back on topic and leaving your hijack behind. 

Eh, you would not stand being corrected for mis-characterizing a War's beginnings, so I get back on topic by going after the corruption of a word in the English language that actually has something to do with this thread. 

I never said you did it.  Where did you read that?

[Smokin Joe]

My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner.   Your position is all that counts for nothing.     
 

In theory, you can shoot a .22 bullet into a tin cup at a mile, too. It is highly unlikely, but not beyond the realm of the possible, so a person can be honest, faithful, obedient, and true (even without sexual contact). 

But you assume that two people of the same sex can be "married", and there we're back to the definition of 'marriage' and a problem.

When 'marriage' has been defined for millennia as one woman and one man, even in the cases of concurrency in some cultures, that definition still holds. Not one man, one camel, or one man one horse, nor one man and another man, but one woman and one man.
Yet in 20 years the rest of the world is supposed to redefine 'marriage'.  Nope. It isn't, any more than the camel or the horse would be. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You see, there is a fundamental difference between you and I. I wouldn't claim to know what anyone else was doing if I couldn't see, at a minimum, what they were doing.
You, otoh, are telling me what 77% of christian males surveyed saw.

The issue of defining obscenity has been a problem, and porn would be, too. I don't know what they saw. I guess I'm just not as smart as you. But I am in good company:

Now, I know the definition of what was considered the threshold for 'porn' was a fairly low bar in the sixties and seventies, many movies which have been since shown on television were rated 'X'. I don't know when these alleged 77% viewed what they considered "porn", nor do I pretend to know what they considered "porn" at that time. Sure, there is a level where everyone would generally agree that isn't a film they want to watch with their grandmother, but would what was porn then be porn now, or just a modest ad for ladies underwear?

Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".

[Smokin Joe]

Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".

As did many others...

[driftdiver]

Way back when, this kid growing up believed opening the Sears catalog to the lingerie section was "porn".

Heck go to the local mall.  Here Victorias Secret has 15 foot tall posters of women in their underwear right on the food court.   Much more provocative then Sears ever had.

[Chosen Daughter]

Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this.   Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience.  For others its the influence of others during their formative period.   Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it.  Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.

I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.

Wrong.  No gays are created by God.  They have tried this with many other things also.  Its in the genes.  Obesity, Alcoholism, drug addiction.

Many public schools have councilors who are gay for just that purpose.  To spot the loners.  The ones who don't fit in.  Boys who may be sensitive or don't like sports.  If I child wants to play with girls instead of boys.............etc.  Parents who think my child likes to cook instead of throw mud balls, he must be gay! 

I was always a tomboy type of girl.  Loved to get dirty and play soccer with the boys.  I still like to wear guys clothes to work. Big baggy shirts for the warehouse in the winter.  They are comfortable.  I am not gay.

We all make our own choices when we become old enough to begin sinning.  I know that my brother who is gay grew up without his father paying attention to him.  I cannot know exactly what put him there.  But he wasn't born gay.  It was the same for him that it was for me.  All of the attention was spent on our older siblings.  My father spent a lot of time away from home.  My mother was sick.

[INVAR]

But one's sexual orientation - that's inborn.

Horseshit.  That is LEARNED Behavior.

When I was little, I had an orientation to take things that were not mine.  That was an inborn desire and impulse.  I had to be corrected of that behavior.

You gonna take the side of Pedophiles too, whom will tell you that their 'orientation' of sex with children is inborn?  Of course you will.  You are a Promoter of Deviancy and wickedness.  You simply will not showcase yourself to be in favor of that now - because it is still repugnant to the majority, but once that sickening behavior is 'normalized' via the courts, we fully expect you to be their primary crusader with the same exact garbage excuses and logic that you employ for homosexual behavior.

My position is that a person can be faithful, honest, obedient and true - and be married to one's same sex partner.   Your position is all that counts for nothing.

Boy are you in for a surprise on Judgment Day.

   
I'm saying that sin being washed clean by prayerful repentance is too easy.  You need to have good works too.   Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.   I know you disagree - I've been having this debate on the internet for years.

Yeah, it's called OVERCOMING.  Faith without works is dead.  But you are promoting DEAD WORKS, SIN as some kind of Godly virtue when it is abhorrent of God and earns you eternal death for practicing and promoting.

Put it another way:   Your position is one of hubris - you know without doubt that you are saved.   Mine is one of humility - I know without doubt that I am unworthy,  and throw myself on His mercy.   

That's a start.  But if you throw yourself on HIS mercy  - why do you refuse to do as HE says, and instead insist you your own way and justify that which He says is wicked?

