Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[Nomad]

See, the reason I'm bigoted against religions isn't for the sake of homosexuality; it's for all the stupid, crazy things they say and try to force on other people, along with a number of truly horrific actions along the way that were endorsed and/or covered up by various churches. I also don't like being told how to think by others; I prefer to weigh issues on their merits and not come down on one side or another of complex social issues simply because a supposed authority figure in a fancy hat (as an example) tells me to.

Being bigoted against religions means I'm very unlikely to join a church group, but it doesn't mean that I'm pushing to ban religions in general or tell everyone else they're no longer allowed to go to church.

Wait, this sounds familiar somehow.

 

[ballen0351]

And if all else fails, you take lessons from Mahatma Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau and you work outside the system, and recognize that "right" and "legal" are two different things.

Correct they are different but we live in a world where legal is the only thing that matters. i think its wrong for a 16 year old to be able to have sex with a 40 year old but its legal here. Thats what we are forced to work with in. By all means fight to get it changed thats the american way. I have no problem with people changing their minds and changing the vote. I just dont like to see the Govt step in and "fix" things for our own good. In this case it may be justified for the Govt to fix it but what about the next time the Govt thinks it knows best. id rather not give them the power.

. Hell, follow the example of our founding fathers, because if they believed as you do, we'd have pictures of Queen Elizabeth on our money.

Not at all I think the Founding fathers are more along my belief they were never for an all powerful federal Govt they believed the states should run their states at they see fit.

The real disappointment for me here is your entire position is, "I agree that this isn't right, but what're you gonna do?" That is such an incredible copout.

Thats not at all my position. My position is the people should be free to run their state how they want. I dont live in NC so I shouldnt have a say in their laws. The pro-gay groups had just as much a chance as the anti-gay groups they both put their beliefs out and gave there pro and con arguments to the people and the people decided. The loosing side is free to keep trying. I hope they do. id rather the people decide on their own to reverse the law then the Govt to step in for our own good. Thepro-gay group can petition to get the law voted on again and again.

That's exactly the attitude that the rank and file soldiers plead when on trial for war crimes, or what people said when we sent American citizens to concentration camps. "I was just one person and they were putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Seemed okay at the time because we made it legal." "What can I do?"

Thats not true at all and in fact helps my argument. The internment camps were never voted on by the people it was the Fed Govt that knew what was best "for our own good" That was a presidential executive order and was never voted on. As far as I can tell it was never even voted for in congress. And it was upheld by the supreme court the "champions of civil rights" that everyone wants to come save NC.

Just the question irritates me. That's the essence of a victim mentality, someone who accepts no responsibility for bad things that happen, but you can be damned sure takes credit for the good things.

Im not taking credit for anything and im not playing any victim card. This country has a system thats not perfect but works. That system is based on the will of the people not the whim of the Govt.

Bottom line, you keep asking what people are going to do? Everyone in this thread has already done a lot more than you (who have admitted you agree that this is wrong). I have tried to articulate my beliefs in a way that is reasonable and focuses on what I think are the real crucial implications. Bob H. and a ton of others have done the same. You admit that you don't disagree. You just don't think anything can be done. Once again, I disagree

I never said nothign can be done. I said I dont want the Govt to decide for the people. There is plenty that can be done. The Pro-gay supporters need to get their postiton out in an way to help change the minds of the citizens of NC.

 

[Steve]

Correct they are different but we live in a world where legal is the only thing that matters. i think its wrong for a 16 year old to be able to have sex with a 40 year old but its legal here. Thats what we are forced to work with in. By all means fight to get it changed thats the american way. I have no problem with people changing their minds and changing the vote. I just dont like to see the Govt step in and "fix" things for our own good. In this case it may be justified for the Govt to fix it but what about the next time the Govt thinks it knows best. id rather not give them the power.
.

Okay. So, if Congress passed a law banning underage pregnancy and forcing any female under 21 who gets pregnant to abort the child, you'd be okay with it... if it was the law? Oh well... right? "legal is the only thing that matters." What if you were only allowed to have two children and after that the women were forced to have a hysterectomy to ensure zero population growth. If it were the law, you'd be fine with it? You'd help enforce it? Because "legal is the only thing that matters." You'd just say, "Aw shucks. I guess i didn't get my message out enough."

