North Carolina Amendment 1- May 8th, your feelings towards it? (merged threads)

[Ernest T Bass]

Tober138.

Your posts are so pathetic, you actually help the pro side more than hurt them.

Keep'em coming. It makes the anti side look like a bunch of children screaming and kicking.

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

America is in dire straights now due to the devaluation of families. This devaluation has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a major cause of our financial decline, our shortage of workers:retirees, the massive influx of foreigners to replace the missing young population, and numerous other social ills. Then you get into the other side effects of marriage being devalued: more abuse of women, more child abuse, vast increase in single parent families, kids seeking "family life" in gangs, etc.

Can you provide some evidence / citations to back up these claims?

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

The decline of the family is one of the most severe social ills in our time. Anything that encourages the devaluation of family life should be opposed.

So...would you support making divorce illegal? Or how about people who marry and divorce multiple times?

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

I am not picking on homosexuals, since heterosexuals who also engage in detrimental behavior should also not be encouraged.

Could you please provide an operational definition of, "detrimental behavior"?

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

To make this into a case for homosexual bashing, it really isn't. While that may acoount for the other 1% of why this law went into effect, it doesn't negate the importance of protecting marriage one bit.

So please explain how Amendment 1 "protects marriage" within the context of your argument. How does it prevent,, "the devaluation of the family" and its subsequent side-effects?

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

Homosexual unions cannot procreate children.

Homosexual couples can adopt children. Is adoption a bad thing? How is a homosexual couple who adopts a child any different than a heterosexual couple that adopts a child because they cannot biologically procreate either?

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

Heterosexual couples that reject having children out of selfish desires should also be eencouraged to change their attitudes.

Why? Whether my wife and I choose to have children or not is strictly our choice - it is, quite frankly, none of your business or concern (or anyone else's for that matter). Why should we "change our attitudes" - because our attitude does not match yours?

[arbyunc]

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

A lot of people sound angry about this topic. I have friends angry about this vote. Topics like this usually forget about the core reasons and get caught up in the tangents.

The reason for supporting this amendment is based 99% on the protection of marriage. America is in dire straights now due to the devaluation of families. This devaluation has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a major cause of our financial decline, our shortage of workers:retirees, the massive influx of foreigners to replace the missing young population, and numerous other social ills. Then you get into the other side effects of marriage being devalued: more abuse of women, more child abuse, vast increase in single parent families, kids seeking "family life" in gangs, etc.

The decline of the family is one of the most severe social ills in our time. Anything that encourages the devaluation of family life should be opposed. I am not picking on homosexuals, since heterosexuals who also engage in detrimental behavior should also not be encouraged.

To make this into a case for homosexual bashing, it really isn't. While that may acoount for the other 1% of why this law went into effect, it doesn't negate the importance of protecting marriage one bit. Marriage has a unique value to society as by far statistically the best and safest environment for children to be brought up. Focusing on the exceptional cases where this is not true is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Homosexual unions cannot procreate children. Heterosexual couples that reject having children out of selfish desires should also be eencouraged to change their attitudes. Not eeveryone is called to have children, but more often than not, it's for the wrong reasons.

There is so much wrong with this post. I'll just say that 1) this amendment does nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to "protect marriage". Heterosexuals will continue to get married regardless of this amendment, and they'll also continue to get divorced. There will be bad marriages full of abuse, cheating, etc.--marriages that are broken and poisonous to the couples and families who are in them. It's sad that people fall for this "protecting marriage" tripe. 2) There are plenty of non-marriage domestic unions, both heterosexual and homosexual, that provide the basis for loving family environments. You probably don't want to hear it, but many gay families provide a warm, nurturing environment for their kids, and without them the kids would be in a much more difficult situation.

Your "sanctity of marriage" views are pure horsecrap. What good is a marriage if it's falling apart? And where would the children of gay couples be if they didn't have the happy homes they're living in now?

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by VA palmetto

And I can sense some antiChristian bashing going on here too. Bigotry is not a pretty sight.

Christians (and Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists and Satan Worshippers for that matter) have every right to practice their religion, incorporate their beliefs into their daily lives, and raise their family according to those beliefs. I don't think that anyone here has any issue with that.

