• 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

Moderator's Warning:
Let's cut down on the trolling shall we? In fact, let's cut it out all together.
 
Wait. Leviticus counts now? Awesome.

So, you don't eat shellfish or wear clothing of two different threads, right? You also think those things should be illegal? You are saying I should not be allowed the right to eat shellfish or plant two different crops side by side?

You know, it's funny. When criticizing Islam for all the crazy stuff in it, Christians usually deflect criticism of Leviticus because it's old testament and doesn't count. Yet, every single time same-sex marriage comes up, somebody is whipping out Leviticus quotes.

And after the pro-Leviticus side promptly invalidates their own position by stating that Jesus washed away the old ways (after the anti-Leviticus side quotes its entirety to demonstrate how outdated Leviticus is), what's the normal segue? I forget.
 
The Federal Governemnt was formed to protect people certain unalienable rights. Marriage isn't one of them. The rest is left up to the individual states.

Marriage is a three-way(tee-hee) contract between two individuals and THE STATE they live in, not the Federal Government. That's why the State can make laws concerning marriage.

Want to make these "issues" go away? Get the State out of the marriage business.

If you don't like North Carolina's laws, don't live there. Problem solved.

Marriage has been determined to be a right by SCOTUS.
 
Bad idea - many of those benefits are tax benefits, and allowing any one to claim another person and get a tax break is not a good thing.

I don't see how that's any different than those that marry and divorce. Its all the same to the IRS. And SSN is an SSN. You can't have the same SSN as a dependant on more than one tax return.

It would really simplify everything, since governments have a hand in marriage for the sole purpose of access to private information and tax consequences. Break it all the way back down to a designated benefactor. It changes nothing in the eyes of the state or federal governments because everything gets the same thing. It lets the church have marriage, which is where it belongs in my opinion anyway, and gives the government what they want.
 
So marriage between a man and a woman is stupid?

Good going NC. I stand behind you. All this "you have to accept gay" crap is disgusting. It IS immoral, and it goes directly against my religious beliefs. Since when do I not have a right to believe that gay marriage is wrong? It seems that its wrong if I don't accept it, but if you push acceptance so strongly, why don't you accept the fact that I do NOT accept it?

No one is saying that you have to accept it. We are just saying that you cannot deny others the right to marry.

And comparing slavery to gay marriage, I know that when THIS comparison is made, that obviously NO good argument for it CAN be made.

Slavery was only brought up because Tigger tried to assert that his views were right and no one elses was because his opinion has been around for thousands of years of tradition. It was not a comparison between the two. If I wanted to compare then I would use Miscegation laws. Which are similar.
 
564233_448659925163466_205344452828349_100677201_537125933_n.jpg


LOL.
 
That will probably cost him about 2-3 points in the election.

And please tell us who those people are that were going to support Obama, who would suddenly stop supporting him over this?
 
I am just glad that the President took a stand on the issue.
 
Really? I can't think of many people who would not vote for him over this who where going to vote for him before he said that.

There's normally a 5-10% lean-erns or undecided at this point. Out of that, its probable that this wedge issue is enough to make up their minds. Those that were for and against Obama at this point aren't going to change their mind over this issue, but the undecideds are looking for a reason.
 
There's normally a 5-10% lean-erns or undecided at this point. Out of that, its probable that this wedge issue is enough to make up their minds. Those that were for and against Obama at this point aren't going to change their mind over this issue, but the undecideds are looking for a reason.

No. People who actually vote on this issue are pretty uncommon, and most of those already have a clear choice. If this gained or lost Obama more than a handful of votes nationwide I would be shocked.
 
No. People who actually vote on this issue are pretty uncommon, and most of those already have a clear choice. If this gained or lost Obama more than a handful of votes nationwide I would be shocked.

Only time will tell.
 
Only time will tell.

No, it likely won't tell, since there really isn't a way to know exactly how people would have voted if he didn't say this during his campaign and how they will actually vote now because he said this.
 
If this actually cost Obama points from the anti gay marriage side (which doesn't make any sense to me), then he would easily pick up as many points from his own base who were beginning to lose patience with his not taking a stand on the issue.

Exactly. This is very likely going to gain him just as many people, if not more than it could have ever lost him.
 
Does this vote remind you of something?

528538_434917363186406_200137333331078_1725983_190418982_n.jpg
 
Are you serious? No you aren't, you're just joking, nevermind.

They decided they were gay. If they want to get married, find a woman or man or whatever they need. Everyone is discriminated against, you don't hear people crying about it do you? I get discriminated against every time I go to Wal Mart because I'm the wrong color. Now, WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?

And those who were married to someone not of their race decided to be with that person who wasn't of their own race.

Your WalMart comparison makes no sense at all. What does WalMart have to do with the government discriminating?
 
