Thread: Three days until North Carolina Amendment One and Marriage Protected

Originally Posted by RRAHH

Although I don't personally condone homosexuality, I'm rather disappointed in the passage of this amendment. Essentially, the neoconservatives won a huge battle. That battle was an affirmation of their arrogance that they know what's best for everyone else and that they should be allowed to dictate what people do with their own bodies. Ironically, that position isn't that far from the liberal position in other aspects of peoples' lives.

Liberals use referendums to get the agenda put in place?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Can one be opposed to the legal normalization of homosexuality without being a homophobe? What does Goober have to say about the despised majority?

Why would a person who isn't homophobic oppose removing legal sanctions against homosexuality?
I live in the state where same sex marriage was first allowed, I know same sex couples, there is no big disintegration of the social fabric, if anything it provides more stability to the community.
Same Sex Marriage has zero effect on "traditional" marriage, no one who was going to enter a traditional marriage, changed their mind and turned gay because same sex marriage became an option.
Now if there was a referendum, which was in the works, same sex marriage may have been overturned,(the legislature stopped the referendum, which only required the votes of 25% of a joint session to be put on the ballot), (there is the republic protecting rights from the tyranny of the masses), if the referendum was held today it wouldn't stand a chance, because right now the people here are familiar with same sex marriage and they aren't living in fear of what gay marriage would do if it ever were allowed.

Despised minority is a term that applies here, where you have a referendum, that depends on people who despise the particular minority that is the subject of the referendum.
It is the despised minority that depends on the courts to protect it's rights. You repeat the phrase "A Republic, not a democracy" all the time, and this is exactly what is wrong with pure democracy, the rights of the minority can be trampled by the majority, here is where the court system excels, in defining rights.

Originally Posted by goober

Why would a person who isn't homophobic oppose removing legal sanctions against homosexuality?
I live in the state where same sex marriage was first allowed, I know same sex couples, there is no big disintegration of the social fabric, if anything it provides more stability to the community.
Same Sex Marriage has zero effect on "traditional" marriage, no one who was going to enter a traditional marriage, changed their mind and turned gay because same sex marriage became an option.
Now if there was a referendum, which was in the works, same sex marriage may have been overturned,(the legislature stopped the referendum, which only required the votes of 25% of a joint session to be put on the ballot), (there is the republic protecting rights from the tyranny of the masses), if the referendum was held today it wouldn't stand a chance, because right now the people here are familiar with same sex marriage and they aren't living in fear of what gay marriage would do if it ever were allowed.

Despised minority is a term that applies here, where you have a referendum, that depends on people who despise the particular minority that is the subject of the referendum.
It is the despised minority that depends on the courts to protect it's rights. You repeat the phrase "A Republic, not a democracy" all the time, and this is exactly what is wrong with pure democracy, the rights of the minority can be trampled by the majority, here is where the court system excels, in defining rights.

And the rights of the majority can be trampled on by the courts.

There are non-'homophobic' reasons to protect traditional marriage and the people of NC are in no way over-turning the founding principles of the republic by voting the way they did.

Gay marriage could open the door to polygamy as a consequence---which has nothing to do with an aversion to gay sex.

Originally Posted by darth omar

And the rights of the majority can be trampled on by the courts.

But the courts and the legislature can protect the rights of the minorities, the rights of the majority are usually safe.
Off hand, I can't think of a single instance of where the courts have trampled on the rights of the majority, can you provide an example?

There are non-'homophobic' reasons to protect traditional marriage and the people of NC are in no way over-turning the founding principles of the republic by voting the way they did.

Gay marriage could open the door to polygamy as a consequence---which has nothing to do with an aversion to gay sex.

How is "traditional" marriage threatened by gay marriage? Would you change your sexual preference if gay marriage was legal in NC?
How would polygamy threaten "traditional" marriage? Since polygamy is traditional marriage in much of the world, and polygamy is accepted in the bible, how does the existence of polygamy affect your rights to enter a traditional marriage?

Originally Posted by goober

But the courts and the legislature can protect the rights of the minorities, the rights of the majority are usually safe.
Off hand, I can't think of a single instance of where the courts have trampled on the rights of the majority, can you provide an example?


How is "traditional" marriage threatened by gay marriage? Would you change your sexual preference if gay marriage was legal in NC?
How would polygamy threaten "traditional" marriage? Since polygamy is traditional marriage in much of the world, and polygamy is accepted in the bible, how does the existence of polygamy affect your rights to enter a traditional marriage?

