Jump to content
Note . . . my previous comment was written before Tom's comment . . . just not posted yet.
MikeNC - I have read several of the comments here and I would add to what Courseaire stated that that both people made comments that were "out of line". I have to say that when I read your first comment about Harley "knowing" DR, I read it the same way as they did. I do acknowlwedge that however, that was not your intent. I also read the Walmart comment as a threat to have a physical confrontation in the parking lot. Again . . . based on your statements, not your intent.
As has been stated on here recently, we all need to "play nice". As we all know, but seem to forget in heated moments, words (especially when thare isn't any non-verbal cues) can be interpreted many ways. This is especially true when the relationship has it's challenges already. It's sad this whole thing happened but I feel the worst for Diane because she had nothing to do with the initial conversation.
Peace out . . .
Amen! NO on One!
I have a couple of questions that seem to keep coming up in my brain . . .
If Sam and Chris want to get married who checks out their sexual preference? Sam could be Samantha or Samuel. Chris could be Christine or Christian or Christopher. Birth cerificates? Maybe . . . but as many "birthers" have claimed, birth certificates can be altered.
Does the chromosome define male / female? What if a person is not just XX or XY . . . maybe XXY or XXYY? Who checks?
What is the consequence or punishment of "homosexual marriage"? Just saying that someone can't do it doesn't mean that people won't find a way to do it.
What if a same sex couple were celebate? Is it OK now because they do not have sex? Who checks? What if they just love each other and want to share their life together and want some of the legal rights that hetero couples have like hospital visits, beneficiaries, etc?
Do we develop an agency or a new department in a current agency? Sounds crazy but worse has been done by our elected officials.
To me this is an attempt of government to get too involved in the lives of it's citizens and I struggle to come to grips with these questions as well as others.. I also don't buy it that "they" want it just so they can receive benefits. Maybe some but I would guess a small precent.
BTW . . . I am a registered Rep and a devout Christian and I believe that each religion has the right to determine the defination of marriage within their faith but in a secular marriage we must give unto Cesear.
Geoff - I am in agreement with your issues with gov't agencies like the EPA.
I am pleased that the SC ruled that the Sacketts get a hearing. I would only say that your "sequence of events" didn't quite happen that way. I would caution against making the Sacketts out to be innocent victims. I think their actions were calculated and deliberate although sometimes it takes people like these and the type of attorney that they had to make changes.
Remember . . . their land still may be determined to be a "wetland" but they will at least have their "day in court".
Question . . . with whom do they appeal (grammar?)? EPA? Courts?
nothingspecial - Close . . . imposing values might be a little strong but I do believe that we can vote with our beliefs - Christian, Jewish, agnostic, athiest, etc. We all have the right and maybe the responsibility to vote based on our individual values (not necessarily the values that others - media - tell us what we should believe). The courts have the responsibility to determine if the "laws" that are voted on by "majorities" are legal or just, based on the constitution. Some majority votes have been in direct opposition to our constitution (discriminatory, etc.) and the supreme court had to rule on the premise of the results of the vote.
I don't always believe compromise is the best solution. In business we referred to compromise as "both sides losing". Sometimes it is best because it moves you closer to your beliefs but sometimes we need to "fight" for what we hold as non-negotiables.
I don't think there is a better gov't system anywhere in the world. Sometimes I think we just need to look at the governance structure our founders designed. Certaintly there were some issues based on the culture of their times - race issues, women's rights, etc. - that have warranted modifications. However, in the genius of the documents, they built caviats onto the governance structure for the docs to be modified or "cleaned up" in future generations.
My bottom line belief re: our gov't precesses is that people need to express their opinions through the voting booth. Each result should be reviewed and if there isn't any portion of the new law or bill that goes aganist the governing docs, then it should be "law". Sometimes that means the majority rules but not always.
Guy_Forks - I am not sure who you are referring to re: the slavery comment. I do agree that if we stick to the orininal intent and / or language of the constitution we would be better off. I also agree that new amendments should be based on a very high bar and should be few and far between but the founding fathers did allow for these changes in their documents. Smart people . . .
JH - I wasn't necesarily referring to you but referring to many posters on this site and in the media in general on all sides of key issues.
nothingspecial - I too have tenets or beliefs that to me are non-negotiable. These tenets or beliefs involve my faith. One is that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man and part of the Holy Trinity but I do not expect that that my personal beliefs need to be in our constitution or laws. I just want the ability to live my faith without infringmrent from others and the government. I also do not expect others to believe what I do or live by my beliefs . . . I wish they would but all I can do is be as Christ-like as I can and evangelize through my actions and sometimes my words.
I feel it is good to for us to form opinions just so long as we are open to possible changing them if there is suffecient data for us to do so. If not then we continue to hold those opinions until there is a need or reason to change . . . maybe never. I only ask that we listen to others. We don't need to agree with them but we shouldn't shut them down or out just because they disagree. Sometimes after listening and trying to understand the other point of view we just won't agree. Thats OK.
The exchange of ideas is what is important . . .
JH - The white male comment seems to be acurate. It seems we have moved beyond much of that due to the processes they laid out - adding or modifying amendments. I still think we have a long way to go if we want to be a "socially just" society. The big question seems to be " who defines socially just" - natural law, contrasting and conflicting religious beliefs, etc.? There are many competing interests and it worries me as to where we will be in 20 - 30 years. I don't think it is an Obama or Romney thing . . . it is much deeper than that. It may lead to deficits, unemployment, or injustices but these are just symptoms. I feel it is based in our core beliefs. Many, if not most, feel they have THE answer and everyone else is wrong. Civil debate and open minds are good and, I feel, these will lead to a better toorrow for the US. Closed minds and "my way or the highway" will lead us down a path that I think we all will regret.
Good discussion! I have much to learn and I tend to go look up many of the concepts that are presented here in a civil manner. Thanks!
To me it seems that there is a disconnect between what the founders intended us to be, what we actually act like, what some want us to be, and what we might be moving towards . . . in terms of governance models. I have always thought we are a republic but at times we act as though we are a democracy.
I also understand that to modify or add an amendment to the US constitution it took a much greater hurdle to clear than 51% of the popular vote. In a republic the higher bar is to protect the 49% against unjust laws - voting rights and a variety of discriminations against gender, race, religion, etc. - that seem to go against the founder's documents.
My thoughts . . . for what they are worth . . .
Tha last few posts have been great! I agree with Thatcher, Jer, and nothingspecial. I think the bottom line (to me) is that we can all have our impression of the gay lifestyle and but I do not believe that government should grow and expand its reach and make laws against a section of its citizens because of another group of people's religious beliefs. We are entitled to express our opinion, talk to others and try to convince them to believe (or not believe) what we do, or to debate our detractors but making a law that has a religious base is not OK (to me).
Opinion . . . I do find it intriguing that mostly conservitives (Reps) support adding a law, that increases gov't reach, when it is preached (pun intended) that we need to reduce government.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382