• 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

Wrangor said:
I was just having this conversation with my wife. This is difficult because the structure of our government says that they should not intersect, yet in practical application they intersect all the time. In my opinion, Christianity would be better off in a world where the government and religion does not intersect. This is difficult, because we do need our government in some ways to govern morality, but when specifically discussing marriage I think I am at a point where I would suggest the following policy if I were in Washington.

1. Government's job is to recognize civil unions between 2 people of legal age (no incest...sorry Mississippians)
2. Government has no say over marriage whatsoever. If you go to the courthouse you get a certificate of civil union not a marriage license
3. Churches control the right of marriage. This would give leave for a denomination to marry homosexuals. So in essence I would be allowing gay marriage to exist with this proposal even though I firmly believe that Gay marriage is an afront on a holy God.

Here is my reason. Society is trending towards gay marriage anyway. If we don't separate the government's role in this issue then pretty soon the government is going to force gay marriage across the board. If the government forces gay marriage across the board then I see a very easy scenario where a reformed/conservative church could have their non-profit status, or be liable for not performing a gay marriage. This is not a scenario that anyone wants to find themselves in I would think.

By taking the government out, and putting the control in the hands of the churches then the responsibility falls on the church to make the wise decision. This would lead to rampant gay marriage I know, but I think that is coming down the tracks anyway. In this scenario my church/denomination would retain our rights to abide by our religious freedoms without infringement from the government.

The difficult part about this government/faith intersection is that government by definition is to uphold moral law. Don't steal, don't kill, etc.... So there will always be a blurred line if the government is doing its job. The problem with gay marriage is that public opinion is beginning to swing pretty heavily against my opinion, so unless conservatives are smart about how they handle this issue we will not only be defeated on the issue, but annihilated in the battle. That answer your question?
Click to expand...

The problem with a lot of Christian conservatives is that they want to control society instead of change society.
 
@Wrangor - to a degree. I'm not really talking about a Republican versus Democrat thing. I was referring to how someone reconciles their personal beliefs with practicality. As in, would you want to teach abstinence only in schools or more comprehensive sex ed programs given the statistics? It was just something I was always curious about regarding people who are staunchly religious such as yourself and dealing with what they view as sin when it intersects with broader practical application.

To go on a bit of a tangent, I do think you're right in that people sometimes who are socially conservative forget that the founders were big proponents of religious separation. If people allow religion to seep too much into government, the inverse has to be true as well, which I imagine would scare some of those same people. It reminds me a bit of Gingrich's suggestion (not trying to make this a right versus left thing) regarding judicial activism. People don't realize if you're somehow intervening regarding decisions and justices which you don't like on the left, when the left is in power they could do the same to conservative justices. Most of the safeguards we have are in place for a reason whether it's with religion/government or some other subject.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
@Wrangor - to a degree. I'm not really talking about a Republican versus Democrat thing. I was referring to how someone reconciles their personal beliefs with practicality. As in, would you want to teach abstinence only in schools or more comprehensive sex ed programs given the statistics? It was just something I was always curious about regarding people who are staunchly religious such as yourself and dealing with what they view as sin when it intersects with broader practical application.

To go on a bit of a tangent, I do think you're right in that people sometimes who are socially conservative forget that the founders were big proponents of religious separation. If people allow religion to seep too much into government, the inverse has to be true as well, which I imagine would scare some of those same people. It reminds me a bit of Gingrich's suggestion (not trying to make this a right versus left thing) regarding judicial activism. People don't realize if you're somehow intervening regarding decisions and justices which you don't like on the left, when the left is in power they could do the same to conservative justices. Most of the safeguards we have are in place for a reason whether it's with religion/government or some other subject.
Click to expand...

I am not opposed to practical measures to protect society. Obviously an abstinence only program would not work, so I have no problem with proper sex education at the appropriate time. The problem that comes with that is that at no time would I want the public school system teaching my children about gay sex....which sounds silly now, but could be a real possibility 30 years from now. So there a lot of issues for me even though I can certainly concede practical measures for the good of society. Governments were not made to change hearts, they were meant to govern the people. This often means you have to practical about the outcomes of your policies rather than ideological. I am certainly an ideologue when it comes to espousing my beliefs, but I am a practical man when it comes to implementation.

I think this is one of Obama's greatest strengths. He is certainly an ideologue by nature, but in his governing our nation he has been very practical (outside of healthcare where he dug in with the left and forced his belief despite a pretty strong opposition).
 
Except the healthcare bill he passed was anchored by the cornerstone of the right's HC plans over much of the past two decades. The biggest bone of contention in the HC was the #1 proposal of the GOP from 1993 until Obama got elected. Had the GOP passed that, not a single state would be bitching.

