• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina voters approve same-sex marriage ban

How much you want to bet that most of that extra turnout was in fact to vote against the amendment since there really was not much of any other reason for many people besides Republicans to turn out.
A comparison with the poll data suggests that to be true (it passed by a wider margin than polled) - but it's not true that "only Republicans had a reason to turn out." In fact, I believe turnout was higher among Democrats (Democrats were actually voting on a competitive race for their gubinitorial nominee - candidates for the two major Republican races were shoe-ins).

Amendment One actually energized the liberals and those who are for same sex marriage being legal, even if they didn't win. Such people are much more likely to vote for Obama in the main election. So now you have an energized party that didn't have any reason to otherwise become excited. This can be a good thing for Dems, and especially Obama.

Richmond County Daily Journal - Amendment One to Obama

It's a pretty good theory on how Amendment One could have actually helped Obama with campaigning in NC.
Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. Half of his support in 2008 came from black voters, who oppose same sex marriage by a wide margain. Knowing that, it's not surprising that NC Democrats as a whole were split on Amendment 1, with a slight majority in favor of its passing.
 
A comparison with the poll data suggests that to be true (it passed by a wider margin than polled) - but it's not true that "only Republicans had a reason to turn out." In fact, I believe turnout was higher among Democrats (Democrats were actually voting on a competitive race for their gubinitorial nominee - candidates for the two major Republican races were shoe-ins).

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. Half of his support in 2008 came from black voters, who oppose same sex marriage by a wide margain. Knowing that, it's not surprising that NC Democrats as a whole were split on Amendment 1, with a slight majority in favor of its passing.

It still comes back to how it will affect Obama. Overall, it is not very likely to lose him any votes from Dems, even black or Christian Dems because it wasn't exactly a huge change in his position. He wasn't likely to support a one man/one woman Amendment to the US Constitution considering he doesn't support DOMA.

It's possible that it could lose him some Independents or others, but it could easily gain him just as many or more. (He gained one already.) And it is highly unlikely that it would make a difference in any way for any Republican on this issue because they most likely weren't going to vote for him to begin with.
 
It still comes back to how it will affect Obama. Overall, it is not very likely to lose him any votes from Dems, even black or Christian Dems because it wasn't exactly a huge change in his position.
Spend a Sunday or two in a black church and you might not be so confident in that assumption. There's a reason, after all, that Obama has held such a wishy-washy stance on the issue.
 
Spend a Sunday or two in a black church and you might not be so confident in that assumption. There's a reason, after all, that Obama has held such a wishy-washy stance on the issue.

A) this assumes that all blacks go to church. B) it also assumes that all religious blacks are completely against same sex marriage.

Don’t blame blacks for Obama’s reticence on same-sex marriage (Updated) - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

An ex of mine, who is black, was one of the first ones to post on facebook that he was very disappointed that Amendment One passed. He, like myself, was raised in NC.

Plus, Obama is going after many of the demographics that got him elected in the first place in a bid to energize them in one area that sets many of them apart from other voters, they support same sex marriage. This is the LGBT groups, young voters, and even many women. And, although the support is less than Democrats, the Independents support same sex marriage more than they oppose it.
 
Well look at that. The very reason why the Marriage License was created in the first place. Had to stop those unholy marriages between races. Marriage is an institution for 1 man and 1 woman of the same race, quit trying to redefine it!

Marriage is an institution for 1 man and his property (the wife), quit trying to redefine it!
 
Marriage is an institution for 1 man and his property (the wife), quit trying to redefine it!

Marriage is an institution for 1 man and his property (any number of wives), quit trying to redefine it!
 
Marriage is an institution for 1 man and his property (any number of wives), quit trying to redefine it!


Marriage is an institution for 1 man and whichever female he managed to club over the head and drag home, quit trying to redefine it!
 
Marriage is an institution for 1 man and whichever female he managed to club over the head and drag home, quit trying to redefine it!

Marriage is an institution for 1 man and his right hand. Quit trying to redefine it. Those who marry their left hand worship the Devil.
 
Marriage is an institution for 1 man and whichever female he managed to club over the head and drag home, quit trying to redefine it!

This just makes me think about where we got the best man for the wedding from.

The guy who stole the girl needed someone to hold off her male relatives while he took her as his.
 
It's pretty hard to interpret this any other way:

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)

I believe in the Bible, I am a Christian. I try to live by the word of God and cannot support people who do not. This is not right or wrong and nothing you can say or do will change this.

We are done now,

Goodbye.

Though marriage is not a 'sin', Jesus preferred we NOT get married as it takes the focus of God and puts it on the spouse. Marriage was intended for those who were promiscuous.

"Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife." 1 Corinthians 7:27

"But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." 1 Corinthians 7:28

I do hope you live according to scripture since you "believe in the Bible"
 
Most Christians I know of are "Burger King" Christians. They pick and choose and want to have Christianity their way.
 
Most Christians I know of are "Burger King" Christians. They pick and choose and want to have Christianity their way.

That is probably the right way to do it. Believing in God does not mean letting a religion run your life and dictate everything you do. Or at least it shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
That is probably the right way to do it. Believing in God does not mean letting a religion run your life and dictate everything you do. Or at least it shouldn't.

To a point I agree, but it's funny how many Christians will say homosexuality is a sin and then cite Leviticus to support it while ignoring the rest.
 
To a point I agree, but it's funny how many Christians will say homosexuality is a sin and then cite Leviticus to support it while ignoring the rest.

I am still waiting on someone to explain to me any GOOD reason why they should not be allowed. With the separation of church of state Leviticus should not be considered.
 
I am still waiting on someone to explain to me any GOOD reason why they should not be allowed. With the separation of church of state Leviticus should not be considered.

These are the excuses I've seen used:

#1 It will destroy the sanctity of marriage if gay marriage is legalized.
We live in a world where the divorce rate is extrememly high. I've seen 50% in some cases, but even if it's low like 40% that is still high. We've seen celebrities get married and divorced constantly, we have seen marriages that are unhealthy. And non of it has to do with gay marriage.

#2 My religion is against it.
Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. The simple fact is there are many LEGAL things in the U.S. that go against Christian values. That is no reason to vote against something just because of your religion. The fact something is legal does not mean it's morally right.

#3 It will lead to beastiality and pedophiles can marry children.
This one is beyond stupid and shouldn't even need to be debated. If someone can't see the difference between f*****g an animal or child and a legal consenting adult, there's no hope to get them to understand.

#4 Marriage is between a man and a woman
Marriage used to be defined differently to 1 man 1 woman of the same race, same noblity, etc. Marriage can easily be changed to between two people.

#5 Gay marriage will lead to polygamy.
I don't think it will, but even if it did. I have no problem with polygamy. The main issue with polygamy would be administrative more than anything. Forms, what to do when someone dies, divorce, etc.

Anyway, those are the main ones I've heard and all of them do not justify keeping gay marriage illegal.
 
These are the excuses I've seen used:

#1 It will destroy the sanctity of marriage if gay marriage is legalized.
We live in a world where the divorce rate is extrememly high. I've seen 50% in some cases, but even if it's low like 40% that is still high. We've seen celebrities get married and divorced constantly, we have seen marriages that are unhealthy. And non of it has to do with gay marriage.

#2 My religion is against it.
Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. The simple fact is there are many LEGAL things in the U.S. that go against Christian values. That is no reason to vote against something just because of your religion. The fact something is legal does not mean it's morally right.

#3 It will lead to beastiality and pedophiles can marry children.
This one is beyond stupid and shouldn't even need to be debated. If someone can't see the difference between f*****g an animal or child and a legal consenting adult, there's no hope to get them to understand.

#4 Marriage is between a man and a woman
Marriage used to be defined differently to 1 man 1 woman of the same race, same noblity, etc. Marriage can easily be changed to between two people.

#5 Gay marriage will lead to polygamy.
I don't think it will, but even if it did. I have no problem with polygamy. The main issue with polygamy would be administrative more than anything. Forms, what to do when someone dies, divorce, etc.

Anyway, those are the main ones I've heard and all of them do not justify keeping gay marriage illegal.

I wouldn't call it excuses, I would call it reasons. However, none of the reasons are logical and are all emotion based. It was an emotional response to enact the law, not a logical one.

I am pretty sure the law is not going to stand up in court anyways. It was the part where they made civil unions unconstitutional. I believe that will cause some problems for them in the future.
 
These are the excuses I've seen used:

#2 My religion is against it.
Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. The simple fact is there are many LEGAL things in the U.S. that go against Christian values. That is no reason to vote against something just because of your religion. The fact something is legal does not mean it's morally right.

To this I would add that theocracy --direct or indirect rule by religious doctrine -- is profoundly dangerous generally. A basic point that many people here who base their electoral participation upon religion don't quite seem to understand -- of if they do, they don't seem to care about -- is that voting based upon religious doctrine is theocracy. It's legal theocracy, as U.S. law makes no attempt to assess or base restrictions upon the basis of an individual's vote (beyond barring overt vote-purchasing), but it's still theocracy. As with any dominant population on a given axis, the threat of being on the other side of such a political imbalance (i.e. being on the side where other's doctrines are actually imposed upon you) either doesn't occur to them (due to being so accustomed to getting their way on many fronts) or (even more absurd) falsely projected upon the very people who are victims of theocracy (for example, hard religious rightists claiming persecution at the hands of gays and lesbians and their allies). Examples of the latter may be found easily right here on DP in many of the SSM threads.
 