What if we voted on it and it won? They spent a lot of money getting out the no-teen pregnancy message and no one read the small print. Still okay. Right? Even more okay because we VOTED. Sweet. Must be right because it's LEGAL. Must be just because we passed a law.

You're all caught up in the voting thing, but you're arguing from a position of legality. Concentration camps were "legal" within the USA. We put American citizens in these camps. We forced them to leave their homes and their jobs and move into what were essentially jails. It was legal. It was not right. It was not just.

As I said before, it's attitudes like yours that allow things like that to happen.

 

[ballen0351]

Okay. So, if Congress passed a law banning underage pregnancy and forcing any female under 21 who gets pregnant to abort the child, you'd be okay with it... if it was the law? Oh well... right? "legal is the only thing that matters."

Would I be ok with it? NO Could it happen? Sure if you got enough people to vote for it. You seem to think the Govt knows best and they will of the people should not matter.

What if you were only allowed to have two children and after that the women were forced to have a hysterectomy to ensure zero population growth. If it were the law, you'd be fine with it?

Nope Id not be fine with it. Im not fine with outlawing gay marriage either but I think it needs to be left up to the people to make that choice not the Govt. If that were proposed Id try to make sure it wouldnt pass. If it passed Id try to get more votes and bring it back up for a vote again or Id move.

You'd help enforce it? [/qote]
I enforce several laws I dont agree with. Seatbelts for instance if you dont want to wear them why should it matter to me? But once a year we have Operation Click it or ticket and I go out and write people $50 seatbelt tickets its my job.

Because "legal is the only thing that matters."

Sorry thats life. The law says no gays can marry in NC and guess what you can moan all you want about it not being fair but its the law.

You'd just say, "Aw shucks. I guess i didn't get my message out enough."

No Id go about trying to change people opinions but I wouldnt expect the Govt to come to the rescue for my own good.

What if we voted on it and it won? They spent a lot of money getting out the no-teen pregnancy message and no one read the small print. Still okay. Right? Even more okay because we VOTED. Sweet. Must be right because it's LEGAL. Must be just because we passed a law.

I never said right and legal were the same. But LEGAL is the only thing thats enforcable. Just because its right does not make it legal and jut because its legal dont male it right. Id MUCH rather the people make that decision then the Feds. Id rather have the people take longer to make the right choice then allow the Govt the power to make things all better because this time they may fix Gay marriage for the good of the people and next week they may take away Guns, or freedom of speech for the good of the people. The People are supposed to run the Govt not the other way around.

You're all caught up in the voting thing, but you're arguing from a position of legality. Concentration camps were "legal" within the USA. We put American citizens in these camps. We forced them to leave their homes and their jobs and move into what were essentially jails. It was legal. It was not right. It was not just.

No Im arguing from the position of the peoples choice not the Govt. The people didnt make camps legal the president (Govt) did with an exec order. The PEOPLE never got a vote. The Govt said "we know whats best for you so shut up and take it"

As I said before, it's attitudes like yours that allow things like that to happen.

Nope its attitudes like yours that allowed the president to open the camps in the first place. Im of the belief that the States are allowed to run there states and so were the founding fathers that why we are the United STATES of america. Each state is free to be its own state. The fed is supposed to be limited in its power but its not that way anymore.

 

[Steve]

Would I be ok with it? NO Could it happen? Sure if you got enough people to vote for it. You seem to think the Govt knows best and they will of the people should not matter.

No way. Exactly the opposite in fact. And that you are saying this is just further indication that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.

 

[ballen0351]

No way. Exactly the opposite in fact. And that you are saying this is just further indication that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.

Maybe I dont. It sounds to me like you want the govt to step in and ignore the will of the people and change a law. Id rather have the people overturn the law themselves when they are ready. The outcome would be the same just the process would be different

 

[Josh Oakley]

Religious Education 101

Neither God nor Jesus make any comment on Homosexuality.

There are only 10 God-Given laws in the Old Testament.
The New Testament adds only 2 new God Given Laws.

Of those 12, none apply to homosexuality.

All other laws are man-issued, not god-given.

Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men.

Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate.

