Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[dancingalone]

I'll take a risk and voice another dissenting opinion. Am I missing something here? If the majority of voters in a particular area vote against something, why is that wrong? The minority is free to stay and try to educate or free to leave and go where their views are better tolerated or even accepted. There are 49 other states to which they can relocate.

There is definitely something called the tyranny of the majority, something our Founding Fathers thought about a lot when they wrote the Constitution and put together the branches of government.

A more inflammatory example is perhaps WWII Germany though I don't equate the good citizens of North Carolina at all to the Nazis.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

View attachment $560477_455916711101058_122256581133741_1704489_548658102_n.jpg

Remember, the majority of people in the South also wanted to keep it illegal for blacks and whites to mingle, for black children to go to the same schools as whites, or for blacks to ride in the front of a bus. Majority rule is 3 of your neighbors deciding that you have a nice tv and it would look good at their places.

 

[Carol]

There is definitely something called the tyranny of the majority, something our Founding Fathers thought about a lot when they wrote the Constitution and put together the branches of government.

A more inflammatory example is perhaps WWII Germany though I don't equate the good citizens of North Carolina at all to the Nazis.

Exactly. Hence the issue with voting on civil rights, especially when those most affected are small in number. The smaller the diaspora, the easier it is to marginalize out the diaspora.

As many states were adopting a holiday in January in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the state of New Hampshire stood against the adoption. In 1991, the state adopted the holiday of "Civil Rights Day" in honor of all civil rights leaders, and observed on the same day when the rest of the country was observing the holiday for Dr. King. In 1999, the state dropped Civil Rights Day and formally adopted Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday...the last state to do so.

Although the state is becoming more diverse, New Hampshire does not have a large black population -- a fact even noted in the NYTimes article.

While establishing a holiday is not quite the same as defining a right, I think this is a good example of how the desires of a small minority can easily be marginalized. It doesn't take a leap of logic to see that New Hampshire might not have been so "contrarian" with MLK day had our black diaspora been larger.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/26/u...or-dr-king-at-last.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[WC_lun]

My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex. Your religious beliefs should not be law for the rest of us. Now if you can find a provable link between two consenting adults of the same sex together somehow being a detriment to either the economy or society then we'd have something to talk about. Right now the ignorant are legislating thier beliefs onto the rest of us. So much for that small government thing of conservatives.

As far as the bible being the base for anti-gay beliefs, that doesn't hold water. There are other things in the bible that people do not folllow because they know better. Worn a poly-cotton blend shirt lately? What about eating pork or shell fish? Sold a female relative into slavery? I could understand a person that followed the entire bible being against homosexuality, but the truth is Christians pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. I actually think that fairly smart, given the archaic and often conflicting rules laid down. However, if you do pick and choose, do not tell me your choices limiting gay civil rights are anything other that bigotry. It just doesn't fly.

 

[granfire]

My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex. Your religious beliefs should not be law for the rest of us. Now if you can find a provable link between two consenting adults of the same sex together somehow being a detriment to either the economy or society then we'd have something to talk about. Right now the ignorant are legislating thier beliefs onto the rest of us. So much for that small government thing of conservatives.

As far as the bible being the base for anti-gay beliefs, that doesn't hold water. There are other things in the bible that people do not folllow because they know better. Worn a poly-cotton blend shirt lately? What about eating pork or shell fish? Sold a female relative into slavery? I could understand a person that followed the entire bible being against homosexuality, but the truth is Christians pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. I actually think that fairly smart, given the archaic and often conflicting rules laid down. However, if you do pick and choose, do not tell me your choices limiting gay civil rights are anything other that bigotry. It just doesn't fly.

Heck, even in Jewish circles it's currently frowned upon to sell your daughters...

 

[Nomad]

My personal opinion is that if you have a problem with homosexuality, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.

The above is really good advice.

It reminded me of a quote by Dennis Miller (back when he was funny before he went all right-wingy): "The most important thing in the world to me is my orgasm. And the least important thing in the world is anyone else's."