RE: teaching people about gay sex and being gay is simply teaching kids about the reality that they will soon encounter. to not teach it, creates a taboo and a tacit approval to not treat gay people with respect. If adults say being gay is bad, how do you think kids will act?
 
Wrangor said:
I am not opposed to practical measures to protect society. Obviously an abstinence only program would not work, so I have no problem with proper sex education at the appropriate time. The problem that comes with that is that at no time would I want the public school system teaching my children about gay sex....which sounds silly now, but could be a real possibility 30 years from now.).
Click to expand...

I take issue with this. What about the 10% of the population that does need education on same sex? Are those 10% just supposed to fly blind? This is a HUGE annoyance for me because when you and your peers were developing during crucial adolecent years, learning how to date, how to properly engage in activities, my peers and I were only learning how to hide who we are and try to be deceptive to fit in. Maybe you should be more proactive and teach your children that not everyone is the same and that everyone should be afforded an equal education in public schools, even when it is something that we have no interest in.
 
One last thing, keep in mind that you are just as likely to have a homosexual child as anyone else. Do you really want him or her to not be informed and educated on such important things as STDs and the emotional toll that sexual contact have on a young person?
 
I am sorry to have caused you grief, but you asked for honesty and I am trying to be honest.
 
dangit, must spread rep before giving rep to DHD again.

though it's hard to say what you would do if in a certain position, i do wonder what some people would do if their son/sister/brother/daughter was gay.
 
lbE08 said:
dangit, must spread rep before giving rep to DHD again.

though it's hard to say what you would do if in a certain position, i do wonder what some people would do if their son/sister/brother/daughter was gay.
Click to expand...

I got ya with the rep. There is no doubt that I would love my brothers as much as I do if they were gay. However, and I'm trying think of the best way to say this, I want to have straight kids, and it's only because I don't want them growing up in a world where there is such hate against them. In a dream scenario, the world would be tolerant of all sorts of differences, but that's not how the world is... it's sad, but it's reality.

I hope that it changes and I hate laws like this, but until it does I hope to have straight kids. If I have kids that aren't straight, I won't love them any differently and I will do whatever it takes to make the happy, healthy, and safe.
 
So just to recap, is anyone actually in favor of this thing? I REALLY hope NC votes this down.
 
On a somewhat related note, anyone read A Year Living Biblically? I'm considering picking it up.
 
Ball State Deac said:
So just to recap, is anyone actually in favor of this thing? I REALLY hope NC votes this down.
Click to expand...

People in small backward towns full of old people. I'm hoping that fewer people will be out to vote since the GOP race is settled.
 
Keyboard warriors and the rest of the Internet generation aren't voting for this. I do know some republicans who are also voting no because they're actual republicans and don't believe the government should restrict rights from citizens using the constitution. I have only run across one person I know who is voting for this, but he actively works with republican campaigns in western NC, so he pretty much tows the party line on everything.
 
Ball State Deac said:
So just to recap, is anyone actually in favor of this thing? I REALLY hope NC votes this down.
Click to expand...

I think a ton of the church folks. I expect this disaster to pass. I don't think people are proud to vote for this, a sign that times are changing. Look at the disparity in yard signs. Unfortunately, silent majority + churches will lead this to passage. I do think that while the equality folks did not start this fight, ultimately they will win it, I never expected so many straight people to pick up this fight. In a culture war I will take the side of youth and equal treatment. Even Thom Tills knows this will be repealed, which makes this amendment seem all the more desperate.

These folks will vote for it, which is unfortunate. Hurts on multiple levels as they are a strong left leaning voting block. Oh well.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/21/3189909/black-churchgoers-break-with-leading.html
 
Ball State Deac said:
So just to recap, is anyone actually in favor of this thing? I REALLY hope NC votes this down.
Click to expand...

I think it will be a close vote. For will probably prevail in the rural counties and Against will win in larger cities and Chapel Hill where anything goes. I think it passes because we still are a conservative state. It interested me last week when I travelled a residential street of a middle class black neighborhood. Yard signs galore on this issue endorsing both sides of the issue. I enjoy keeping up with politics and eagerly await the analysis of this vote county by county.
 
JimBoeheim said:
I think a ton of the church folks. I expect this disaster to pass. I don't think people are proud to vote for this, a sign that times are changing. Look at the disparity in yard signs. Unfortunately, silent majority + churches will lead this to passage. I do think that while the equality folks did not start this fight, ultimately they will win it, I never expected so many straight people to pick up this fight. In a culture war I will take the side of youth and equal treatment. Even Thom Tills knows this will be repealed, which makes this amendment seem all the more desperate.

These folks will vote for it, which is unfortunate. Hurts on multiple levels as they are a strong left leaning voting block. Oh well.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/21/3189909/black-churchgoers-break-with-leading.html
Click to expand...

Why is it unfortunate for people to follow their religious beliefs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top