In 1875, NC altered their charter to declare that “all marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited.”
The 1875 interracial marriage ban remained part of the state charter until a new constitution was adopted in 1971. 1971!!
I live in North Carolina. I am from Pennsylvania originally. One thing you guys have to understand is that this is the Bible belt. People really do stick with their guns and religion here. They are deeply conservative and religious. To criticize their vote is like criticizing their religious beliefs. The people who are criticizing North Carolina for being "backward," "bigots," etc. are actually being narrowminded themselves in that they are failing to accept individual differences among people. To be good, broadminded citizens, we need to accept that not all people think just the way you do, either in their culture or religion, or political beliefs. Should we criticize Jewish people for not being Christian? Should we criticize Muslims for not being Baptists?
citizens their civil rights because of their religious beliefs??
What if a majority of radical Muslims moved to North Carolina and decided that all women in the state should wear burkas because, after all, that is what their religious beliefs dictate. Examine the absurdity of that hypothetical and you will realize how absurd your argument is.
As Mr. Sensai pointed out, this isn't the first time NC has tried to deny civil rights to its citizens. Would you be defending THAT constitutional amendment if it were still in effect? I'm sure they had all kinds of "Biblical" reasons to justify that little bit of bigotry as well.
Read this for a look at "Traditional Marriage" sanctioned by the Bible:
I don't support gay marriage, but I don't hate gay people. Saying that those who disagree with your viewpoint have hatred for people is a very old argument, doright. You can't force marriage to be something it's not. Be tolerant of the opinions of others, please.
hatefulness, and they usually hide behind religion or some alleged moral code so they don't have to look inside and see the wasteland that masquerades as a conscience.
God wanted women to be second class citizens, too, according to many religions. Too bad, SOME women have wised up and removed that nonsense from the popular narrative, but it still hangs on in the nasty recesses of the collective mentality of certain parts of this country.
Just as we did in the South in the 1960s, we will eventually bring to present day reality those who need to have someone to feel superior to in order to believe in their own holiness.
My post wasn't only directed at you 65. Disagree old argument or not what is right is right. I can tolerate your opinion, but won't accept your actions which deny rights to others. You say you do not the but what you promote shows nothing but hatred.
Person A: I think denying civil rights to certain groups of people is entirely justified if I don't like how those people live their lives.
Person B: Denying civil rights to certain groups of people is an evil act that cannot be condoned or sanctioned by any moral person, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Person A: Oh, how dare you attack me. It's so unfair. I was merely expressing my opinion!
This is the conversation Person A thinks we are having:
Person A: Oh, I just hate bananas. They make me sick and they smell really bad.
Person B: I love bananas and try to eat one every day. They are really good for you.
Person A: Oh, how dare you attack me! It's so unfair. I was merely expressing my opinion.
Dear Person A: These are people's lives and futures and the lives of their children and their futures. It's not about bananas and it is NOT about opinions. This is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which you apparently don't believe everyone in this country is entitled to. What's even more ridiculous, you think that you will get away with oppressing others in the name of religion over the long-term. And I would just like to indicate to you that you are SO on the wrong side of history that it is truly sad. I can only hope that you will never have a gay child and never be able to run your toxic narrative on him or her.
"I wonder how they feel about Obama openly supporting gay marriage?" Well, they probably think it's a joke since he used to support gay marriage before running for Senate. Now that it's become useful for his own political gain, he supports gay marriage again.
How do gay people feel about Obama's support for gay marriage? I certainly can't speak for them, but maybe they feel betrayed since he only supports it when it's convenient for him, when it benefits him, and when he can get some money out of it.
Denying the rights of others is bad, but is not necessarily motivated by hatred.
Men once denied women the vote, but certainly did not hate them, as a rule. Slaveholders and segregationists exploited blacks, but didn't necessarily hate them.
I doubt that Obama is alone in his recent conversion to supporting gay marriage. Surely he and others who have changed their minds were not led to their former position by hate, or their position would not have changed.
On the other hand, we have...
...Mitt Romney. Not content with addressing a closeted gay classmate as "girl" in class, Romney led a premeditated assault on another, younger, boy. He claims not to even remember the incident, laughs it off as a prank, and wants us to give him a chance to go nationwide with his persecution of gays, toward whom his attitude has apparently not changed at all.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-12-2012 at 09:45 AM..
Yes, I do believe that a deep and perhaps unconscious (giving the benefit of the doubt) hatred and fear of women is at the root of most organized religions. But then, I was raised Catholic and was treated to a bird's eye view of the many ways in which women are subjugated, degraded, and blamed for everything while simultaneously being held to a standard that is impossible for any human woman to achieve. You never heard of the saint/slut dichotomy?
Do I even have to mention how Muslims treat women. Right, it's ONLY the radical Muslims who practice honor killing and flogging and beating and ritual genital mutilation and other heinous acts against women, but hey, they only do it to protect women from their own evil natures. Seriously?
And let's not talk about the slave sex trade, which is alive and well and operating with the full cooperation of governments worldwide.
Ball Three, are you really trying to convince me that women have gained the rights we do have because men WANTED us to have them?? Have you never read about what men did to the leaders of the suffrage movement in the U.S. when they were trying to get the vote. Read about some of it here: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/su...age_brutal.htm
No, we don't try to deny people their civil rights just based on a difference of opinion. Do people not hear how foolish it sounds to say things like, "Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm trying to harm you or that I hate you. I just have a different opinion!" I can just hear Governor Wallace making that statement to Martin Luther King, Jr.. "You see, Dr. King, my OPINION is that Black people are not entitled to drink from the same water fountains or eat in the same restaurants as white people. God told me."