 

[ballen0351]

Id rather let the people decide for their own state then the fed decide for everyone. I also rather allow the citizens decide and not the state legislature like here. Here they approved gay marriage and the people never got a chanceto even vote the governor said he wanted it the legislature said ok and passed it.

 

[granfire]

Id rather let the people decide for their own state then the fed decide for everyone. I also rather allow the citizens decide and not the state legislature like here. Here they approved gay marriage and the people never got a chanceto even vote the governor said he wanted it the legislature said ok and passed it.

But I do believe the feds decided for the South that segregation was unconstitutional...

 

[elder999]

Years ago, it was "the will of the people," that my marriage, and that of more than a few other people on this board, was illegal.

Thankfully, those laws were overturned, though it took until a 1967 SCOTUS decision for it to happen.

Some people, of course, still think my marriage is "immoral," or "wrong," and it's their right to think as much. It does not, however, have the force of law.

As for "Jesus said":

View attachment $35514_3071102665255_1494282084_32113414_707134976_n.jpg

 

[ballen0351]

But I do believe the feds decided for the South that segregation was unconstitutional...

Yep and whats segregation have to do with gay marriage.


If your complaint is the people didnt know what they were voting for then thats the pro gay marriage lobbys fault for not getting the word out good enough.
If your complaint it tyranny of the majority well thats the price you pay for living in a democracy. Sonetines the people vote badly and someday they may see the mistake and fix it. The good thing about a democracy is nothing is forever any and all rights and laws can be voted away.
Had the fed not ended segregation the states would have voted to end it at some point.

. Im pretty much against the fed for evrything other then national defense and when some state passes a law that effects other states or issues that crosses state lines . Other then that leave it for the states to decide. For better or worse if you dislike it then move. I know its not the way the constitution was written thats just my opinion. The fed needa to leave the states alone. If NC wants to outlaw gay marraige and you think thats wrong then your free to come to MD where you can get married.

 

[granfire]

Yep and whats segregation have to do with gay marriage.


If your complaint is the people didnt know what they were voting for then thats the pro gay marriage lobbys fault for not getting the word out good enough.
If your complaint it tyranny of the majority well thats the price you pay for living in a democracy. Sonetines the people vote badly and someday they may see the mistake and fix it. The good thing about a democracy is nothing is forever any and all rights and laws can be voted away.
Had the fed not ended segregation the states would have voted to end it at some point.

. Im pretty much against the fed for evrything other then national defense and when some state passes a law that effects other states or issues that crosses state lines . Other then that leave it for the states to decide. For better or worse if you dislike it then move. I know its not the way the constitution was written thats just my opinion. The fed needa to leave the states alone. If NC wants to outlaw gay marraige and you think thats wrong then your free to come to MD where you can get married.

The majority of the Southern people thought it was peachy to have that in place.
Same thing.
By the logic of the majority rule we'd still have white only fountains.

 

[ballen0351]

The majority of the Southern people thought it was peachy to have that in place.
Same thing.
By the logic of the majority rule we'd still have white only fountains.

And a majority of Californians agree with NC so are they a bunch of uneducated souther hicks like is being said about NC?

 

[ballen0351]

Id rather know upfront how people fell then have laws require them to hide it and have them do things behind my back like spit in my food. And as a cop im pretty sure ive had my fair share of spit in my food.

 

[granfire]

Id rather know upfront how people fell then have laws require them to hide it and have them do things behind my back like spit in my food. And as a cop im pretty sure ive had my fair share of spit in my food.

you think the black short order cook did not do his/her share of spitting back then?

 

[ballen0351]

you think the black short order cook did not do his/her share of spitting back then?

Back then? They still do.


Point is you cant legislate politeness or force eveyone to live in harmony by law. Sometimes its better to leave things alone until people are mature enough to allow things to happen on there own. Forcing people under law only causes.knee jerk reactions like this. I could careless if two people want to get married but if enough people do care well its power to the people. What was it they said when Obama said when he was elected when he was talking about the health care laws something to the effect of the people have spoken well you got to take the good with the bad.

