Poll: Half of NC adults oppose marriage amendment

don't hate appreciate... Gays are ppl to

I'm a 32 year old straight male who went to college here in Wilmington. I can say with impunity that a vast majority of the people I went to college with are fine with gay marriage. In fact in four years I met at the most two people who opposed it when it came up in conversation and those two people were force fed religion from birth. Why shouldn’t two human beings be afforded the same rights as anyone else? Well, hardly anyone seems to mind if they are afforded the right to grow up and think for themselves. The reason why half the state has a problem with gay marriage is religion. If anything should be banned, its religion in all public places and the government should have mandatory classes for children from an early age to deprogram them so they can think for themselves. Believing in the supernatural has warped the ignorant's minds. It's all made by man to make you feel better about life and it was originally developed by kings to exert control. Now those people who are afraid to think for themselves use it for the same thing in modern times. Even if you older religious fanatics brainwash your kids with fear, bigotry and mysticism, over time as society advances it will fade out in advance cultures. Just look at how many people are religious now compared to 100 years ago or even ten. The world is getting smarter and with intelligence comes the exit of arcane beliefs like religion and the idea that marriage is something holy.

God clearly and unmistakably shows in Romans that those who practice homosexuality and lesbianism are worthy of death. They shall surely perish unless they repent. It is written: Ro 1:18-32-FOR THE WRATH OF GOD IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AGAINST ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or wickedness) OF MEN, WHO HOLD (or suppress) THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or by their wickedness); BECAUSE THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOWN (ABOUT) GOD IS MANIFEST IN (or plain to) THEM; FOR GOD HATH SHEWED (or made) IT UNTO THEM. FOR THE INVISIBLE THINGS OF HIM FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ARE CLEARLY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, EVEN HIS ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD (or divine nature); SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE: BECAUSE THAT, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, THEY (NEITHER GLORIFIED HIM) AS GOD, NEITHER WERE THANKFUL; BUT BECAME VAIN (or futile) IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS (or thinking), AND THEIR FOOLISH HEART WAS DARKENED. (ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED) TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS, AND CHANGED THE GLORY OF THE UNCORRUPTIBLE (or immortal) GOD INTO AN IMAGE (to look like) CORRUPTIBLE MAN, AND TO BIRDS, AND (ANIMALS AND REPTILES). WHEREFORE GOD ALSO GAVE THEM (OVER) TO (SINFUL DESIRES) THROUGH THE LUSTS (or sexual impurity) OF THEIR OWN HEARTS, TO DISHONOUR THEIR OWN BODIES BETWEEN THEMSELVES (or for the degrading of their bodies with one another-NIV): 25-(THEY) CHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD INTO A LIE, AND WORSHIPPED AND SERVED THE CREATURE (or created things) (RATHER) THAN THE CREATOR, WHO IS BLESSED FOR EVER. AMEN. FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS (or shameful lusts): FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE (or their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones-NIV): The women became lesbians. AND (IN THE SAME WAY) THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN (or the men also abandoned natural relations with women-NIV), BURNED IN THEIR LUST (or were inflamed with lust) ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN (COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN-NIV), AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES (THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION-NIV). AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT (THINK IT WORTHWHILE) TO RETAIN (THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD), GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE (or depraved) MIND, TO DO (WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE-NIV); BEING FILLED WITH ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS (or every kind of wickedness), FORNICATION, WICKEDNESS, COVETOUSNESS, MALICIOUSNESS; FULL OF ENVY, MURDER, DEBATE, DECEIT, MALIGNITY; WHISPERERS (or gossips), 30-BACKBITERS (or slanderers), HATERS OF GOD, DESPITEFUL, PROUD (or arrogant), BOASTERS, (THEY INVENT WAYS OF DOING EVIL-NIV), (THEY DISOBEY THEIR PARENTS-NIV), WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING (or senseless), COVENANTBREAKERS (or faithless), WITHOUT NATURAL AFFECTION (or homosexual), IMPLACABLE (or heartless), UNMERCIFUL (or ruthless): WHO KNOWING THE JUDGMENT OF GOD (or although they know God’s righteous decree-NIV), THAT THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF (or deserve) DEATH, (THEY NOT ONLY CONTINUE TO DO THESE THINGS BUT ALSO-NIV) HAVE PLEASURE IN THEM (or also approve of those who practice-NIV) THEM.

Had the truth be known, and the count accurate.. Most likele well more than half of NC would oppose gay marriage. God made Adam and Eve.. not Adam and Steve... If you do not like the NC laws, move to San Francisco where you will be welcomed without prejudice and with open arms. Leave our great state alone.. Poor Jesse Helms must be rolling over in his grave by now.

Like it or not, homosexuals should be entitled to the same legal rights and protections as heterosexuals. Since you're re-inventing the word "marriage" if you include homosexuals, the government needs to register domestic partnerships only for hetero- and homosexuals. We live in a secular society....and who is the government to "license" your marriage in the first place? Why do we tolerate that kind of crap? As far as your priest, rabbi, or minister "marrying you," get real. Men and woman marry, not two men nor two women. The Constitution is quite clear in its demand for equal treatment under law. The Bible, Torah, and Koran are also quite clear in their teachings. You can't have it both ways, people. Yes, you deserve equal rights under law, but if you're expecting major relions to tell you that God changed his mind, or that they made a mistake in their teachings, you've got a long wait. Many. many people are simply not going to accept the elevation of what is nothing more than a simple sexual abnormality to a blessed lifestyle.

Sorry, but the bible has been around much longer than the US Constitution. I guess you have to decide if you want to live by the laws of man or the laws of God. Personally, I'll take my chances believing in the bible. If you look around you, you will see what the laws of man have brought to us.

Some of these posts are really troubling to me. To the non-believers of the Bible: We Christians are tired of you not being "open" to what Christianity is while, at the same time, calling us "close-minded." This country still is the greatest country in the world because of the Christian principles adopted at its inception. Without which, I might add, you wouldn't have the freedom to make the comments you make...so don't be hypocrits. To the Christians: We know what times are these and these are those topics that indirectly threaten our very individual freedoms....the new "order" of the new administration. That is what's reflected here. Sad, but we Christians know how the story ends, right?

The US Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that no government entity may create law respecting any given religion or their beliefs. To choose, regarding the creation of any law, the specific religious beliefs of any one religion is clear violation of the US Constitution. Therefore, the use of religious beliefs as argue either for or against marriage of ANY kind makes the argument unconstitutional. Since not all citizens share the same religion or sect of a relition, all quotes from religious text are deemed null and irrelevant. In effect, what you decide to do within your own church and what religious traditions you choose to uphold or not is your Right within the confines of your own religious structure. HOWEVER, that Right ends at the door. When involving legal Rights, the US Constitution and all levels of legal government should be neutral. Misinterpretation, intentional and otherwise, has, however, led to the near nullifying of the US Constitution by theological tin-pot-dictator-wannabes. The simple fact is that the US Constitution provides the Right of individuals to legally (again, as opposed to religiously) enter into a contractual union, legally referred to as marriage. There is no copyright on the word "marriage". There is absolutely no logical reason to, under a NEUTRAL legal system, segregate types of marriage by using different terms. No intelligent, logical, reason whatsoever. Religious arguments, again, are irrelevant to the issue of the legal system. Making nonsensical, illogical, arguments about anything outside of two (or even more, but that's a more complicated issue, mostly on technical grounds) consenting Human adults entering into such an arrangment is further evidence that the one making such arguments is completely ignorant, uneducated, and most likely believes that lies and deceit are "moral" acts to use in the argument. Non-Humans have not been granted legal protection under the US Constitution and therefore cannot give consent. The issue of minors in the argument is actually seperate as the issue of the Rights of children and consent bear in a great many issues, including marriage, heterosexual OR homosexual, and therefore should be handled as a broad, seperate argument. The issue of marriage to direct relatives is also irrelevant. Again, like it or not, when dealing with adults only, consentually, WHY deny such an arrangment? That issue has to be dealt with in broad terms, not just homosexually or heterosexually. And children of relatives, see above on consent and children. The comparison of adults where one adult may have mental disabilities is also irrelevant because it comes back to the issue of consent and what consent is defined as and who can actually give consent. Also, the argument that marriage is for the procreation of children is clearly proven false. Again, it is merely a BELIEF, not a FACT. Pregnancy occurs without a marriage contract. And sterility occurs even between married couples. Indeed, married heterosexual couples who adopt children are no less married. The issue of individuals and/or groups not liking certain types of consenting relationships is not new. Nor is it new in law. Decades ago, interracial marriage was also illegal, even here in the US. Many argued on religious grounds that it was an "abomination" to mix races. Go to Wikipedia and look up "interracial marriage" and follow links on legality regarding that for proof. So this argument comes down to individuals who have no intention of marrying someone of the same gender. Whose beliefs will not change if other consenting adults marry someone of the same gender. And whose lives will not be changed positively OR negatively should two individuals marry. Those opposing such marriage will not be required to be friends with, talk to, associate with, or even know those consenting adults who marry someone of the same gender. Therefore, the argument that including homosexual unions under the LEGAL definition of marriage will NOT deny ANYONE else who has no intentions of marrying someone of the same gender their Rights nor will it cause them grief or harm. Das, a challenging argument about choice or genetics has always been bisexuality. But, then, if I dig specific enough, the SEXUALITY of bisexuality would genetic. But the specific individual that the bisexual individual chooses to have a relationship with becomes the choice. I wonder if it's a genetic leaning one way or the other or if it's a choice like a preference for people of a certain build or a preference for red heads or just random. It's amazing, though, how little bisexuality comes up in discussions, though. And, for the record, someone brought up the American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association, against references to the American PSYCHIATRIC Association. The claim was that the Psychological association referred to homosexuality a being deviant behavior. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis Try again. While they admit there are varying scientific views, the "deviant behavior" seems to be more acts committed by the bigots and abusers who discriminate, make false claims against, and verbally, mentally, physically, and/or sexually abuse individuals based on the preception that homosexuality is "abnormal". In fact, that very page points out homosexuality throughout various cultures and history. The fact is, I don't even need to be homosexual, let alone desire a homosexual relationship, to argue that defining, legally, a limitation on legal marriage is clearly a violation of the US Constitution, as has been many acts by tin-pot-dictator-wannabes who want to subvert the US Constitution to create a Theological Dictatorship in the US. So, spout all the biblical rhetoric and bigotry you can. It is, under the US Constitution, irrelevant to the issue of what a neutral legal system SHOULD be. You may argue that politicians side with your bigotry, hate, ignorance, lies, and deceit all you want. When it comes to those particular politicians, I question their honor, ethics, and loyalty to the US Constitution and its intended neutrality. Andrew