Right. I usually give you more credit than that, Ball Three. Perhaps you could clarify on what basis YOU would feel comfortable denying people their civil rights? I'm curious. Do you think these folks are acting out of love, compassion, kindness, openness, sincerity, generosity, inclusiveness... what? I'm dying to know.
First, let me say that I agree entirely with your well-expressed post #15.
I always appreciate your posts because you speak from a perspective (female, for one thing) that I just don't have.
On the issue of suffrage, your link was a shocker. My mother was born in 1895, and was no shrinking violet, but she never breathed a word about any of this. Maybe it was hushed up, so nobody at the time heard about it except those directly involved, sort of like the atrocities against Native Americans, and remains little known except to feminists.
You may be interested to know that in the middle of downtown Nashville, on the corner of a building right across the street from the capitol, there is a plaque commemorating, as I recall, the courage of a TN state legislator who sacrificed his political career by casting the critical vote that put women's suffrage over the top in TN, which may have been what put it over nationwide. I guess it's supportive of what you are saying that his vote brought on such hostility.
Please don't blame me for not being hip to all this. I never had the benefit of what progressive radio host Stephanie Miller called "twelve years' hard time in Catholic schools." :-)
Yes, I have heard of the saint/slut dichotomy (or words to that effect). A few of my fraternity brothers back in the late '50s seemed to subscribe to this view of women, which I thought was ridiculous. It literally drove one kid crazy, contributing substan-tially, in my opinion, to delusions that landed him in the psychiatric ward at the university hospital. Or maybe he was already crazy, and this was just a symptom. Anyway, I ran into him once after his discharge, and even in our very brief conver-sation, it became obvious that his attitude toward women was unchanged.
But, speaking of impossible standards, aren't you setting one, by asking that people evolve almost overnight from marginalizing gays to fully accepting them?
I specifically said that denying anyone's civil rights was wrong, and never suggested that it was motivated by love, compassion, etc. All I am saying is that it may result from misguided religious conviction, twisted sociological convictions (see The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray), or just plain mental inertia, rather than hate. In which case their viewpoint may evolve over time, like that of Obama, and unlike that of Romney.
Last edited by Ball Three; 05-12-2012 at 12:42 AM..
Keep calling what gays want "civil rights" and you will eventually fool some people. There are lots of legal ways for people to amass wealth in this country. No one denies they have the "right" to be rich, but I never hear the far left gay privilege crowd talking about how morally right it is to have an oil, investment banking, or health insurance fortune. Maybe cramming gay marriage down the throats of a lot of people who oppose it will make it a legal right, but what's legal isn't always right. Don't forget to use lots of name-calling and harsh personal attacks in your debates. That always demonstrates moral superiority.
went further than to simply deny marriage rights to gays.
It also makes it impossible for there to be any type of domestic partnerships between gays OR between heterosexual couples.
While I can see that getting one's panties in a wad about the word "marriage" COULD be a result of ignorance based on religious indoctrination, the removal of ANY standard method for gays to achieve parity under the law through domestic partnership can only be ascribed to hatred and small-mindedness and a real intention to harm others.
As referenced below, each couple will be allowed to go out and set up legal contracts, but that places an unusual burden on individual couples, when it would be so much more efficient to the society to have an alternative way for gays to establish a legal relationship. Yes, this is hatred, pure and simple.
Quote:
Rhonda Evans Case, a law expert at East Carolina University, tell us the law will further entrench the state constitution in prohibition of gay marriage, meaning it will be harder in the future for lawmakers to pass a law legalizing same-sex marriages.
Opponents of the law say, because of it's broad language, it will cause some homo and even heterosexual unmarried couples to lose health insurance for themselves and their dependents. Evans Case says, like any law, this one will be left open to interpretation by insurance companies and judges.
It's also been said the new law will make it harder for people to gain domestic violence protection. North Carolina law requires evidence of a relationship in order to grant certain domestic violence laws, opponents say the law will make it harder to provide evidence, since the only relationship legally recognized by the state will be heterosexual marriage.
Ultimately, experts say, it's impossible to know exactly what the ramifications of the law will be, if any, until judges start interpreting the law and making rulings on it's behalf.
The second clause in the law does allow for contractual agreements, like end-of-life contracts or wills. Proponents say this will allow unmarried couples to regain any benefits they might lose because of the law. It will now be the responsibility of each couple to find what contracts they need and take the legal steps to acquire them.
While I can see that getting one's panties in a wad about the word "marriage" COULD be a result of ignorance based on religious indoctrination, the removal of ANY standard method for gays to achieve parity under the law through domestic partnership can only be ascribed to hatred and small-mindedness and a real intention to harm others.
Sounds like this is true of most NC voters, who were apparently so eager to punish gays for daring to be themselves that they managed to screw over straight unmarried couples into the bargain.
I was thinking of other states when I suggested that less-extreme forms of discrimination might reflect less-extreme attitudes.
but I never hear the far left gay privilege crowd talking about how morally right it is to have an oil, investment banking, or health insurance fortune.
I wish you'd get your facts straight. It's not an oil, investment banking OR health insurance fortune that I have. It's all three! And I want to marry my life partner so I can destroy your marriage! Are we clear now?
05-09-2012, 03:02 PM
Simple View