 

[Ken Morgan]

In a truly democratic society there would be no taxation as no one would vote to be taxed, but we are taxed because the state needs to function.

Yes people vote the way they vote and the consequences are the consequences. However, the righteousness of a society is judged by how they treat their minorities, years ago non-Christians, women and non-whites were treated little better then cattle, we have matured somewhat in the west. In many parts of the world women are still treated less than cattle, the caste system in India is brutal, and try being a Christian in Egypt these days. We recognise these things to be wrong and we encourage those governments to do something about their poor treatment of minorities, regardless of what their populations think. Yet then somehow we think it’s ok to treat our own minorities poorly? Governments enact laws and policies all the time that are not popular, but are necessary, equal rights to gays is one of them.

 

[ballen0351]

We dont treat minorities as equals in this country they are a protected class. They are already treated differently. If my son went to school wearing a red sox hat and someone punched him in the face its assault. If he was wearing a gay pride shirt and was punxhed in the face its a hate crime with increased punishment. It is what it is. The people are not ready to accept it in NC. Marriage laws are left up to the state to decide. That state decided no. My state decided yes. If you dont like it move. If My state passed a law i could not deal with and i was totally against id move. I have that right. Someday in the future NC may decide to allow gays to marry and when they are ready they can change the law. Laws come and go. As a society changes so do the laws so far society has not changed enough to want gay marriage.

 

[elder999]

As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles. I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman. That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.

Interestingly, most of "what you find in the Bible," usually doesn't mean what you think it means, as regards to homosexuality.

Jesus, for instance, never said anything about it-though it's likely that he would have been against homosexual acts and practices, as an extremely observant Hebrew.

"Paul," of course, is another story. However, one of his passages most cited as an example of a condemnation of homosexuality is itself an example of the very murkiness one finds in this area:

Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[SUP]10 [/SUP]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

We'll leave aside the matter of authorship-again-and point out-again that the origional koine Greek might look more appropriately like this, in syntax and language:

Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.

"Unholy" here is adikos and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication. Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using–you'll find various English words and phrases instead. What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was homophilia. That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this word is never used in scripture. McNeill, in his work, The Church and the Homosexual, writes that a second century use of the word in "Apology of Aristides" seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words–malekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied–that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.

While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality–there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though the author of the works attributed to Paul seems rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship to me.

As others have pointed out, Christians no longer make burnt offerings (neither do Jews), keep kosher, perform ritual bathing, stone people for adultery, keep menstruating women segregated (and, I'm sorry, but tampons don't exactly cut it any more than lack of trichinosis does for eating pork) or even, in the interpretation of some (7th Day Adventists) keep the Sabbath holy, since Saturday is still "the seventh day." But hey, that's okay-just as using mistranslated verses and interpreting them how you choose to is okay. What's not okay, and what I'm railing about and will continue to rail about, is not just the hypocrisy, or the cherry picking of verses, or the dwelling upon Old Testament fixations with sexual behavior and mores-what is not okay is trying to run other people's lives by those rules. What is not okay, and probably wouldn't be okay with "Jesus"-anymore than homsexuality would have been "okay" with him, -culturally-is trying to use the state, or government, to rule the people. If you believe that homosexual behavior/marriage/whatever will damn you for all eternity to the fires of hell, then don't engage in it. Nowhere in scripture does it say that you'll be damned for the actions of others, or for the actions of your government. If there's gay marriage, sure, maybe it's another sign of the coming of the Apocalypse, and Jesus will walk the earth in rightiousness, bearing a flaming sword-if that's the case, you should pray harder, and mind your own business.......

 

[Ken Morgan]

The bible also says you can sell your children into slavery too, as well as kill your bride if she isn’t a virgin when you marry her. Why do we pick and choose what parts of the book we wish to follow?

 

[ballen0351]

Because as a free person with a vote your free to pick and choose whatwver you want. Its your vote if you want to listen to the taco bell dog its your right. If you want to listen to the bible its your right. If you just want to piss off a liberal and thats your only reason to vote again its your right and nobody has to defend their vote. Its their vote to cast as they see fit.