But if members of a certain religion proactively force their belief system on everyone else, then that is a problem. No one here is "bashing" Christians for being Christians. Instead, they are bashing those who appear to be forcing their religious beliefs and values on other people. And I believe we have a number of people on here who have identified themselves as members of the Christian faith and who did vote against this amendment.

If one believes that one should live their life according to the teachings of the bible...fine. That's all well and good - live your life that way. I certainly don't have a problem with that - and if someone tried to take away your rights to practice your faith, I would be opposed to that. But I don't live my life according to that book - and no one has any right to tell me that I have to.

[SunnyKayak]

Mod note: I’d like to take a few moments to remind everyone of the Terms of Service that all members agree to when they join the site. Following are the specifics that address some of the issues I've been seeing:

#1:

Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.

#2:

Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.

------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the North Carolina forum and only topics related to this state is allowed on this forum.

The topic of this thread. is Amendment One in North Carolina. All other topics do not belong here.

The Amendment is "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

[Francois]

And what the vote would have been if a big chunk of the college and university kids had already left for the summer like the will do later this month?

Actually NC colleges usually have exams in early May and most were, in fact, out of session and gone home by May 8. This is why there was such a push for EARLY voting (which the Republicans--you know, the party of "less government intrusion"?--want to shorten and make more difficult) in the universities (and why the #1 precint for early voting was the one on the Duke campus). But many other universities didn't have an early voting site nearby: Elon Univeristy in Alamance county, for example. The early-voting site was in Graham at the Board of Election, so students without cars had to beg rides to those sites. On May 8, there were more sites, including enar campus, but most students had left. Yes, they could'should have voted absentee, but this is an age group where many were just voting for the first time and had always seen voting as walking into a voting booth, etc., not "begging a ride from a stranger to go to another town at the Board of Elections".

A November vote woudl definitely have gotten more student votes.

Actually, the democrats in nc legislature felt the exact opposite. They couldn't keep it off the ballot altogether, but they felt this issue would bring out the republican base out to the polls,hurting democrat chances in November, which why its on the ballot now.

All true, but I don't ereally understand the "they couldn't keep it off the ballot altogether". Technically, the Dems as a whole certainly could have; it tooka couple to vote with the Republicans to get it on the ballot. So I don't really know why those didn't simply say "Not gonna happen", except that I believe they were very conservative Democrats who supported the Amendment, but were worried about loads of firebrand Republcains flooding the polls in November and perhaps winning their own seats. In a primary, Dems only have to worry about otehr Dems, so it was "smart" on their part, though I am furious with the idea of throwing a segment of the population (that votes overwhelmingly Democratic, no less) under the bus for their own political goals.

I do think it still would have passed in November, but by a smaller margin, and now at least the venom is out of the fangs and there won't be a divisive social issue on the ballot in the fall, so people can actually concentrate on the candidates.

There were people who clearly had no clue what to do.

This is the saddest part. Churches were telling people how to vote (which should violate IRS tax-exempt rules and cost their tax-exempt status) and getting them fire up with all sorts of exaggerations about what would happen if the law was left exactly as it is now, which would have been the result of an "Against" victory. "For" people working the polls were promsing that it concerned NOTHING other than "protecting from gay marriage", conveniently omitting the fact that same-sex marriage is already banned by statute, and NC is ot exactly the home of "quote-unquote activist judges". A poll showed that something like 40% of the people who voted for it were NOT aware that it also banned all civil unions, domestic partnerships, and common-law marriages, and the "For" side slickly exploited that ignorance and let them believe that it was strictly an up-down referendum of gay marriage.

And I know someone who overheard a woman tell the poll worker she didn't know how to vote, and the poll worker said "Do what the Bible would want" ()! That should have been a cause for dismissal on the spot, but I don't think this person reported it.

The majority should not vote on civil rights issues. Would a majority of (white) voters have outlawed slavery or abolished Jim Crow? Would a majority of (male) voters have given women the right to vote?

BTW, someone asked about returns for individual counties--the State Board of Elections has it all. You can click on an individual race and also go to each county's site and even get a map by precinct.

BTW, there have been questions about

[SunnyKayak]

It has become apparent you guys want to discuss other things than the amendment.