North Carolina is a mere slice of the southeastern US so I don't know what relevance 'much of the world' has to the people there or their marriage laws as they have been traditionally conceived. The Bible actually doesn't overtly condemn polygamy so that's a strawman.

Roe v Wade was an intrusion on states rights [and by extension, to the people therein] as it pertains abortion law so there's an example of tryanny of something besides the majority.

Yes, the majority retains some degree of rights in a republic.

Originally Posted by darth omar

North Carolina is a mere slice of the southeastern US so I don't know what relevance 'much of the world' has to the people there or their marriage laws as they have been traditionally conceived. The Bible actually doesn't overtly condemn polygamy so that's a strawman.

No, the bible is full of polygamous relationships, Abraham and Hagar, Solomon had a 1000 concubines, and these are the stars of the bible, not the villains. You said that legalizing same sex marriage was a step towards polygamy, that's not my strawman, it's yours...
So how does same sex marriage threaten "traditional" marriage?

Roe v Wade was an intrusion on states rights [and by extension, to the people therein] as it pertains abortion law so there's an example of tryanny of something besides the majority.

Yes, the majority retains some degree of rights in a republic.

So how did Roe v. Wade diminish anyone's rights?
People still have the right to not have an abortion, again, I can't see where the rights of the majority have ever been trampled on by a court.

The last time North Carolina amended their constitution to "protect" marriage was to ban interracial marriages:

Attachment 13040

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Liberals use referendums to get the agenda put in place?

You're purposefully reading out of context. Both sides think they know what's best for everyone. The endorsement of the constitutional amendment by both democrats and republicans proves as much.

Originally Posted by goober

No, the bible is full of polygamous relationships, Abraham and Hagar, Solomon had a 1000 concubines, and these are the stars of the bible, not the villains. You said that legalizing same sex marriage was a step towards polygamy, that's not my strawman, it's yours...
So how does same sex marriage threaten "traditional" marriage?

The only straw man I ever knew that didn’t need propped up was in the Wizard of Oz. Which is pretty much all I have to say about your biblical objection.

‘Same sex’ marriage differs from ‘3-or more’ marriage only to the extent that the former involves gender and the latter involves numbers. The fact of the matter is, once gay marriage is legalized the precedent is established for polygamists to proclaim the same right to legal marriage.

Can you think of any legal obstacle that would stand in their way?

Originally Posted by goober

So how did Roe v. Wade diminish anyone's rights?
People still have the right to not have an abortion, again, I can't see where the rights of the majority have ever been trampled on by a court.

You ever follow cases involving gun laws? Most polls suggest that roughly 70% over Americans support a liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Courts are constantly trying to trample on the rights of the majority in that instance.

Here is one:

Second Amendment | Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights | The Daily Caller

Be wary of making absolute claims in a debate.

Originally Posted by darth omar

The only straw man I ever knew that didn’t need propped up was in the Wizard of Oz. Which is pretty much all I have to say about your biblical objection.

‘Same sex’ marriage differs from ‘3-or more’ marriage only to the extent that the former involves gender and the latter involves numbers. The fact of the matter is, once gay marriage is legalized the precedent is established for polygamists to proclaim the same right to legal marriage.

Can you think of any legal obstacle that would stand in their way?

Again, can you explain how same sex marriage "threatens" traditional marriage?

You ever follow cases involving gun laws? Most polls suggest that roughly 70% over Americans support a liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Courts are constantly trying to trample on the rights of the majority in that instance.

Here is one:

Second Amendment | Federal judge severely limits Second Amendment rights | The Daily Caller

Be wary of making absolute claims in a debate.

How did the court trample on the rights of the majority, it just upheld a law passed by the majority...

Originally Posted by goober

Again, can you explain how same sex marriage "threatens" traditional marriage?...

No one is going to be able to answer that as this law is not about logic. It is about phobia, entirely.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

What's your point?

My poiint is that this;

"Hollywood" marriages are certainly a threat to traditional marriage. But isn't the entertainment industry controlled by liberals? The high divorce rate, as well, is a result of this "progressive" society that we live in. Are you asking conservatives to ban liberalism?

is crap.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

There is nothing "blessed" about homosexual relationships.

As far as I know no civil marriage is "blessed" in any religious way. But the civil "blessings" of civil marriage apply just as much to homosexuals as to heteros. Or would if people could get over their homphobia.