NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, May 8, 2012.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Sounds reasonable to me.

    Now, all that's left is to get the legislation passed.
     
  2. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    There's a book, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman that is a fascinating account of the many errors in translations from the original texts of the Bible. I mentions numerous components, including the problematics involved in translating material, the errors by scribes writing in ancient Green (with its lack of spaces), handwriting issues, etc.

    It also talks about how the books of the New Testament have been altered to fit certain agendas, like those relating to women, the early power of the church or how the blame for the death of Jesus was shifted towards the Jews from the Romans as the schism between the Christians and Jews became more apparent (as well as the need for Christians to placate the Romans around AD 70 during the destruction of Jerusalem).
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    1. "Begun" to call for? History, much?
    2. I'm unclear as to how honoring the wishes of 60% of the voting populace is, "detrimental" to society. That is, unless you mean, "detrimental to the wishes of the minority opinion you personally hold"?
    3. So, the theocrats accuse anyone who fails to follow their belief system as being, "un-American" (I don't recall seeing this anywhere associated with this story, but I trust that you have, somewhere)....so what does that make those who supported it in the eyes of those who opposed it? If claiming that a personal belief should be entitled to universal acceptance is the problem here, how come it only seems to matter when it's the right who is doing it, instead of the left? More simply, how are you - the opposition to the amendment - more "correct" in believing that everyone should be "for" the allowance of gay marriage, but "they" - the proponents of the amendment - are wrong when they require the same? Shouldn't it always be wrong, no matter from whence it came, or to what end it seeks? I believe so.

    And when this occurs, and divergent opinions collide, I also believe that the majority should rule, which seems to be exactly what happened here....so, what again is the problem with that, exactly?
     
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Sorry, are you saying that this trait is exclusively unique to Christians / those of religious faith?
     
  5. hallowed_hill

    hallowed_hill Active Member

    I'm familiar with the book. Unlike Ehrman, however, the textual variants that exist actually increase my confidence in our texts' faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Well, not the variants themselves per se. But the remarkable integrity and consistency that exists for the massive amount of literature we have. It far exceeds anything else from antiquity. I actually think Timothy Paul Jones's criticism of Ehrman's book blows it away.
     
  6. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Why, are we talking about other people? And how do other people use objects of faith to justify their cultural constructs? I would say that those people simply have their own perceptions of society and don't need the justification through a "third party".
     
  7. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Sorry, you guys must have missed Mark 24:60 (which would struggle to more clearly define it than this, I think):

    Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

    Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?

    "I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

    Or this,

    In John chapter 11 we read Jesus talking with Martha after the death of her brother Lazarus. Martha says to Jesus, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus then says to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” So what is Martha’s response to Jesus claiming to bestow eternal life and claiming to be the resurrection and the life?

    “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” (John 11:27)

    Or, this:

    in Matthew 16. Jesus asks Peter, “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

    “Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:15-16

    And how does Jesus respond?

    “Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17)

    I am surprised that so many seem to believe this "never claimed" argument, and that it was so easily refuted. Curious.
     
  8. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    I often wonder how many times Tenny D got stung my hornet's when he was a kid when he walked up and kicked their nest.......
     
  9. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Eh, the Jones book is pretty weak. I admit, I have not read all of his book, but he does what a lot of apologists do, start from the conclusion and then work his way around it. He does little to refute anything of Ehrman's other than to offer faith as some kind of subsitute for evidence. It's been forever since I took a look at it, but that was my general remembrance of it.
     
  10. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I appreciate how strongly you feel about this, IP....but remind me what the passage of this amendment has to do with the struggle for racial equality, or the Bible?

    For the record, I must admit that I enjoy any argument, posed by anyone, who attempts to compare the struggles of blacks with that of homosexuals, as you may be apt to do (if I am lucky).

    Are you saying that the homosexual struggle for equality is similar to that of blacks? If so, how so - exactly? If not, then how do they differ, and does this explain how blacks have largely and long-since obtained it, while the homosexuals have made strides, have not achieved any measure of similar success, comparatively speaking? Late start, I guess?
     
  11. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    when it comes to the rights of a group i don't believe majority should rule. if so many groups in this country would have been run out 200 years ago (the irish, germans, chinese, whoever). i realize the slippery slope argument against this, but truly believe this will be something we will be embarassed by say 50 years from today just as we are now embarassed by not letting women vote, segregation, etc. anyway most current polls show 50% approval for gay marriage, so it's hardly a huge majority against it.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  12. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    It's the same?

    Please, do elaborate.
     
  14. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    how do you explain why many groups got rights before other groups? cultures change. thoughts change. do i believe homosexuals are currently as discriminated against as blacks in say the 30s. no. if we took away a lot of the legal and tax benefits of marriage than maybe we can argue that it's not a big deal to stop people from getting married, but these still exist.
     
  15. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Not IP, but I think any comparison hinges on whether you feel homosexuality is a choice. If not a choice then you could certainly find some similarity in the two. If a person cannot control how they are born, is it okay to treat them differently or deny similar access?
     
  16. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Lol just Tenny D being Tenny D.
     
  17. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    So what if you believe (as I do) that it is some type of combo of the two?

    What then?

    (Welcome to the board by the way. Post often!)
     
  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    How about simply repeating some nonsensical tripe that you might have used to previously shudder those Christians who, ostensibly, neither had access to "The Bible" or the fortitude to call you out on the abstract stupidity of such a claim?

    I assume that's better?

    Perhaps if you had performed even the most cursory and independent research into this (read: Google), as you chastise others for not having done, you would have long-since seen how ridiculous your assertion that he never claimed to be the Son of God to be? The reality is that you didn't care if it was actually correct, or even partially accurate, so long as it provided a convenient means of playing "gotcha" with the serpent handling bible-beating ignoramus' that happened across. Ammiright?
     
  19. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Jesus' deity? Blacks? The Bible? Church? And now 9/11?!?

    IP has gone nuclear rogue on this SOB.

    He's invoked a veritable list of the Super Friends of the Liberal Left.
     
  20. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Thanks for that and let me go ahead and out myself. I can only relate my experience and that of folks I know well, but I am 100% convinced that it is not a choice. I never made a conscious decision to be gay, I just was. I fought it for the majority of my life, prayed for it to go away, but it never did. It was extremely difficult to contend with until I finally accepted who I am. I was raised in a Christian home and was very active in church, but I have never been attracted to the opposite sex - ever. I could have married as some suggested I just needed to find the right girl, but decided that would be one of the worst things I could do to a woman - marry but not give wholly to her? Just seems like an awful thing to do. The only real choice I made was to finally accept who I am and enter into a same-sex relationship, so of that I am guilty. Interestingly enough my partner of 18 years was in seminary when we met, and is the son of a minister.

    I certainly respect your beliefs, this is simply my experience.
     

Share This Page