The good people of North Carolina made a statement that must be heard and appreciated. We live in an age of liberal activist judges shredding the Constitution by forcing people to accept a controversial way of life that they may or may not agree with by not allowing the people to vote on Gay marriage but instead, they force laws on the people. The same is true with the legalization of abortion. If the people were ever able to vote on the issue, abortion would become illegal almost overnight since much of the country is against it. But, that is how liberal legal activism works, you do not allow the people to vote, you just force laws upon them.
North Carolina took preventative measures and voted in an amendment to state that legal marriage is between one man and one woman. This deflates the pro gay marriage crowd. Here are the results of the vote.
I do not agree with gay marriage for many reasons. First and foremost, it is a diabolical attack on God and His people. Here are some articles that I have written to explain why I am against gay marriage and why it is diabolical.
I am just glad that democracy is still respected in some aspects in the USA and the people are allowed to vote. When we get to vote, we either vote down an amendment for gay marriage or we vote for an amendment to make marriage between one man and one woman. America is still a nation of Christians (for now).
Another great victory for NC. Not. Amendment one continues – increases even – the discriminatory stance of bible followers against their fellow citizens.
As an editorial in the Raleigh News and Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/05/2044515/the-marriage-amendment-1875.html) points out, maybe it should really be called Amendment Two:
Aha, back to mixing up race and morality are we? Have a nice time with that. The people have spoken. When we have a chance to vote then we choose traditional marriage instead of judiciary activism. Glad the democratic process is still available in most of the States in the USA.
Nice try to mask the bigotry and misogyny of the bible by making it look like one doesn’t count and the other is OK.
Race (not a choice, genetics) vs homosexuality (sexual immorality), a clear choice. I know why you want to “confuse” the two but it does not. Reality is reality. Again, the democratic process has proven the people’s desires (unlike in Mass. etc.)
I think you need to revisit the dictionary to get a better understanding of the words “bigotry” and “misogyny”.
That you’re still confusing being gay with something you choose shows how out of touch with reality you are.
There is no scientific proof that homosexuals are born homosexual, just theory with little to know evidence other than “it just has to be that way”. Like the theory of evolution, “it is either true or we just need more time to prove it” 😀
I noticed elsewhere on the blog that you didn’t know what a theory was. Or perhaps you actually do, which makes misrepresenting it even worse.
The theory of evolution has been proven correct many times over. It’s pretty safe to say that no-one who actually understands what a theory is (in the scientific sense of the word) thinks that evolution is not true.
A scientific theory is not the same as a theory in the common usage sense, regardless of what believers try to tell us when they try to compare the scientific theory of evolution to the crackpot theory of creation. They are trying to raise creationism up to some level of equivalence with evolution. A scientific theory is an explanation for something. An explanation that is shown to be correct in all ways that can be tested. Any predictions that the theory make (eg, about how something will react under certain conditions) are also shown to be correct, in the real world. That’s how a hypothesis becomes a scientific theory. That’s how evolution became a scientific theory. That is, evolution works and has consistently been shown to work.
And there are many (many) scientists out there trying their hardest to break that theory. Because if they do, then they’ll be famous as being the ones to prove the theory wrong.
I would advise you to take a look at this column, arguing against the facts of the argument and not the person (if you can).
“Far from chastely refusing to acknowledge miracles, evolutionists are the primary source of them. These aren’t chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen burners. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary — including, for example, the entire fossil record — is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like “our evidence didn’t fossilize.” — P.244-245
How many times has the evolutionary process been reproduced in the lab (a key element in the scientific process)? The only thing that can be produced is variable change in a species yet it still remains part of the species. A virus that is altered is still a virus. Fruit flies are altered (by intelligent design through breading) yet they are still flies. There is no evidence of Darwinian evolution, just improvable theories.
With Darwinians, it is all about the rhetoric, not the actual scientific proof.
“The single greatest victory of the Darwiniacs is in the realm of rhetoric, not science. They have persuaded the slumbering masses that anyone who questions the theory of evolution must do so out of religious fervor. P.246-247
Oh dear, Erik. Ann Coulter? Seriously? The only good thing about your link is that this time you’re not linking to something that you wrote yourself, as proof of an argument that you’re currently defending. Yay circular reasoning 😐
The main reason I stopped reading Godless was because I couldn’t work out from the text whether she wasn’t some form of very elaborate Poe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). Of course, the stuff she was writing was just plain daft and completely projected (ie, she projected everything that fundies do onto atheists). Fundies just can’t seem to understand that atheism is not a religion. No-one with a working brain could read that book and not weep.
But the main difference between believers and atheists is always that atheists are allowed to say that we don’t know, whereas the church isn’t. So it sticks to its dogma, regardless of the evidence. Atheists don’t start out with the answer and then make the questions fit, as believers do. If anyone could provide credible evidence for god, then I for one (and probably most atheists as well) would be happy to believe.
As I said, attack the argument and not the person. 🙂 (Ann is not a fundamentalist Christian btw)
There is plenty of proof for the existence of God. I can give 3 credible proofs.
I should probably also mention that if you could provide credible evidence for a god and I subsequently believed in it, then I’d expect it to explain all the bad stuff that it has allowed to happen. It wouldn’t get off scot-free – I would hold it accountable for the excruciatingly abysmal way it’s exercised its god-ness over us. But I would believe in it, because it would be real.
I realise that in your circles Ann Coulter is not regarded as a fundy, but it’s often easier to lump the crazies – sorry, believers – together because to the uninitiated, the differences are pretty small. And you all believe in ceiling cat.
But your three credible proofs? I was expecting more than 1) stories from your fairy tale book (even bits from the Lord of the Rings “come true” if you ignore the bits that don’t), 2) an artificial country, and 3) getting your own act together. Nothing in that list means goddidit. Unless you start from that unfounded premise and try to work backwards. As usual.
Over 90% of the many, many Biblical prophecies (written before they happened) have already come to pass. There are just a few that still have to take place. There is ample evidence but you do not want to do the work to see it. That does not mean that what is written is not true, it just means that you are either being ignorant on purpose or lazy.
The minute the Hebrews cease to exist, God will as well. That promise was made long ago, before Jesus Christ walked this earth. They have never ceased to exist and they never will. They were told that they would live in their land (as described in the Bible) and few thought it possible over the past 2,000 years but in 1948, it started happening (just as God said). My lifestyle change is just one example of many. I gave another with the Apostle Paul, a religious zealot, who hated Christ and Christians and had no reason to convert, was completely transformed and became a follower and promoted of the Resurrection of Christ.