I obviously don't believe it, but there are plenty on this site that do.
However, I maintain that law being based on the bible is an affront to the first amendment.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[WC_lun]

Unless you believe, as many do, that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God, merely written by faithful men.

Under that worldview, all the laws in the old testament are the word of god, and the new testament as well. Therefore the biblical condemnations against homosexuality are a divine mandate, and not up for debate.

I obviously don't believe it, but there are plenty on this site that do.
However, I maintain that law being based on the bible is an affront to the first amendment.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The thing is Josh, hardly any Christian believes "that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God." There are so many things in the old testament that just aren't relevant in today's world, such as slavery laws. Other things, for instance wearing polycotton blend clothes or eating pork or shell fish, are just ignored. That means Christians are picking and choosing which laws of the old testament to follow. They are picking and choosing for reasons other than devine commandment.

 

[Josh Oakley]

The thing is Josh, hardly any Christian believes "that every jot and title of the bible is either the inspired or direct word of God." There are so many things in the old testament that just aren't relevant in today's world, such as slavery laws. Other things, for instance wearing polycotton blend clothes or eating pork or shell fish, are just ignored. That means Christians are picking and choosing which laws of the old testament to follow. They are picking and choosing for reasons other than devine commandment.

Whet here they follow it or not, anyone who believes the Bible is the literal word of god believes exactly that. And there are plenty of people who believe it.

It yes, they are indeed picking and choosing.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

Maybe I dont. It sounds to me like you want the govt to step in and ignore the will of the people and change a law. Id rather have the people overturn the law themselves when they are ready. The outcome would be the same just the process would be different

The way I see it, you're caught up in the mechanism for creating a law, and I'm suggesting that this is irrelevant in the face of an unjust law. At the point where we have a law that is clearly unjust, it doesn't matter by which pathway of stupidity it came to be, we have to step back and as a group identify it as unjust, articulate the ramifications of it and then do whatever we can to get rid of it.

There are a ton of stupid laws. This one sets a potentially far reaching and destructive precedent. Whether we (they) voted for it or it was passed through the State legislature, it remains a law that is clearly unjust and sets a very dangerous precedent of government enforced discrimination.

If anyone is hiding behind the pleaded skirt of the government, it is you, my friend, who is repeatedly retreating behind the rhetoric of legality.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.

Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot.

Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.
They fail at this alot unfortunately.

It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.

Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.

The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect. Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.

Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?

 

[Steve]

We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.

Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot.

Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.
They fail at this alot unfortunately.

It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.

Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.

The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect. Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.

Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?

Yes. As usual, Bob says exactly what I'm saying, but much more clearly and concisely. Particularly the part bolded.

 

[ballen0351]

we have to step back and as a group identify it as unjust, articulate the ramifications of it and then do whatever we can to get rid of it.
.

What Group gets to make the choice? According to national polls they are pretty much 50 / 50 split. Chage the geographic location for the poll and the south where NC is is much more anti gay marriage then pro gay marriage. So you say as a goup we need to identify it as unjust but where does this group come from and who gave this group that power to decide for the people whats just and unjust?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

What Group gets to make the choice? According to national polls they are pretty much 50 / 50 split. Chage the geographic location for the poll and the south where NC is is much more anti gay marriage then pro gay marriage. So you say as a goup we need to identify it as unjust but where does this group come from and who gave this group that power to decide for the people whats just and unjust?

Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?

To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.

There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?

If that answer is no, then allow the rights.

IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.
A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.
Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.
Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
etc.

 

[ballen0351]

We don't live in a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea, as it's easily abused to hurt minorities.
Part of the job of our government is to protect minority from the 'whim of majority'.

There is not much left of this modern Govt our Founding Fathers would agree with. Patroit Act, TSA screeners, Income tax, ect. The founding Faters were against a storng Fed Govt and believed the Ststes should be the biggest form of Govt. Ive read trasncripts of the constitution convention, and federalist papers and other doccuments written by our founding fathers most didnt want a fed govt at all and none wanted a Fed as powerful as we have today.
While its true we dont live in a true democracy we are a representitive democracy so the will of the people is taken into an account. And when there is a topic that the people feel is too important to leave up to the representitives then we do have a way to allow everyone to vote on it. So we do have a method to be a democracy on certain issues.