#1 It will destroy the sanctity of marriage if gay marriage is legalized.
We live in a world where the divorce rate is extrememly high. I've seen 50% in some cases, but even if it's low like 40% that is still high. We've seen celebrities get married and divorced constantly, we have seen marriages that are unhealthy. And non of it has to do with gay marriage.

I agree with you that it isn't like marriage is some sacred bond. It should be, but it isn't. Now to an individual their marriage may be sacred. It might be the most important thing in the world to them. Two other people being married would not effect that. It has no bearing on your marriage, values or any aspect of your life. The only people a gay marriage would effect is the two people being married. If people were really concerned about the sanctity of marriage they would be fighting to get people to honor their vows, not fighting to keep people from taking them. For all we know gay couples would honor those vows better than straight couple do. They cant be any worse.

#2 My religion is against it.
Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. The simple fact is there are many LEGAL things in the U.S. that go against Christian values. That is no reason to vote against something just because of your religion. The fact something is legal does not mean it's morally right.

Until my religion can start dictating and changing their rights and they agree to live by all of the rules of my religion then I would never accept this as a valid reason. There is a reason we have separation of church and state. Religion should be factored into 0 laws.
#3 It will lead to beastiality and pedophiles can marry children.
This one is beyond stupid and shouldn't even need to be debated. If someone can't see the difference between f*****g an animal or child and a legal consenting adult, there's no hope to get them to understand.

Yea I don't get it either.

#4 Marriage is between a man and a woman
Marriage used to be defined differently to 1 man 1 woman of the same race, same noblity, etc. Marriage can easily be changed to between two people.

I am not sure who dictated that marriage was between man and a woman. For that matter who dictated that it could not be changed?
#5 Gay marriage will lead to polygamy.
I don't think it will, but even if it did. I have no problem with polygamy. The main issue with polygamy would be administrative more than anything. Forms, what to do when someone dies, divorce, etc.

gay marriage =/= polygamy. You cannot say one leads to the other.
 
74752_355544031178342_268330443233035_966641_556985625_n.jpg


This is pretty darn good.
 
#5 Gay marriage will lead to polygamy.
I don't think it will, but even if it did. I have no problem with polygamy. The main issue with polygamy would be administrative more than anything. Forms, what to do when someone dies, divorce, etc.
The main issue with polygamy is fear over the tremendous weight it could put on the "safety net," given the number of children such families tend to produce. Such families today are largely subsidized at taxpayer expense, since most of the wives are considered single and receive welfare - and this of course wouldn't change if it were legalized - it would just make it more common.

I can't even begin to think through the mess of what the government is to do concerning alimony, child visitation, etc. should one wife decide to divorce her husband and four wives.
 
Though marriage is not a 'sin', Jesus preferred we NOT get married as it takes the focus of God and puts it on the spouse. Marriage was intended for those who were promiscuous.
Not for "those who were promiscuous" but for who could not commit to a life of chastity (i.e. most people - it being considered a gift to be able to live an ascetic life). To Paul, marriage was a good thing.

(that's Paul stating his opinion, not Jesus stating his preference)

I do hope you live according to scripture since you "believe in the Bible"
Which, as far as I can tell, says that most people should get married and have lots of sex and babies.
 
The main issue with polygamy is fear over the tremendous weight it could put on the "safety net," given the number of children such families tend to produce. Such families today are largely subsidized at taxpayer expense, since most of the wives are considered single and receive welfare - and this of course wouldn't change if it were legalized - it would just make it more common.

Yeah currently they prolly are considered "single". But they would no longer be considered as such if polygamy were made legal. In fact listing all the other wives and husband might even get you disqualified from recieving food stamps more easily as the income potential would be far higher.
 
Most Christians I know of are "Burger King" Christians. They pick and choose and want to have Christianity their way.

Most who say they are Christians are not Christians. They are quick to cite Leviticus but ignore Jesus when he tells them to give to the poor and follow him. In referring to giving to the poor, Jesus says "Whatever you have done unto the least of these you have done unto me".
 
Last edited:
Most who say they are Christians are not Christians. They are quick to cite Leviticus but ignore Jesus when he tells them to give to the poor and follow him. In referring to giving to the poor, Jesus says "Whatever you have done unto the least of these you have done unto me".

If you say you're a Christian and you're citing Leviticus as a way of life, then you clearly do not understand true Christianity. Because of Jesus, we live under a new covenant. And not to say certain aspects of the old Testament do not apply (i.e. murder, stealing, etc), they are just summed up in two commands, to love God and love each other and as long as you follow through with that, it should be clear to the individual as to what is right and what is wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom