Shared publicly  - 
 
So North Carolina is passing laws against same-sex marriage "because the bible says so". When can we expect them to pass capital punishment laws for adultery? And for working on Sundays? And for cursing at your parents? If they're going to read the book literally, I think we get to ask for some consistency.

Karl Rove made "the sanctity of marriage" a huge political issue in 2000, and I have a feeling they're going to try to do the same again in this election year. How many times has he been married again? And how many times has he been divorced? I forget. Sanctity of marriage indeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?hpt=us_c2
A referendum in North Carolina that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage is in the spotlight Tuesday, as three states hold primaries.
27
4
Craig Day's profile photoIan Grams's profile photoJoshua Anderson's profile photoChris Boyle's profile photo
17 comments
 
Gay marriage has been against the law in NC for quite a while now. Amendment One is not about that.
 
People need to stop shoving their own religions (delusions) down other peoples throats!
 
Thanks Ben, though I think the principle is the same: attempting to read the bible very selectively and then writing it into law (I had missed the part of this being about writing the state charter).

By the way, there's a lot of criticism being directed at North Carolina today, deservedly so, but this point of view is widespread in most other states, and even California passed Prop 8 a few years ago. Thankfully civil rights aren't subject to majority vote, so the courts overturned it.
 
People need to stop shoving things into places they don't belong:)
 
religion and laws ... Why should people even think about mixing both ... >_<
How can it work when there are multiple religions and people who don't even believe in any religion ... pfff...
 
This is great! Glad to hear it. God bless!!
 
Looks like NC will now have to pass laws allowing polygamy and slavery.
.
 
Tor--I just moved here and I'm SHOCKED about the results. Apparently I hang with a liberal crowd, because I don't know a single person who was FOR the amendment. When I voted yesterday, though, I passed a sign that said, "Vote with God. Check FOR Amendment One." Ugh. This clip from the West Wing is a good response to people who use the Bible as an excuse for discrimination: Jed Bartlet lays it down I also highly recommend the documentary, "For the Bible Tells Me So."
 
Tor, I follow you for your insight in to Android/Java, however a few points from a Conservative.
1. The Republicans will probably not make gay marriage and issue because it would pull them no additional votes. If Republicans are smart they will focus like a laser on the economy.
2. Your attack on Karl Rove also doesn't make much sense. He also knows that the base is beyond motivated and thus would not bring up social issues. He, like many paid political people are focused on getting more "R's" than "D's. That is it plain and simple.
3. Yours and others point about a person not being able to make a law or promote a law if they themselves have broken it, also doesn't make much sense. So using that logic anyone who has ever gotten a speeding ticket should NEVER promote speed limits.
4. Laws are made to allow the citizens to exist together. However, laws must be based off of some morality. In the case of this country the vast majority of people get their morality from a Jewish/Christian religion.

I am not trying to start some holy war (pun intended), but I just wanted to give you some perspective from a Conservative point of view. I have a feeling that you don't hear that much in CA. :-)
 
Hate when people make blanket statements like "vast majority of people get their morality from..." religion.

I don't need religion to teach me killing is wrong, stealing is wrong etc. One does not need religion as a moral compass.

If religion ceased to exist tomorrow we wouldn't suddenly start killing each other.
 
+mike quinn I had some interesting discussions on that subject when I was young and foolish and debating creationists. Their argument was "you're an atheist, so what stops you from being a nihilist?" My counter-argument was that morality is inherent, not a set of rules that we follow to keep some imaginary god happy. Some recent studies are quite interesting; they show that behaviour that we think of as morality-based, like altruism, is inherent in babies, and in our closest living relatives.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
 
Wow, thanks for the interesting discussion everyone!

+Steve Michael, regarding (1) I'm pretty sure they'll try it again because it's an issue that mobilizes their base. It's not clear to me that focusing on the economy is a winning point for them given their past track record. Regarding (2) I think we're allowed to criticize Karl Rove as being a hypocrite and anyone else with a "do as I say, not as a I do" record. Yes, you can advocate for speed limits, but if you exclude yourself or if you're a frequent violator we get to question your motives. Regarding morality, I ask you this: Is the only thing keeping you from murdering somebody the fear of punishment, the promise of rewards, or simply the information that God said it was wrong? I suspect it is not.

Edited: I kind of went of on a tangent there, even though the discussion is interesting. But the main point I wanted to make originally here regarding morality is that the whole objection to same sex marriage is based on a literal interpretation of the bible, and with the same level of interpretation, we should be making laws against eating shellfish, laws against adultery (with capital punishment for it) etc.
 
Lets not forget wearing cotton and wool together, ban that. Oh and reintroduce slavery, that's allowed in the old and new testaments. But that goes against my own morals, but then I didn't get them from religion so must be seriously flawed.
 
I believe most of the hostility on this subject comes down to overloading the term marriage. We should simply eliminate civil "marriage" all together and replace it with civil unions to be defined as a legally binding union of two adults regardless of gender (Male, Female, Trans etc). The term marriage could then be applied as each couple sees fit within the scope of their own beliefs.
 
Again, I follow you for your Java/Android posts, and want to be clear that I am hear to present a conservative point of view, not start any arguments. If I wanted to do that I would bring up software patents :-)

1. We disagree - the base is so motivated right now the Republicans have not need at all to do anything like this. Rove of all people knows this.
2. I see your point. However what if someone is a drug addict and yet still wants tough drug laws passed because they know it is the correct thing to do.... Would it make it any less right? (Assumes that you believe illegal drugs should remain illegal)

Is the only thing keeping me from murdering someone my morals that come from my religious beliefs. It is one of the major factors. It would keep me from performing an abortion (in almost all cases). It would prevent me from killing someone to feed my family. It would prevent me from stealing software/movies off of the Internet, even "if" there was a law that allowed it.

To Jim Powers, I totally agree with you. This is the solution that I believe we will end up with some day.
Add a comment...