Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?0 -
I could offer a counter to all of this, and I'm a Christian!
And that is?0 -
No, really, we like to debate here. I think we can debate without bashing.Is this really a debate thread or just a way to bash pplwho think differently?
This thread disproves that statement0 -
Ah, so you just decided to randomly argue one of points in a thread about gay marriage just for the sake of arguing then? Got it.
Nah, I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. I've seen plenty of gay people live very happily together and seen plenty of married people get divorced. I for one have no problem with it. If it's against your religion or if you just think it's "icky" then that's your opinion, and I believer everyone is free to their opinion.
You're taking something I said and mixing it up with something someone else said who was trying to defend the rationality. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are still stuck on comparing apples to oranges.Yes, but not a pertinent one.
As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent.
This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a life." I still say I'm entitled to be anti-Snooki...
Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought.
So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??
Are you somehow under the impression that I'm against gay marriage????0 -
My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
OK. So it sounds like you personally think that acting out acts which you consider to be morally reprehensible should be illegal. Or rather, that certain of those behaviors should be illegal (specifically gay marriage). I'm not sure if you think sodomy should also be illegal, but based on your reasoning, I will assume that butt-sex is a big no-no for you.
Now, my question to you is "what is the purpose and function of a law?" From my understanding, a law exists to maintain order and make a society run well without negative repercussions. Arguments like yours, while valid and understandable, appeal to a moral-law based society. From a conventional stand-point, laws don't exist to police morality (at least, not here in the US). Murder is illegal not because it's morally reprehensible, but because it fundamentally damages the fabric of our society. Adultery is morally reprehensible but is not against the law in most states, and is essentially not prosecuted in those few remaining states in which it is illegal. That's because if I choose to cheat on my spouse, there are absolutely zero repercussions for the rest of society. The same is true of gay marriage. It does absolutely no harm to society. Therefore, laws against it violate the basic premises of our country that laws are not based upon religion, but are instead based upon the agreed upon social contract between the US people and the government.
Now, as far as being called a bigot. A bigot is: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It sounds, from your comments, that you just might fit that bill. Again, I'm glad that you are pro-civil unions, but from your stance, it sounds like you feel that atheists shouldn't even be allowed to marry because marriage is a religious consecration (big hint, it really isn't. marriage exists in every culture). Would you support a bill which says people like me- people who don't believe in your god- shouldn't be allowed to step into a social contract with another human being?0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wishing to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigotry or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a feeling you don't have any.
At times like this I'm glad I live in the UK - this kind of attitude is rare.0 -
My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
OK. So it sounds like you personally think that acting out acts which you consider to be morally reprehensible should be illegal. Or rather, that certain of those behaviors should be illegal (specifically gay marriage). I'm not sure if you think sodomy should also be illegal, but based on your reasoning, I will assume that butt-sex is a big no-no for you.
Now, my question to you is "what is the purpose and function of a law?" From my understanding, a law exists to maintain order and make a society run well without negative repercussions. Arguments like yours, while valid and understandable, appeal to a moral-law based society. From a conventional stand-point, laws don't exist to police morality (at least, not here in the US). Murder is illegal not because it's morally reprehensible, but because it fundamentally damages the fabric of our society. Adultery is morally reprehensible but is not against the law in most states, and is essentially not prosecuted in those few remaining states in which it is illegal. That's because if I choose to cheat on my spouse, there are absolutely zero repercussions for the rest of society. The same is true of gay marriage. It does absolutely no harm to society. Therefore, laws against it violate the basic premises of our country that laws are not based upon religion, but are instead based upon the agreed upon social contract between the US people and the government.
Now, as far as being called a bigot. A bigot is: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It sounds, from your comments, that you just might fit that bill. Again, I'm glad that you are pro-civil unions, but from your stance, it sounds like you feel that atheists shouldn't even be allowed to marry because marriage is a religious consecration (big hint, it really isn't. marriage exists in every culture). Would you support a bill which says people like me- people who don't believe in your god- shouldn't be allowed to step into a social contract with another human being?
Amen sister. (using amen ironically
) 0 -
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
If you want to get picky, this is incorrect - civil unions do not afford all of the rights as a civil marriageMy personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
That's fine - you're definitely allowed to have personal moral opinions!
The thing is, no matter how much folks try to legislate (and succeed sometimes) their personal moral opinions, gay folks will still live together, buy houses together, share bank accounts, have kids, go grocery shopping together, take family vacations and so on...not so different a lifestyle than any other couple.
The difference is that much like other civil rights issues, there will always be the hurdles of intolerant people to overcome - and it will be overcome eventually. And people will look back at them and say wow, what jerks! Can you believe them?!0 -
My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
So it's your opinion that I should not be married because I'm not religious.
Marriage was around before the Bible was written... and so was homosexuality0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.0 -
its shameful that people are against it in this day and age. and for those that think it should be illegal for religious reasons should we make other sins illegal too? how about gluttony? lets make being fat illegal too since its a sin.
why do people have so much hate towards homosexuals and not towards other sins like gluttony, sloth...?0 -
Im glad it didnt pass, as I do not believe the definition of marriage should be changed. That said I dont bdlive the the state should b in the marriage business.
