• 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

It's kind of a paradox for Republican voters. Most want the government out of their lives...yet are terrified of Gay people and somehow think this will make them go away or something. So, what's it going to be? Liberty or get rid of them queers? Can't have both.
 
deac04 said:
Actually Deacon92, if I understand it correctly, it's not a majority to change it back. You actually need 3/5 of each house (I believe) and then a majority of the voters. So it's technically not a simple majority.

If we only let the majority of eligible voters make the decisions, I argue that today women or blacks would not be voting. Leaving someone's rights up to a majority vote is not how the United States or the state of North Carolina should operate.
Click to expand...

Should the majority of eligible voters be abe to force me to pay for whorefucker's abortion? Or is that totally different?
 
The only problem is one again you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has banned any federal money be spent on abortions.
 
Should the majority of eligible voters be able to force me to pay for whorefucker's abortion disguised as a "d&c"?
 
Deadbolt said:
It's kind of a paradox for Republican voters. Most want the government out of their lives...yet are terrified of Gay people and somehow think this will make them go away or something. So, what's it going to be? Liberty or get rid of them queers? Can't have both.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the far RW that is beholden to the religious right has no trouble with the paradox. When it favors them they view govt intervention as an extension of their dogma IMO. As a result you get this quasi mix of government decree (e.g., ban gay marriage) versus anti-govt sentiment. Not to say the left doesn't also fall into the trap but am amazed at how far the right tries to push this "moral agenda"...
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Should the majority of eligible voters be abe to force me to pay for whorefucker's abortion? Or is that totally different?
Click to expand...

I realize you have a problem with state funded abortion, but this is a classic bait and switch argument. Nobody is paying for a civil union. A state, a republic, should not engaged in limiting the rights of minorities. If left up to the states segregation might not be passed in the south - and Mississipi in particular. This is a ridiculous amendment. Both sides are stupid, and the democrats are cowardly to boot.
 
bobknightfan said:
What blows my mind is that, obviously, there are people who graduated from Wake Forest...posting on this board...who cannot grasp that simple concept.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is a bad amendment. Given the libertarian bent of this board, almost everyone here agrees with you. In fact, every time a thread on gay marriage is posted, virtually everyone comes down on the side of gay marriage (not sure why we keep doing this). But I don't understand what your complaint is regarding the "majority".

The eligible voters of NC are being asked to approve an amendment to the state constitution put forth by the people they elected. It's not like someone said, "hey let's vote on keeping gays from getting married". If the amendment passes, it will be up to the courts to decide whether it is an infringement on individual rights.
 
legacyfan said:
I realize you have a problem with state funded abortion, but this is a classic bait and switch argument. Nobody is paying for a civil union. A state, a republic, should not engaged in limiting the rights of minorities. If left up to the states segregation might not be passed in the south - and Mississipi in particular. This is a ridiculous amendment. Both sides are stupid, and the democrats are cowardly to boot.
Click to expand...

Isn't the real question here what should be decided by the popularity contest known as "voting"? If we can vote to take away a disproportionate share of a man's earnings just because he is richer than most people and most people want to take his money for themselves can't we vote to take away the government bestowed benefits of marriage from some people just because they are different from us? I don't see why all people can't enjoy equal rights. None of these things should be up to a popularity contest.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Isn't the real question here what should be decided by the popularity contest known as "voting"? If we can vote to take away a disproportionate share of a man's earnings just because he is richer than most people and most people want to take his money for themselves can't we vote to take away the government bestowed benefits of marriage from some people just because they are different from us? I don't see why all people can't enjoy equal rights. None of these things should be up to a popularity contest.
Click to expand...

And now we are debating something else.

The problem with your argument here is that "we" don't vote to take away - through taxes - anyone's wealth. The House and Senate of our country do that. we have a mechanism to change that, the popular vote. This is being thrown to the "people" on a day that republicans will be voting in a primary. If you can't see the difference here I don't know what else to say.
 
legacyfan said:
And now we are debating something else.

The problem with your argument here is that "we" don't vote to take away - through taxes - anyone's wealth. The House and Senate of our country do that. we have a mechanism to change that, the popular vote. This is being thrown to the "people" on a day that republicans will be voting in a primary. If you can't see the difference here I don't know what else to say.
Click to expand...

Okay then, we will keep voting. But expect that other people will seek to brutalize you through the democratic voting process if everything is up to a vote.
 
bym051d said:
No, it isn't. If that were true, they would hold the vote in November.

The idea is to getting to pass. They're holding it in May when lots of Republicans show up for their primary, and Democrats don't have a primary.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Democrats do have a primary-for governor, among other races. So, EVERYONE needs to go vote on May 8 and defeat this awful amendment.
 
Is anyone actually campaigning for governor? I've heard next to nothing about it since Perdue's announcement.
 
People who oppose gay marriage, in principle, not on a states' rights argument, disgust me.
 
As Andy Griffith would say, the only pole a man should pull on is the one he's catching a fish with.. In my dad we used to take dumps naked standing up in front of our guy friends. Now we can't even play flick the pecker without being called homosexual.. This is why I'm against this amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top