• 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

RJKarl said:
Isn't there something written like - Judge not lest ye be judged?
Click to expand...

“'Do not judge, so that you won't be judged. For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and look, there is a log in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the log out of your eye so that you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.'” Matthew 7:1-5
 
Ballotpedia summary of polls in NC. We have a really good chance of defeating this.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012)


Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
March 15-19, 2009 Elon University Poll 43% 50% 5% 620
Feb. 20-24, 2011 Elon University Poll 38% 56% 5% 467
August 15-16, 2011 National Research, Inc. 49% 43% 7% 400
Sept. 25-29, 2011 Elon University Poll 39% 56% 5% 594
Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 2011 Public Policy Polling 61% 34% 5% 760
Oct. 27-31, 2011 Public Policy Polling 59% 35% 6% 615
Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 2011 Elon University Poll 37% 57% 6% 529
Dec. 1-4, 2011 Public Policy Polling 58% 32% 10% 865
Jan. 5-8, 2012 Public Policy Polling 56% 34% 10% 780
Mar. 26-29, 2012 Elon University Poll 32% 61% 6% 534
 
You creating laws that allow only people who follow your beliefs to be "moral".
 
So do you Rj. Would you be okay with a law allowing men to marry baboons? Why not? Because you have a standard of behavior (moral) that you enforce upon others. Every law we have does this or chooses not to.
 
Typical RW BS to justify their position by bringing in beastiality. You are pathetic.
 
RChildress107 said:
RJ and WF. I'm not judging anyone. Unless you are arguing that having moral beliefs means I am automatically judging anyone who doesn't share or follow my moral beliefs. There is only one person I know capable of judging others and he walked the earth 2000 years ago. I'm not in the practicie of judging others or pretending to know how he would judge others.

I don't have the ability to know everything someone else is going through or all of the factors which lead them to make certain decisions. I might not like something someone does and I might tell them that I don't like it but I wouldn't dare judge them as a person for their action. That's not my place and it's not yours either.
Click to expand...

Passing a constitutional amendment confirming your view against a sin is not judging those who commit the sin?

If it's not judging, then it surely is condemning which Jesus is also against. In Luke 6:37, Jesus said, “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

Jesus himself did not come to condemn the world but to save it.

Remember the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? The scribes and the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman because she was clearly guilty. What did Jesus do? He told them “The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Remember the second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself" ?

This amendment does not show love.

Paul says we should stay out of government, treating each other with gentleness because we were once lost.
“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to obey, and to be ready for every good work, to slander no one, to avoid fighting, and to be kind, always showing gentleness to all people. For we too were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, captives of various passions and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, detesting one another. But when the goodness and love for man appeared from God our Savior, He saved us- not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that having been justified by His grace, we may become heirs with the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3: 1-7
 
RJKarl said:
Typical RW BS to justify their position by bringing in beastiality. You are pathetic.
Click to expand...

You're going to say that no matter what I pick, because the point is that YOU find it IMMORAL. if you didn't you'd just say I was forcing my morality onto you. That's why I pick something absurd - to make the point that we all agree with certain laws that are immoral. It is not to draw any equivalence and you know it - you just want to not answer.
 
Trying to to justify your morals by comparing loving, commitment humans to having sex with animals shows all who do to be disgusting human beings.

Of course most laws have moral grounds. But not religious grounds. People without any religion have morals.
 
DeacDiggler said:
So do you Rj. Would you be okay with a law allowing men to marry baboons? Why not? Because you have a standard of behavior (moral) that you enforce upon others. Every law we have does this or chooses not to.
Click to expand...

you did
 
RChildress107 said:
So if your morals have religious grounding they can't be used in forming laws but if your morals don't come from religion they are good to go? That can't be what you are trying to say but that's what it comes off as.

Also people without religion still have different moral systems. How do you pick which moral system is best for making laws?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you don't get this.

If you live in a society morals/laws are created to keep order in the society.

It's bad if people go around stealing form each other. That often leads to violence. You don't need a god to understand this.

If you don't punish people for killing or raping people, it could happen to those you love. Thus people makes laws about this.

You don't need a bible or a god to know drinking and driving harms innocent people.

Etc., etc., etc.
 
RChildress107 said:
I swear y'all don't read my posts. Show me once where i have stated that I am voting for this ammendment or have advocated for others to vote for this ammendment.

ETA: Also WF passing a law against a certain behavior is not equivalent to judging someone for that behavior. At least not in the sense of judging I thought we were talking about. If it was equivalent then to be a judgement free society would mean having no laws.
Click to expand...

Not voting at all is just as bad as voting for it
 
"You seem to be arguing that any law whose sole basis rests on its moral status shouldn't be a law. That has been the crux of your argument against this ammendment. I am asking you if you think my first statement is correct. "

Absolutely false. It's about discrimination.

Please don't insult gay people and compare this to the extreme of marrying brothers or sisters. That would like saying we should ban aspirins because a few people a year OD on them.

Using outrageous extremist positions to justify things are disingenuous.
 
RChildress107 said:
I am a north carolina voter. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I am not married. I am not going to vote for this ammendment because it's redundant and I'm lazy. Convince me to go vote against it without calling me a bigot, an idiot, a homosexual, or insinuating that my existence makes you want to vomit. Do not reference the civil rights movement, the religious right, or abortion. Do not speak in absolutes, unless you are a Sith Lord. Go.
Click to expand...

You're not going to vote for it, and you've made it clear you're not voting against it...
 
I came across a quote last night about this when I was writing a same-sex marriage public policy paper and I'm not sure it's on here because I haven't read from the beginning, but what does this even mean:

The state has a law defining marriage as a heterosexual union, but the amendment's supporters say changing social tides will make it likely that gay couples married in New York will move to North Carolina and seek legal rights.

"They're going to bring with them their same-sex marriages," said Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican and House majority leader. "They're going to want to get divorced" and have custody issues decided, he said. "We're not equipped to handle that."
Click to expand...

...just wtf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top