“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?   I will show you what it’s like when someone comes to me, listens to my teaching, and then follows it.  It is like a person building a house who digs deep and lays the foundation on solid rock. When the floodwaters rise and break against that house, it stands firm because it is well built.   But anyone who hears and doesn’t obey is like a person who builds a house without a foundation. When the floods sweep down against that house, it will collapse into a heap of ruins.” - Luke 6:46-48

“‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” - Matthew 15:8-9

[Cripplecreek]

Perhaps a small percentage of gays fit this.   Others are abused or suffer some kind of traumatic experience.  For others its the influence of others during their formative period.   Take a weak or vulnerable person and add drugs or alcohol and when another person trys something they are more likely to go with it.  Add it that it feels good and they get the positive reinforcement of "social acceptance" and thats how you recruit.

I know several lesbians who switched after a bad marriage or breakup with a guy.

I recognized it when they started trying to manipulate us in sex ed classes when I was in middle school. At a time when kids are most insecure and seeking acceptance they told us that all normal boys and girls have homosexual thoughts and feelings. They miscalculated with us. We were rural kids and already pretty secure in who we were so we recognized the lie for what it was.

Interestingly enough, it was around that time that they started with the great witch hunt for child molestation rings in churches (Primarily Baptist). The tiny little town I live in was where one of the biggest cases where some 25 children under 10 years old were taken from their homes to live with foster families. The whole case collapsed when it emerged that the children were being coached to testify against their parents and other church members.

The love of deviancy and a hate for Christianity go hand in hand and we can always spot the progressive infection among us because of that partnership.

[musiclady]

You are a hoot. You are changing the subject. You said majority of men do not view porn and I showed you stats otherwise. The stats for non Christian men is over 90 percent if I recall.
Where did I say porn wasn't bad. I said up thread many men have problems with it but most who view it don't. Numerous men have said in studies they used porn rather than adultery or divorce. That is a fact.
Speak to a marriage counselor who isn't a feminist and they will tell you what is breaking up marriages and it is not porn. Porn is not even in the top ten reasons for divorce.
@musiclady

You know, @mirraflake - you get your kicks by calling me a liar (when I haven't lied about a single thing), but then you claim I said the majority of men don't view porn when I never said anything of the sort.  I said there are many who don't.  Your "stats' don't prove me wrong.  They actually prove me right.

Your initial argument in your stupid thread was that there weren't any men who didn't view porn.  All I have ever said is that there are many men who don't give in to porn (including my husband, whom you vilely accused), who choose  NOT to degrade women as you do, and who strive to live Godly lives.

Your defense of the use of porn is a defense of sex trafficking and degradation of women. (They are connected)  It is YOU who are ignorant and choose to ignore, or have never even bothered to find out the FACTS about pornography, and the damage it causes to men who use it, to their wives, and to their families........ not to mention the victims of sex slavery who 'star' in many of the porn films you defend.

But do go on and keep your head deep in the sand and defend its use to your heart's delight if it makes you feel superior, or manly, or whatever the heck you do this for.......

@mirraflake

Last post to you. 

[musiclady]

Eh, you would not stand being corrected for mis-characterizing a War's beginnings, so I get back on topic by going after the corruption of a word in the English language that actually has something to do with this thread. 

I never said you did it.  Where did you read that?

What I "would not stand for" is this thread being turned into a ceaseless argument about a war that took place a hundred and fifty years ago when my ancestors were happily living in Sweden.

That's all I was doing.  I have NO idea what you were/are doing......

But I will say this.  I'm glad the North won because I wouldn't want all my wonderful southern friends living in a different country than I do.

Peace, Johnny Reb!   

[roamer_1]

Merely thinking about sex is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?

Masturbation as an alternative to cheating on one's spouse is not adultery.  Let's not cheapen the sin, shall we?     

That isn't cheapening the sin. It shows how vile the act is, that the mere thought of it is sin - And that is according to Yeshua. If you think about doing it, you've already done it. And he's right. In your mind, you just degraded some woman, and dishonored your own wife.

As to masturbation, our sex-crazed culture has generated a new malady, where men are so fixated on pleasing themselves and feeding their obsession, that they are incapable of actually performing the act with a real woman anymore.

That isn't what it's for.

[roamer_1]

The truth is that many of the women degraded and abused in the porn (that is supposedly innocent??) have been the sex slaves of evil men and have been forced to be in the movies that some poor fellows need to satisfy their desires.

@musiclady

It isn't always that drastic - there are plenty of women with morals loose enough to partcipate... In just about anything.