That's not really the issue. Most probably don't care what Bob & Steve do. They do care what their government does, and what it promotes. Given the outcome of the vote, I'd say that most people in NC believe that a committed heterosexual relationship is of greater value to society than a a committed homosexual relationship - they don't want to put the two on equal ground.

I would say two things are much more likely. First, most people don't really care or couldn't take the time to actually care about this issue. Hell, my sister was in labor yesterday in NC and many of my relatives there were with her. Lots of votes right there not made because of a family situation. How many more like that? How many that couldn't take time off work for something that doesn't affect them? That is the biggest issue. Not enough people care enough one way or the other on this issue.

The second thing is that many times the people for such laws/amendments banning same sex marriage will paint same sex marriage and those that support it in such a negative light that some feel they have to vote for it to protect themselves and their children. Not a good thing, but still happens. Hell, the pro-side of amendment one labeled themselves "For Marriage". Notice they left out that it was only "for marriage for some". "For those that we agree with."
 
Does this vote remind you of something?

528538_434917363186406_200137333331078_1725983_190418982_n.jpg

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!
 
Want to make these "issues" go away? Get the State out of the marriage business.

If you don't like North Carolina's laws, don't live there. Problem solved.

Both of these strike me as disingenuous...if one takes seriously the rights of politically vulnerable minorities.

The first one -- arguing that those who would prefer that state governments not be involved in handling legal recognition of marriage -- promotes an abstract strategy which sounds just fine until it touches anything resembling reality. The obvious counter is that heterosexual married couples aren't about to give up their legal marital privileges for the sake of ideological or logical consistency of their legislative principles. The clearly predictable result of a campaign to get state governments out of the marriage business would be a massive failure, as even those heterosexual voters who are political allies of equal rights in principle will drop dramatically in numbers and in campaign funding if they are asked to risk giving up a privilege they already have.

The second-- a variation of the love-it-or-leave-it meme -- ignores the deeper objection involved, which is the small-d democratic principle that the recognition of gay marriage should not be held hostage to the convenience or shifting political winds of an unaffected and already-entitled hetero voting plurality (for the same reason that it's absurd to have legislative bodies comprised mostly of men making policy on women's access to birth control and abortion). The most influential funders, voters, etc. in such situations is precisely a group of people either barely effected, or even not directly affected at all, by the outcome of the relevant policy.

...this is, of course, above and beyond the generic objection to love-it-or-leave-it: that if such a principle is followed to its natural extension, ultimately no one would stick around and fight for positive change.
 
I would say two things are much more likely. First, most people don't really care or couldn't take the time to actually care about this issue. Hell, my sister was in labor yesterday in NC and many of my relatives there were with her. Lots of votes right there not made because of a family situation. How many more like that? How many that couldn't take time off work for something that doesn't affect them? That is the biggest issue. Not enough people care enough one way or the other on this issue.
Turnout was actually much higher than for a typical primary election - and early voting set a record. Last I heard, they were predicting % turnout to be higher than it had been for at least a couple of decades. People clearly care about the issue.

The second thing is that many times the people for such laws/amendments banning same sex marriage will paint same sex marriage and those that support it in such a negative light that some feel they have to vote for it to protect themselves and their children.
Given the responses in this thread concerning religous, homophobic, backward, inbred, idiot Southerners - you'll see that proponents of gay marriage do a very good job of casting negative light on the issue all by themselves.

I'd say that they feel they have to vote for it to protect themselves from a judge simply declaring it legal. That's what this is a reaction to. The mood of the country had been slowly changing (which is why there's even a debate to begin with) but quickly soured among many when the courts, not the people, began to decide the issue.
 
Turnout was actually much higher than for a typical primary election - and early voting set a record. Last I heard, they were predicting % turnout to be higher than it had been for at least a couple of decades. People clearly care about the issue.

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. 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.

Given the responses in this thread concerning religous, homophobic, backward, inbred, idiot Southerners - you'll see that proponents of gay marriage do a very good job of casting negative light on the issue all by themselves.

I'd say that they feel they have to vote for it to protect themselves from a judge simply declaring it legal. That's what this is a reaction to. The mood of the country had been slowly changing (which is why there's even a debate to begin with) but quickly soured among many when the courts, not the people, began to decide the issue.

I see it differently. I think that many older voters and those who are trying to desperately hold onto their dislike and disapproval of homosexuals and same sex marriage are trying to grab hold to the law with whatever they can to keep their old ways in place. It won't be long before the new generation takes over and throws out the old discriminatory laws, either through voting or the SCOTUS. People seem to forget that the Judicial system is a vital part of our system of government, particularly when that system does not rule in a way they want it to.
 
Back
Top Bottom