Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
We do, too. I'm actually in favor of religion only being taught in private schools. I was just being sarcastic with the guy.Oh America! This is why in Canada, we have Catholic schools and Public schools.0 -
I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.0
-
No it hasn't. It's banned teaching the tenets and beliefs of only Christianity. But that's not the same as banning religion. My sons both learned about Muslim beliefs when studying the ME, Hindu beliefs when studying India, and a lot of Chrisitanity when studying the Roman Empire, the Crusades, etc. The fact that the 10 Commandments aren't posted in their hallway, they don't learn that the Christian God created the world in 7 days, or they aren't being told that if they don't accept Jesus they will burn in hell doesn't mean they aren't being taught about religions in schools.
Quote mining????Quote mining much? :noway:
Our country has banned religion in public schools, courthouses, etc. That was my point.Which countries have banned religion - I need to move there!0 -
No one will come here to play........I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.0 -
Quote mining????Quote mining much? :noway:
Our country has banned religion in public schools, courthouses, etc. That was my point.Which countries have banned religion - I need to move there!
Yup. You quoted out of context.
Oh I thought you meant religion had been banned entirely. Nevermind, I'll stay here for a while yet then :laugh:
Anyway... off topic a bit, eh?0 -
Good grief, Bahet. I've addressed this a couple of times already. Let's try to have a debate about the issue instead of attacking Christianity. Shall we?No it hasn't. It's banned teaching the tenets and beliefs of only Christianity. But that's not the same as banning religion. My sons both learned about Muslim beliefs when studying the ME, Hindu beliefs when studying India, and a lot of Chrisitanity when studying the Roman Empire, the Crusades, etc. The fact that the 10 Commandments aren't posted in their hallway, they don't learn that the Christian God created the world in 7 days, or they aren't being told that if they don't accept Jesus they will burn in hell doesn't mean they aren't being taught about religions in schools.0 -
Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...0 -
I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.
I already answered this..... MAN ON DOG!!0 -
I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.
because we all agree that it shouldn't be lol, No one with an opposing view wants to step up apparently lol I guess they are afraid of us ganging up on them. Now we are all having our own debates within this debate lol, interesting ones though0 -
I can't follow this. It would be useful if usernames were linked to quotes, wouldn't it.0
-
And that's a bad thing? I think it's great. Now if we can just get religion out of Washington............Our country has banned religion in public schools, courthouses, etc. That was my point.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...0 -
I got it..................the toilet seat argument would become invalid.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...
Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought.
So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??0 -
I can't follow this. It would be useful if usernames were linked to quotes, wouldn't it.
Yes, yes it would
0 -
I got it..................the toilet seat argument would become invalid.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Then I say all marriages should be gay ones!!! I'm sure people have lost teeth over the toilet seat argument!0 -
I still have yet to hear one good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.
Because someone said that god said so! derp!0 -
This is awesome, by the way
(right click and select "view image" to see the full size)
0 -
Elizabeth, I found that to be hilarious.0
-
Elizabeth, I found that to be hilarious.
It is awesome.
Foamy's rant is also sufficiently awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KLMYaF_Xa8 0 -
To be fair to Dr. Laura, she never actually quoted Leviticus to support an anti-gay position.0
-
Im glad it didnt pass, as I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed. That said I dont bdlive the the state should b in the marriage business.
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
The comments on this threadr as bigoted as u claim ur opponents to be....
Think about that0 -
Nah, I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. I've seen plenty of gay people live very happily together and seen plenty of married people get divorced. I for one have no problem with it. If it's against your religion or if you just think it's "icky" then that's your opinion, and I believer everyone is free to their opinion.
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...
Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought.
So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??0 -
Im glad it didnt pass, as I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed. That said I dont bdlive the the state should b in the marriage business.
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
The comments on this threadr as bigoted as u claim ur opponents to be....
Think about that
Agreed! :drinker:
OMG this site annoys me with the resizing lol0 -
Is this really a debate thread or just a way to bash pplwho think differently?0
-
Im glad it didnt pass, as I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed. That said I dont bdlive the the state should b in the marriage business.
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
The comments on this threadr as bigoted as u claim ur opponents to be....
Think about that
The problem is that the law that was passed DID change the definition of marriage. It changed it to specifically say that it was between one man and one woman. The definition of marriage never said that before.
Here's the definition of marriage: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities. No mention of gender there.
I'm glad you're in favor of civil unions, that's a good thing. Amendment 1 just made those constitutionally illegal. Passing this law didn't change the current rights of gays. It changed the rights of future gays by making gay marriage and civil unions harder to become allowable by law. Gays have never been able to be married in NC, this law just makes it even harder for that to ever change.
May I ask why you are opposed to gay marriage? Also, why are you in favor of civil unions, but not marriage?0 -
I could offer a counter to all of this, and I'm a Christian!
0 -
No, really, we like to debate here. I think we can debate without bashing.Is this really a debate thread or just a way to bash pplwho think differently?0 -
Nah, I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. I've seen plenty of gay people live very happily together and seen plenty of married people get divorced. I for one have no problem with it. If it's against your religion or if you just think it's "icky" then that's your opinion, and I believer everyone is free to their opinion.
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...
Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought.
So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??
Are you somehow under the impression that I'm against gay marriage????0 -
Im glad it didnt pass, as I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed. That said I dont bdlive the the state should b in the marriage business.
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
The comments on this threadr as bigoted as u claim ur opponents to be....
Think about that
Why do you think the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed?0
This discussion has been closed.