Everyone saying "respect the will of the people" need to understand, 'majority rules' means if enough people decide that your front lawn should be a parking lot, it's a parking lot.

That happens everyday. The Govt can take your property if it wishes all it need to do is say "it for the good of the people" and Poof your front yard has a side walk going thru it. Ask me how I know.

Another responsibility of our government, is to use checks and balances to defend peoples rights, and keep bad laws off the books or rapidly strike them down when they slip through.

So when are they going to start doing that? There are plenty of bad laws on the books. Clinton sigend the defense of family marriage act in 2006 which specifically had parts that are against the constitution and when is the checks and balances goign to start?

They fail at this alot unfortunately.

You think

It's not the purpose of our Constitution to take rights away, but to reinforce them as needed. The Bill of Rights was added as an afterthought, because the framers of our Constitution considered many of them to be so obvious as to not need to be spelled out.

The constitution was a Limit on the Federal Govt. Whatever was not put into it was to be left to the states to decide. Marriage laws were not put into the Constitution so its left up to the states to decide.

Federal Supreme Court decisions have affirmed marriage as a fundamental right, which makes all states anti-gay marriage laws questionable.

Supreme Court also affirmed Internment Camps were ok as well. The Patriot Act is Ok, ect , ect

The real shame here is that what really should be a personal matter, must be dragged out, millions wasted in legal fights, and lives put on hold for years, with all that time that could have been better spent, lost forever.

I agree we should have never allowed the Govt to get involved in marriage laws in the first place but people allowed the Govt in and now were stuck with it.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage will be legal nation wide. The trend is there, and it will happen within the next decade I expect. Bigots, haters, and fearmongers will continue to cry about it then, much as some still lament interracial relations, and interfaith relations. Which is another shame, that so much energy will continue to be expended on hate.

True and Id rather allow the people to decide that then the Govt tell us whats best for us. The trend has changed over the last 20 years and will contiune to change.

Imagine what we could achieve if we stopped hating?

You cant legislate kindness or understanding

 

[ballen0351]

Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?

Ask it to who? They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no

To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.
There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?
If that answer is no, then allow the rights.

Again who are we asking? And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?

IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.

to you but others say it does hurt society

A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.

Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys

Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.

To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society

Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
etc.

Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion. It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.

 

[Steve]

Ask a simple question: Are we denying someone rights, and is that the intent of the Constitution?

To me, rights denial should be a sign it's wrong.

There are exceptions, almost all of which fall under a second question: Does this rights grant do harm?

If that answer is no, then allow the rights.

IE: 2 men marrying hurts no one.
A pedophile retaining custody of a child, risks hurts the child.
Allowing a law abiding citizen a gun hurts no one.
Allowing a convicted killer a gun, risks hurting someone.
etc.

Yes, yes. A thousand times, yes.

 

[granfire]

Ask it to who? They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no


Again who are we asking? And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?


to you but others say it does hurt society

Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys

To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society

Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion. It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.

man you are ornery this week!

:lfao:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ask it to who? They asked that very question to the people of NC and by almost 2 to 1 they said no


Again who are we asking? And what if the people you ask say yes it does do harm and you dont agree?


to you but others say it does hurt society

Again to you its wrong to groups like NAMBLA its a natural and healthy thing for young boys

To you it hurts no one to the Brady Campaign it hurts society

Thats all YOUR opinion there are others that have a different opinion. It only becomes good and moral when 51% of the people agree with your opinion.

Ask yourself.

NC didn't ask these questions.

If they think is does harm, they can justify it.
"It lessens my marriage" Really? How?
"Gods against it.", No, he's silent on the subject.
"Jesus preached against it." No, he was silent on the subject.
"It's against my faith". So what? They aren't your faith, so why should they follow your rules?
"It hurts society" Prove it.
"It changes the definition of traditional". That's been changing for a millennium.

 

[ballen0351]

man you are ornery this week!

:lfao:

This is a serious topic to me. It has nothing to do with Steve being allowed to marry Bill or janet allowed to marry sally.

It about states rights to run its state how it sees fit. It about we as a people rolling over and saying"Oh mighty fed govt were too stupid to make our own laws please save us from ourselves." Sometimes we make bad decisions but its less often then how many bad decisions our Govt has made in the name or Our own good.