But that does not change the fact that the centerfold or that stripper in the bar, is somebody's daughter... Someone's grandchild. She is not only degrading herself.

That is what spoiled all my fun. What I see is somebody's pitiful, misguided daughter. That cannot turn me on.

[musiclady]

@musiclady

It isn't always that drastic - there are plenty of women with morals loose enough to partcipate... In just about anything.

But that does not change the fact that the centerfold or that stripper in the bar, is somebody's daughter... Someone's grandchild. She is not only degrading herself.

That is what spoiled all my fun. What I see is somebody's pitiful, misguided daughter. That cannot turn me on.

Absolutely.  There are women who are immoral enough to do porn on their own, but many, many, many have either been abused as young girls or trafficked and sold (as early as 5 or 6, and sometimes by their families), and when they get older they feel they have no other options.

My point (with which I'm sure you agree) is that pornography degrades women, whether they choose to degrade themselves, or they are trapped and owned by pimps who force them into pornography.

And I fully believe that it diminishes, entraps and emasculates the men who view it.



btw, since this is a thread about NC's wise decision to restore their ban on same-sex "marriage" I will reiterate my support of a state making laws suitable for their particular state without interference from the federal government.

[Chosen Daughter]

Horseshit.  That is LEARNED Behavior.

When I was little, I had an orientation to take things that were not mine.  That was an inborn desire and impulse.  I had to be corrected of that behavior.

You gonna take the side of Pedophiles too, whom will tell you that their 'orientation' of sex with children is inborn?  Of course you will.  You are a Promoter of Deviancy and wickedness.  You simply will not showcase yourself to be in favor of that now - because it is still repugnant to the majority, but once that sickening behavior is 'normalized' via the courts, we fully expect you to be their primary crusader with the same exact garbage excuses and logic that you employ for homosexual behavior.

Boy are you in for a surprise on Judgment Day.

Yeah, it's called OVERCOMING.  Faith without works is dead.  But you are promoting DEAD WORKS, SIN as some kind of Godly virtue when it is abhorrent of God and earns you eternal death for practicing and promoting.

That's a start.  But if you throw yourself on HIS mercy  - why do you refuse to do as HE says, and instead insist you your own way and justify that which He says is wicked?

“So why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord!’ when you don’t do what I say?   I will show you what it’s like when someone comes to me, listens to my teaching, and then follows it.  It is like a person building a house who digs deep and lays the foundation on solid rock. When the floodwaters rise and break against that house, it stands firm because it is well built.   But anyone who hears and doesn’t obey is like a person who builds a house without a foundation. When the floods sweep down against that house, it will collapse into a heap of ruins.” - Luke 6:46-48

“‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” - Matthew 15:8-9

Exactly these are learned behaviors.  Gays are manipulated by many experiences.  I know a lesbian who changed her identity after abuse by boyfriend.  Boys who were abused or lacked father attention.  Bullying at school.  It is most likely they seek people who have had the same bad experiences that they had.  Schools now look to make children gay.  My kids were conditioned in school to think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and that all forms of sex are good. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What I "would not stand for" is this thread being turned into a ceaseless argument about a war that took place a hundred and fifty years ago when my ancestors were happily living in Sweden.

That's all I was doing.  I have NO idea what you were/are doing......

But I will say this.  I'm glad the North won because I wouldn't want all my wonderful southern friends living in a different country than I do.

Peace, Johnny Reb!   

what I am doing is ensuring history is properly reflected.

When some like you choose to attempt to change history, I will not stand by idly watching.

 It is like the liberal agenda: people who do not agree with it and remain silent allows it to grow, hence this thread to not be silent.

Curious, if your ancestors were happy to live in Sweden, why would they come here, anyway?

[musiclady]

what I am doing is ensuring history is properly reflected.

When some like you choose to attempt to change history, I will not stand by idly watching.

 It is like the liberal agenda: people who do not agree with it and remain silent allows it to grow, hence this thread to not be silent.

Curious, if your ancestors were happy to live in Sweden, why would they come here, anyway?

It was my grandparents who came to America and none of them was alive during the war across the ocean that has many names.  It was long over by the time they came in the late 19th and early 20th century.

They came for religious and economic freedom.

Now are we done with this silly hijack?   Back on topic, eh??  Done with lectures and all that??   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It was my grandparents who came to America and none of them was alive during the war across the ocean that has many names.  It was long over by the time they came in the late 19th and early 20th century.

They came for religious and economic freedom.

Now are we done with this silly hijack?   Back on topic, eh??  Done with lectures and all that??   

I can see you missed my point entirely concerning correction of agendas.