• 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

I wanted to devote a second post to this little logic problem rchildress has been raising involving the two brothers. All of the cute little talking points comparing same-sex relationships to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc. are complete red herrings. In each of those cases, society has made a judgment that those kinds of sexual relationships must be banned because one or more entities involved in the relationship is a victim of the other. This is extremely clear in cases of bestiality and pedophilia.

In incest between adults, it may be less clear, but society has judged that sex between people this closely related to each other - whether or not children are produced - is very likely to be the result of victimization by one party. Thus the act is banned in many, but not all, states, and incestuous marriages are not sanctioned by the state. The fact that an incestuous relationship is same sex removes the issue of children being produced from the relationship, but not the strong potential for victimization, and so I see no reason why an incestuous same-sex marriage should be allowed any more than a heterosexual incestuous marriage.

Polygamy among consenting adults is perhaps the most difficult to distinguish, but experience shows that very often polygamy results in victimization of females and turning females into second class citizens and property among the polygamous group. They may also produce more children than the parents can support, thus forcing the expenditure of public funds. Thus, society has judged that to avoid this harm, polygamous relationships should not be permitted (or at least not blessed by the state - from reading these boards it appears that many of you guys are very, very polygamous). This is true despite the fact that polygamous marriage is expressly permitted, and even encouraged, by the Bible and holy books of other religions.

Consensual adult same-sex non-incestuous relationships do not involve victimization of anyone within the relationship. They are not the same as incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy for this reason, and attempts to tie them together are simply scare-mongering and attempts to raise the "ick" level of same-sex relationships to increase votes for discriminatory legislation. Note that no one even tries to argue that same-sex relationships involve victimization - they just throw them in a bucket with these other "horribles" and insinuate they are the same, without engaging in any rigorous analysis of the comparison.
 
Deacon923 said:
This pretty much all boils down to one thing, and one thing only, and that is whether or not society accepts that people are born homosexual (the position that is supported by all recent science). Once this basic principle is established, there is no way, in the long term, that state-sponsored or sanctioned discrimination against homosexual people can stand. The folks who have strong feelings against homosexuality on their own moral grounds are going to fight this to the end, because they know that if this principle is established, they and their institutions are going to be held to the same non-discrimination standards with regard to homosexual persons as they with regard to race, religion, disability, and country of origin.

In short, Catholic hospitals want to be able to discriminate in hiring or firing against someone who is in a same-sex relationship and want to avoid providing same-sex health and retirement benefits on par with married employees. If orientation is elevated to the level of race as a protected class, as I believe it eventually will be as the science continues to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, born trait, they will not be able to discriminate in this way. And that is going to be really, really painful for them.

You can clearly see this fear in the links posted to the sites supporting the amendment. They are clearly identifying this issue as one of the major "harms" that they think will come from allowing same sex marriage. In fact, it is not same sex marriage per se that is going to cause this to come to pass, but rather the societal recognition of what is already pretty established scientific fact - just as society recognized, over the course of the past 150 years, that there is no rational basis for the notion that some "races" of people are inherently inferior to other "races".

Plenty of devout religious people who thought they had strong moral compasses pointed to the Bible 75 years ago to uphold their claims that integration and interracial marriage were evil, and that women were inferior to men and shouldn't be able to vote (St. Paul is very clear on this latter point, I believe in Timothy). Eventually, their "moral code" had to give way to new facts, or rather, facts that had theretofore been unrecognized or denied.
Click to expand...

right

check out myth 1
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf
 
DieHardDeacon said:
THis morning at 10, I went down to early vote. As I was exiting, front and center sat the Yes on Ammendment 1 people. As one of the people approached me about voting YES, my loud response was "Oh Hell NO!" (for obvious reasons). I was so irritated that these people were front and center, where they are allowed to be, I got a NO ON 1 sign from a co-worker, picked up Lil'DHD from day care and returned to set up camp at the front of the group. We need more people to just stop by and be seen for a half hour or more. If you have the time and availability, please go down and show support!
Click to expand...

Where you at? City Hall? I wouldn't mind stopping by if I have time.
 
Just been told that there has only been 250 votes so far today at Forsyth County Government Center on Chestnut. PLEASE come out and vote against Amendment 1
 
WFFaithful said:
right

check out myth 1
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf
Click to expand...

That whole page is an excellent example of cherry-picking ambiguous research to fit a predetermined agenda-driven outcome, and it is a masterpiece of the art of lying by omission.

They picked one study that they say refutes the idea that people are "born gay", but ignore oceans of research indicating that orientation is biologically determined. Just take a gander at the relevant wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

The American Psychiatric Association has a very strong, science-backed position on this issue that i recently read, but they have changed their website and I can't find it again. If I find the link again I'll post it.
 
Is this the newer building? It's a nice facility. I might stop by sometime over the next few days and hold a sign for a bit or pass out pins and information.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Is this the newer building? It's a nice facility. I might stop by sometime over the next few days and hold a sign for a bit or pass out pins and information.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the pretty new building next to the parking garage behind the jail. I spen a few hours down there this morning and another half hour this afternoon. I work in Winston Tower so can get over there quickly. Let me know when you are going and I will meet you there to help
 
Sounds good, do they have people there with fliers and information sheets already or should I throw some ish together?
 
I can't believe how far you'll go to make a point that has no basis in reality.
 
lbE08 said:
Yo RChildress. Clearly this thread has gotten terribly side-tracked regarding marriage, but what about the rest of the amendment? Will you be voting against, if nothing else to support the domestic partnerships that already exist in the state between a man and a woman?
I know you are against state-supported benefits for marriages, but they aren't going away... so how about voting against to make sure all unions have these benefits?
Click to expand...

bump
 
Is that the best you have Keeper? Your game is slipping if you consider that cursing... Going to try and get more flyers down there from the Protect NC families group
 
DieHardDeacon said:
Is that the best you have Keeper? Your game is slipping if you consider that cursing... Going to try and get more flyers down there from the Protect NC families group
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that to an Obama campaign worker asking for my vote. I would simply say no thank you. I hope you weren't wearing any Wake Forest gear when you said it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top