Im in favor of allowing for civil so that the gays an have full legal rights.
The comments on this threadr as bigoted as u claim ur opponents to be....
Think about that
Ahahaha! This joke of an argument! "If you don't support my statements of intolerance you're intolerant."
Now let's be clear. I fully support you having the right to have any opinion you'd like. Nothing is more important.
That DOES NOT MEAN I have to support your opinion itself. I'm free to think it's stupid, backwards and ill informed. You have the RIGHT to your own opinion. I am not required to endorse it.0 -
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
They're not. People mistakenly saying that is what bothers me.0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.0 -
I'm not calling you a bigot because you disagree with my point of view.
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
I'm calling you a bigot because you fit the dictionary definition of one.
"adjective
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others: eg - a bigoted group of reactionaries a bigoted article"0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
I think you need to rethink calling yourself a libertarian.0 -
If it were up to me there'd be no such thing as a marriage license. It'd be civil unions across the board for everybody. All equal under the eyes of the law and all qualifying for the same federal rights.
Ya wanna get "married"? Fine, go do it, but in order to qualify for the rights and privileges acorded to partners in a civil union you need to file for one.
I think and have always thought that the word marriage is the sticking point. Get rid of it.0 -
U r gonna argue witha straight face that the tenents of the constitution
r not based on christianity?0 -
U r gonna argue witha straight face that the tenents of the constitution
r not based on christianity?
Yep.
ETA: But this deserves it's own thread. I'd like to disprove this nonsense in style.0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
I, personally, haven't trashed your views, and many others have been civil with you. And yet you tear down our thread. I agree, there is some rudeness going on here, but what you seem to be doing is narrowing in on some single statement that offends you and throwing a *****-fest because we are calling you a bigot. I agree, calling people bigots will do nothing to change their mind (and if you read my post in support of NC on page 2 or 3, I think you'll see that I DO agree with you there). But to make your point and try to start a legitimate debate, you've got to do more than what you're throwing out here.
Where's Patty? She's always so great at having a differing opinion but not being a ***** about it. This thread came out this one-sided way because no one opposed the viewpoint of the debaters until you came along. So what you see are a bunch of people strutting around puffing up their chests.
Well, now you're here, so make an honest go of it and support your stance. Do pull the bigot card, work with our arguments and formulate your own. Using sound grammar and spelling will also go far at making us take your viewpoint more seriously. I'd love to engage in a real debate with you. Honest. Let's have an honest, legitimate, across the aisle debate here. Counter my points.
Also, what if I told you that the laws didn't come from religion, but that religion took existing laws from past and current societies and said "this is god's word"? And that that is why most countries share the most basic laws against murder, thievery, and rape? You know, the types of offenses that damage the fabric of a society.0 -
Most people I find who call themselves libertarians can't even define the ideology without opening up wikipedia.I think you need to rethink calling yourself a libertarian.0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
I would personally like to see you reply to Katataks post you gotta admit she makes some great points0 -
the sad thing is that gay marriage is illegal now but the good thing is that it will be legal in all 50 states in 20 years and all of these people that are against will have to grin and bear it.0
-
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!0 -
If it were up to me there'd be no such thing as a marriage license. It'd be civil unions across the board for everybody. All equal under the eyes of the law and all qualifying for the same federal rights.
Ya wanna get "married"? Fine, go do it, but in order to qualify for the rights and privileges acorded to partners in a civil union you need to file for one.
I think and have always thought that the word marriage is the sticking point. Get rid of it.
I agree with this. In its basic form, a marriage is a contract. Handle it like other contracts.0 -
If it were up to me there'd be no such thing as a marriage license. It'd be civil unions across the board for everybody. All equal under the eyes of the law and all qualifying for the same federal rights.
Ya wanna get "married"? Fine, go do it, but in order to qualify for the rights and privileges acorded to partners in a civil union you need to file for one.
I think and have always thought that the word marriage is the sticking point. Get rid of it.
This is a great idea! Can we vote now?0 -
My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
So if marrige is a religious thing only,then the goverment should stop recognizing any marriage. After all its a god thing and has nothing to do with RIGHTS. Where are the people standing up against couple who are athiest getting married? Oh yeah thats right its not really about what "god" wanted marrige to be,its about picking apart fairy tails to support bigotry and hate.0 -
U r gonna argue witha straight face that the tenents of the constitution
r not based on christianity?
are you going to argue with a straight face that the first amendment doesn't make that point moot.. even if it were true?0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
Many were Deists with Christian backgrounds. Others were Christian but they did not want any religion to dominate the government like it did in England.0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
They were deists for the most part. Similar to agnostics but more "believer-y" Most believed in some form of higher power, but not one that intervened in the affairs of men. i.e. NOT Chrisitians.
I will start a thread dealing with this. Just give me time to get home first.0
This discussion has been closed.