• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

Well that's an unbiased and noninflammatory viewpoint.
 
I have not spoken with one single person who will actually admit to supporting this bill.
 
I have no clue. I trust that theres some truth to all of it, yes. I suspect there's another side to much of it.
 
DeacDiggler said:
Keeper doesn't count?
Click to expand...

Haven't actually spoken to him about it, but from my limited interactions with him I suspect he'd probably not even bring it up and if he did it would be framed hilariously.
 
Liquid Karma said:
I have not spoken with one single person who will actually admit to supporting this bill.
Click to expand...

I work with a woman who posts daily on facebook about voting yes. Normally I would hide her updates, but they are too dumb to ignore. The other day she was railing against Obama being in the top tax "pracket."
 
DeacDiggler said:
Well that's an unbiased and noninflammatory viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Everything in that is true. The amendment just goes beyond what current legislation says about gay rights in the state and damages the rights of heterosexuals who aren't married but are in long-term relationships or have personal non-contractual agreements over how to handle their children, estates, and finances at large.

One of my political science professors says that if (when) this passes she believes that it will be challenged almost immediately as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment under the premise that this is nearly identical to the way the majority opinion addresses the claims from Romer v. Evans and does not achieve a legitimate state objective. I guess the sticking point would be A) Will the Supreme Court grant cert, which I would presume they would have to if the brief frames this in a way that it says the amendment is almost completely in violation of the precedent from Romer and B) Will the court utilize strict scrutiny and classify sexual orientation as a suspect class. I don't think this Amendment even passes intermediate scrutiny and I struggle to see how it passes even the reasonableness test.

I think this Amendment is wrong not only morally on a human rights level, but is in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Everything in that is true. The amendment just goes beyond what current legislation says about gay rights in the state and damages the rights of heterosexuals who aren't married but are in long-term relationships or have personal non-contractual agreements over how to handle their children, estates, and finances at large.

One of my political science professors says that if (when) this passes she believes that it will be challenged almost immediately as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment under the premise that this is nearly identical to the way the majority opinion addresses the claims from Romer v. Evans and does not achieve a legitimate state objective. I guess the sticking point would be A) Will the Supreme Court grant cert, which I would presume they would have to if the brief frames this in a way that it says the amendment is almost completely in violation of the precedent from Romer and B) Will the court utilize strict scrutiny and classify sexual orientation as a suspect class. I don't think this Amendment even passes intermediate scrutiny and I struggle to see how it passes even the reasonableness test.

I think this Amendment is wrong not only morally on a human rights level, but is in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Other southern states don't have a problem with it. Must not be a violation.
 
Mississippi also still has a plurality of Republican voters that believe Loving v. Virginia is incorrect law.
 
RChildress107 said:
No. In my world (this world) people can choose to have sex with whoever they want. People can ascribe to whatever moral system they want or ascribe to no moral system at all.

In my moral system sex outside of marriage is immoral. In my moral system marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The only person I attempt to hold accountable to my moral system is myself.

My goal is to have the best moral system possible. At the moment I believe I have the best moral system to my knowledge (if I knew of a better one I would attempt to follow that). I often offer my opinions on what I believe to be the best moral system because I want others to have the best moral system as well.

I do not think that gay people have to be celibate, but under my moral system I believe that would be the best course of action. I do realize that that is very easy for me to say as a straight person which is an added reason I would never try to hold a gay person to that standard, as if I could.
Click to expand...


But under your system only straight people could marry. Thus all of gay people's sex would be immoral.
 
Why should anyone give two fucks what you or anyone else thinks is immoral? I think plenty of things are immoral, but I don't think there need to be laws against them. Gays marrying or having sex infringes on the rights of exactly nobody. If gays can marry tomorrow, nobodies life here changes one bit. Zero. None.
 
keeper said:
I doubt that.
Click to expand...

I don't since I wrote my senior thesis on the topic of marriage and gay rights and have put literally hundreds of hours into the research of the topic.

"In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal." - As of 2011

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24 to March 27.

"46% of these hardcore Republican voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, while 40% think it should be legal. "
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't since I wrote my senior thesis on the topic of marriage and gay rights and have put literally hundreds of hours into the research of the topic.

"In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal." - As of 2011

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

PPP surveyed 400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24 to March 27.

"46% of these hardcore Republican voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, while 40% think it should be legal. "
Click to expand...

So 54 % don't believe it should be illegal. I don't see your point. Did you receive a passing grade on this assignment?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top