Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Am I to take from this that most rural people are not intelligent enough to come to a decision on their own? Do the intellectually superior folks out there feel they should be the only ones with a vote?
I believe the issue is that this shouldn't have even been voted on in the first place. It is a matter of civil rights, which should never be voted on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
If you want to be mad about the result, perhaps be upset that your like-minded voters didn't turn out to vote. It has been trending that more people are now living in cities rather than rural areas. Between Raleigh, Cary, Charlotte, Boone, etc. there should have been more than enough people to achieve the desired result. Instead, they didn't get out to vote, OR they did get out to vote and didn't agree with the anti-A1 side.
The problem was tax-exempt evangelical and Baptist churches became lobbying organizations for this amendment, pushing their "flocks" to vote for this. Many voters were quoted as saying, "our church has taken a stand on this," or some similar dreck.
The fact that this was held in a primary election (after the GOP presidential candidate had been selected and when there was no Democratic primary), meant many of the more apolitical folks were not paying attention. The intentionally confusing wording of what a Yes or No vote meant was also an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
But, I bet f you keep calling the pro-A1 crowd stupid, they will surely change their stance. Being insulted always makes me want to agree with someone.
People who believe God is on their side won't have their minds' changed. And agreement doesn't matter. There are people who don't agree with civil rights for blacks; we don't let them vote on it.
There were a few churches like MP Baptist, St. Martin's, and a few other mainline Protestant churches that were against it or neutral. But, in this state, those are vastly outnumbered by the evangelicals who held their "marriage Sunday" services.
As many of you know, I have a many family members and friends across western NC, and that includes ministers and church leaders. We are not evangelicals so I can't speak to what went on in those congregations, but the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Catholics were saying give this prayerful consideration as legislation that restricts one group's rights seems flawed. No one "preached" on it and made a recommendation, as that would be inappropriate, but members discussed the legislation, asked questions, amongst themselves.
Now, I know that for a fact. To those folks who did prayerfully consider the legislation and vote against it, having others keep pounding us all with this "Christians as hypocrites and bigots" is NOT going to win friends --it is going to lose them. Folks have to stop with the rhetoric. And for congregations that felt the amendment was needed, calling them ignorant haters is just going to reinforce their beliefs.
People DO have opinions and beliefs and many sincerely feel homosexuality is an abomination. Opponents screaming slurs at them is NOT going to do more than prove their point (in their minds). To many poeople, it is a clear cut situation: homosexuality, they believe, is wrong. Period. So they are not going to support any legislation that they feel supports a lifestyle they believe is damnable. I can respect that! And these comments about waiting for them to die off are ignorant and mean spirited and divisive, b/c it isn't just people over 70 who believe this way.
You cannot legislate morality, folks. That old saying is so true. This goes both ways. But telling one group of folks that their religious beliefs make them ignorant bigots and haters is only going to cause a huge backlash. They see the Bible as the word from a higher source and they should be respected. you are not going to be able to convince folks that the Bible is wrong!!!!
But, ani, it's not a simple disagreement over opinions. If it was, there wouldn't be this uproar. If we could agree to disagree, this Amendment would never have been put on the ballot. It's a deliberate attempt to restrict the rights of one class of citizens. It was started by those who wanted to take those rights away. How do have a dialogue with people who would consider this acceptable?
Opinions are opinions. But when they are used to reinforce the already unequal position of a minority of citizens. Are they and their allies not allowed to defend themselves?
First of all, the word "marriage" should not be applied to anything to do with the State. Marriage is a sacrament and should be under the church. We needed to start there. I have been stating this for about 30 years now. All domestic partnerships b/n a man and a woman, should have been designated as legal civil unions b/c they require a LICENSE from the state b/f they are recognized as legal entities. Couples historically can get married without a religious ceremony.
This is where the problems have been created. Instead of referring to those licenses as indicative of a civil union, and a religious ceremony indicative of a marriage, our legal language is based on 18th Century verbage.
Churches can perform a marriage ceremony for whomever they choose, depending on their beliefs. The State should issue civil union licenses to any couple, same sex or opposite sex, who wish to declare themselves a legal entity.
I kept asking my gay friends to dump the word marriage, as it is a ritual for churches, not the State, and spend their energy on re-defining civil unions. The word "marriage" is what sets folks off, as marriage is a religious concept.
That is where we need to start, to guarantee the civil rights of all people -- at the State level. It needs to be clearly defined that ALL people first get a license, and that license creates a civil union. If they wish to have a religious ceremony, that ritual creates a marriage. We are talking about redefining legal terminology and that is reasonable and I think everyone could come to agreement on that.
But instead, both sides are insistent on redefining a religious concept: marriage. To me, this is wacked. Let churches handle who they will marry. Let the state handle licensing civil unions. We would all then be in a civil union and those who wish to have a religious ceremony would also be "married," in the eyes of the church.
