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.
Now, you're not saying that a religious "expert" hasn't thought something all the way through or otherwise used deficient logic are you? Why, that'd be absurd!
Well...I am sure that the Catholic diocese is afraid that, if gay marriages are recognized,then maybe some of their priests would feel pressured to have to make a commitment to those little boys after they have sex with them.
1 - We are not so insecure in our faith and beliefs that the choices that others make regarding their personal lives will diminish that faith.
2 - We are not ignorant, backwards-thinking hicks.
And comments like your point #2 just motivate those on the side of the issue to head to the polls and vote yes.
There was an attempt on the Raleigh thread to try and stick to discussing the legal merits (which would have been constructive if it could have happened). However, when comments become nasty, most people will just choose to not comment and the boards are dominated by the emotions of a few.
And comments like your point #2 just motivate those on the side of the issue to head to the polls and vote yes.
There was an attempt on the Raleigh thread to try and stick to discussing the legal merits (which would have been constructive if it could have happened). However, when comments become nasty, most people will just choose to not comment and the boards are dominated by the emotions of a few.
Very unfortunate.
It is difficult to remain civil in the face of such bigotry. "Christians" are a rather thin-skinned group. You cannot attempt to take away someone's rights then pretend that you're being persecuted when that person defends himself.
It's unfortunate that this time-wasting amendment even got on the ballot. As far as its legal merits - there are none. It only serves to strip protections from a vulnerable group. It is such a broad statute that it could be used by activist judges to invalidate contracts and unions between unmarried opposite sex partners.
I have yet to hear a logical defense of the amendment.
It is difficult to remain civil in the face of such bigotry. "Christians" are a rather thin-skinned group. You cannot attempt to take away someone's rights then pretend that you're being persecuted when that person defends himself.
It's unfortunate that this time-wasting amendment even got on the ballot. As far as its legal merits - there are none. It only serves to strip protections from a vulnerable group. It is such a broad statute that it could be used by activist judges to invalidate contracts and unions between unmarried opposite sex partners.
I have yet to hear a logical defense of the amendment.
bigotry
thin-skinned
time-wasting
activist judges
While a mild post compared to some, it just shows that you don't really want to have a discussion, you just want to make your points and have people agree with you. It would all just be a waste of time when an actual civil conversation cannot take place.
While a mild post compared to some, it just shows that you don't really want to have a discussion, you just want to make your points and have people agree with you. It would all just be a waste of time when an actual civil conversation cannot take place.
At some point you have to call a spade a spade. It is what it is. It's an amendment to codify discrimination against gay people who want to marry in order to prevent a court from overturning discrimination in the future. This is bigotry. This is also a waste of time and state resources when we have much more important issues to deal with.
I've listened to both sides of this debate with an open mind. From the anti-amendment side I've heard rational arguments about unintended consequences and the basic Biblical principle of "love they neighbor." From the pro-amendment side, I have heard nothing but tired lines about "saving marriage." But a gay marriage does nothing to harm a straight marriage. And if we are going to govern Biblically, let's sanction polygamy, outlaw shellfish, and stone unmarried women who aren't virgins.
I'm a firm believer in traditional marriage. I'm against any type of recognition of homosexuals. I'm thankful that the majority of folks in NC feel the same way.
That is why NC would always be a backwards state because you guys live in the past. This isnt 1950's anymore, its 2012. Gay marriage isnt going to affect your marriage or your life, why do you oppose it ? who cares ?
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.
