Reply With Quote
So in other words, screw what the American people want, were gonna force our agenda down there throughts, right?
Look for there to be a LOT of court battles in regards to these bans. They all passed easily.
So in other words, screw what the American people want, were gonna force our agenda down there throughts, right?
When the American people are wrong yes screw what they want. There are alot of things the American people want that you don't give them, like no taxes and free beer. In the 1950's the majority of America was for segregation yet it took progressive minded people to realize it was wrong and ban it.
How sad.
Exactly Ice. I remember back when Tparks great grandfather wanted to Keep blackie out off of his ferris wheel. , whey didn't we let the majority keep what they wanted. Oh yeah, the cons ution got in the way.
The problem with that is this: if you believe that you can't trust the American people to be right on particular issues, how do you determine which group of people is really right? If the majority shouldn't decide whether or not something is legitimate, who decides it? And who decides that those people should decide it?
Funny how that logic extends rather easily to the Iraq invasion.
funny what a slippery slope morality can be.
funny how people thought the popular vote shouldve elected Gore,
but when it comes to this, a popular vote is wrong.
Of course screw what the american people want. FORCE them.
Comparing this to civil rights and slavery is disgusting.
So the people are only right when you like what they say. Understood.
why is it disgusting tpark?
I don't see anything wrong with allowing the states to decide this issue on their own. Oklahoma doesn't want gay marriages, fine.
But when California decides to make them legal, let them without having our Born-Again President trying to force his agenda on those people.
It's a two way street.
Didn't California vote overwhelmingly against legalizing gay marriage?
flash gordon, you're a crazy er! hahaha... i always laughed my ass off over at sr when they would all start crying and the wild things you said! glad you are here now and still at it.
It's one thing to say a President could or should be elected by popular vote; it's something else to say that the definition of one's rights should be subjected to the whim of the majority. It's really easy to be for majoritarian rule on those matters when you're in the majority. But history has shown repeatedly that relying on the majoritarian view can sometimes lead to a great deal of unfairness to those in the minority. Segregation is one example -- what if the majority felt that interracial marriage was an abomination (as many did as recently as the late 1960's?).
Those who are all for majority rule when it comes to individual rights should read up on Cons utional history -- the Framers of the Cons ution would vehemently disagree with you.
James Madison's Federalist 51 is proof positive of that:
Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more cir scribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.
So why should I as an individual be forced to accept a gay couple as 'married'? I feel that violates my right to religious expression.
Also if we are going to change the definition of marriage based upon how people then I am for plural marriages and every other possible combination.
Also comparing this to racial discrimination is currently a bit of a stretch.
How about we move marriage out of the government arena? That would be a nice first step. Forcing your view of marriage upon others who do not share your view of marriage and infringing upon their individual rights because you feel yours are being violated is not exactly the best solution to this issue.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 11-03-2004 at 10:07 AM.
Its disgusting your ignorant Iceman, because the voice of the people have spoken.
IN THERE OPINION ITS NOT RIGHT!!
YOU YOU YOU!!!!!!!!
HAVE ZERO RIGHT, TO FORCE ONTO THEM SOMETHING YOUUUUU THINK IS RIGHT.
Why is it not a two way street witht he rights of people with liberals?
Why is it they can demand, scream and cry for the voice of the people to be heard, when they get it and it disagrees with them, why must they and then say, well, were gonna FORCE IT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!
may Godbless those people that want to be with someone of the same sex....
but I don't want my tax dollars going towards giving them the tax breaks of a married couple.
I don't want my tax dollars going towards any form of marriage.
funny how that opinion doesn't apply to the middle east. the arabs think we are wrong , and we have zero right to force onto them something we think is right. right tpark?
Basic human rights are not a state issue. They are not subject to a popular vote.
Freedom from discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is as much a human right as freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color or religious preference.
The same reason that I am forced to support straight marriges is the same reason you should have to support gay marriage MB.
i see your point manny.
Um go back and re-read my post.The same reason that I am forced to support straight marriges is the same reason you should have to support gay marriage MB.
Marriage isnt a basic human right. Life is. Voting is. Property ownership is.
In addition, everyone has the right to marry someone else. Any man can marry any single woman who he is not related too and who is old enough. It isnt that hard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