I got married at the county court house by a judge. To me, that was a civil union. Then later, we had a religious ceremony at a church (well, actually, at Notre Dame, Paris, lol -- how is that for romantic?) and that was recognition by the church of the sanctity of our union. I don't get the big deal with clearly separating my civil union (a legal entity) from my marriage ceremony (a church issue). Not everyone is religious so they are not interested in having a religious ceremony that recognizes their union.
If we started on this level, I believe the average man on the street would get it. Religious beliefs are personal and should be separate from State legal issues.
People who believe God is on their side won't have their minds' changed. And agreement doesn't matter. There are people who don't agree with civil rights for blacks; we don't let them vote on it.
Now see, this is more of the same BS that pushes people to take action against the speaker and his cause!!!!
Black folks voted for this amendment just as whites did! Look at the voting summaries by precinct! To Make a blanket statement that anyone who feels homosexuality is a sin also works to deny the civil rights of blacks is not only clearly untrue, it is inflammatory. And again, it is going to get us --as a society-- nowhere with resolving the issue of making sure all human beings, regardless of sex, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age, physical disability, or ethnicity, is equally protected under the law.
The goal is Equality. And you don't get there by throwing stones.
To answerthe your question, Coped, people who try to keep hammering the same points make it difficult to have a dialogue. If you want to keep painting the picture thaf this is all about the religious bigot trting to keep someone down, go ahead. But you're quickly going to run out of people who will listen. Just as people who have God on their side will not change their mind, people who support gay marriage will not change theirs. Either find a way to work with what's available or don't, but this approach is the problem.
The goal is Equality. And you don't get there by throwing stones.
Neither do you get there by looking for excuses to limit equality.
The bible forbids many actions that aren't specifically mandated by the constitution... And every man is a sinner. Should we start passing amendments against adultery and coveting? I know a *lot* more divorced people than gay people, lol!
To answerthe your question, Coped, people who try to keep hammering the same points make it difficult to have a dialogue. If you want to keep painting the picture thaf this is all about the religious bigot trting to keep someone down, go ahead. But you're quickly going to run out of people who will listen. Just as people who have God on their side will not change their mind, people who support gay marriage will not change theirs. Either find a way to work with what's available or don't, but this approach is the problem.
As many of you know, I have a many family members and friends across western NC, and that includes ministers and church leaders. We are not evangelicals so I can't speak to what went on in those congregations, but the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Catholics were saying give this prayerful consideration as legislation that restricts one group's rights seems flawed. No one "preached" on it and made a recommendation, as that would be inappropriate, but members discussed the legislation, asked questions, amongst themselves.
Now, I know that for a fact. To those folks who did prayerfully consider the legislation and vote against it, having others keep pounding us all with this "Christians as hypocrites and bigots" is NOT going to win friends --it is going to lose them. Folks have to stop with the rhetoric. And for congregations that felt the amendment was needed, calling them ignorant haters is just going to reinforce their beliefs.
People DO have opinions and beliefs and many sincerely feel homosexuality is an abomination. Opponents screaming slurs at them is NOT going to do more than prove their point (in their minds). To many poeople, it is a clear cut situation: homosexuality, they believe, is wrong. Period. So they are not going to support any legislation that they feel supports a lifestyle they believe is damnable. I can respect that! And these comments about waiting for them to die off are ignorant and mean spirited and divisive, b/c it isn't just people over 70 who believe this way.
You cannot legislate morality, folks. That old saying is so true. This goes both ways. But telling one group of folks that their religious beliefs make them ignorant bigots and haters is only going to cause a huge backlash. They see the Bible as the word from a higher source and they should be respected. you are not going to be able to convince folks that the Bible is wrong!!!!
Neither do you get there by looking for excuses to limit equality.
The bible forbids many actions that aren't specifically mandated by the constitution... And every man is a sinner. Should we start passing amendments against adultery and coveting? I know a *lot* more divorced people than gay people, lol!
That is not the point. Stop with the silliness. We are talking about religious principles here and indeed, there are churches that will throw you out for adultery; and the Catholic church has its own canonical law, wh/ does not recognize a civil divorce without a canonical annulment.
You are not going to win this argument or change anyone's minds by inferring that religious folks are hypocrites.
The fact that folks are divorced has nothing to do with this issue and how people feel about homosexuality. These kinds of spurious comments are only going to create a bigger wedge.
People who want change, work for change. You get change when people feel the proposition is reasonable.
ETA: until folks are willing to accept that many churches truly believe homosexuality is an abomination against God and a crime against society--and a morally reprehensible choice that sick people make--they are beating their heads against the wall. Not everyone believes folks are born gay or straight and there are studies to suggest that it is a choice, just as there are studies that suggest it is genetic. Just b/c you stand on one side of those beliefs, it doesn't give you the right to denigrate and discount those who believe differently.
Let's not forget: religious freedom is a civil right, too.
Last edited by brokensky; 05-14-2012 at 08:19 AM..
lol -- like this is the first time we have agreed, hee hee
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
