|
On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet.
Exactly. Plus, comparing the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of something like meth or heroin is like comparing the dangers of a fluffy kitten to the dangers of a Bengal tiger.
|
On August 06 2010 08:06 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet. Exactly. Plus, comparing the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of something like meth or heroin is like comparing the dangers of a fluffy kitten to the dangers of a Bengal tiger.
More like comparing the damages of a pitbull with rabbies to the damage of monster truck
|
On August 06 2010 08:12 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 08:06 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet. Exactly. Plus, comparing the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of something like meth or heroin is like comparing the dangers of a fluffy kitten to the dangers of a Bengal tiger. More like comparing the damages of a pitbull with rabbies to the damage of monster truck
Fair enough, they are both harmful. But the point still stands.
|
On August 06 2010 01:58 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I can understand why you might have misread something since the OP was horribly written. It was written more to unlodge the thoughts stuck in my brain than for actual clarity reasons. There were so many conflicting ideas raging through my head and I was just as confused writing it as you may have been reading it. But basically, my ideas are as follows: 1.) It's mostly Christians who were for prop 8 2.) I'm christian. Am I for prop 8? 3.) Gay marriage is wrong. My bible tells me so. Actually, the topic is not even approached, but being gay is an act of sodomy in the bible, so I guess gay marriage being wrong is an extension of that. 4.) Marriage extends far beyond the history of Christianity. There's no denying this. 5.) This means that different religions and even different denominations within Christianity have different definitions of marriage. 6.) In regards to our nations laws, each religion should be free to practice their religion within realistic limits. Extending this, each definition of marriage should also be respected. 7.) So if each definition is to be respected, then there shouldn't be one overarching definition of religion, or marraige, that imposes its will over other religions. 8.) Then that means I am against prop 8. And I can do so while remaining a Christian because I believe in freedom of religion and I can respect their ideas even though I believe they are wrong. Plus, there shouldn't be laws that imposes our religion over others or circulates our ideas into secular law. Separation of church and state. 9.) The only way I can see Christians being able to realistically support prop 8 is if there is plausible evidence that Christian churches are being forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Even then I don't think prop 8 is legally sound, but I can justify the rage from Christians if they're being coerced to go against their religion. That means their freedom of religion is not being respected and are lashing out justifiably. I can write my thought process a bit more clearly cuz so much time has passed, but even still it is a bit confusing. Hope this helps. And yeah, I mean Rurouni Kenshin. Basically that whole show's moral premise is based around idealogy vs. humanity, as in do you value ideas over life? Or vice versa? Kenshin's prior life as Himoura Battousai represents a life where he valued ideas over life. His 10 years of penance and his backwards sword represents his new philosophy, as taught by Tomoe (watch the OVAs!), that life is more valuable. But even through the 10 years he could only conceptualize it, he couldn't 100% apply it to his own life, as evidenced by his dependency on going yellow-eyes to win tough fights. It's only when his master refuses to acknowledge him as student -- after he attemtped to Battousaid while learning the Amakaru Ryu no Hiormeki (LOL IM A NERD) -- that Kenshin learned that life + love is more valuable than ideas + sacrifical willingness. Pretty much best anime ever I'm sick and tired of the type of person you are, MARRIAGE, IS, NOT, A, RELIGIOUS, ISSUE. In the U.S, when I get married, the STATE provides me my rights, its a STATE issue. Some shitty church shack, does not provide my rights, the STATE does. Please drill this into your brain, before you continue to say you're against it because of your bible. Bible also says LOADS of terrible things, yet you don't choose to follow those do you? No, of course not. -_- Quit cherry picking Like, by the way, I'm sure you've played SC, or have other material possessions, guess what kid? You're going to hell. That's right, if you own things, you're going to hell. So have fun with that. Jesus said it so it must be true. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7199303250909790750#P.S. Marriage was around before your book.
why don't you quit cherry picking from what i wrote?
Marriage extends far beyond the history of Christianity. There's no denying this.
I wrote that. What do you think that means?
|
On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I can understand why you might have misread something since the OP was horribly written. It was written more to unlodge the thoughts stuck in my brain than for actual clarity reasons. There were so many conflicting ideas raging through my head and I was just as confused writing it as you may have been reading it. But basically, my ideas are as follows: 1.) It's mostly Christians who were for prop 8 2.) I'm christian. Am I for prop 8? 3.) Gay marriage is wrong. My bible tells me so. Actually, the topic is not even approached, but being gay is an act of sodomy in the bible, so I guess gay marriage being wrong is an extension of that. 4.) Marriage extends far beyond the history of Christianity. There's no denying this. 5.) This means that different religions and even different denominations within Christianity have different definitions of marriage. 6.) In regards to our nations laws, each religion should be free to practice their religion within realistic limits. Extending this, each definition of marriage should also be respected. 7.) So if each definition is to be respected, then there shouldn't be one overarching definition of religion, or marraige, that imposes its will over other religions. 8.) Then that means I am against prop 8. And I can do so while remaining a Christian because I believe in freedom of religion and I can respect their ideas even though I believe they are wrong. Plus, there shouldn't be laws that imposes our religion over others or circulates our ideas into secular law. Separation of church and state. 9.) The only way I can see Christians being able to realistically support prop 8 is if there is plausible evidence that Christian churches are being forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Even then I don't think prop 8 is legally sound, but I can justify the rage from Christians if they're being coerced to go against their religion. That means their freedom of religion is not being respected and are lashing out justifiably. I can write my thought process a bit more clearly cuz so much time has passed, but even still it is a bit confusing. Hope this helps. And yeah, I mean Rurouni Kenshin. Basically that whole show's moral premise is based around idealogy vs. humanity, as in do you value ideas over life? Or vice versa? Kenshin's prior life as Himoura Battousai represents a life where he valued ideas over life. His 10 years of penance and his backwards sword represents his new philosophy, as taught by Tomoe (watch the OVAs!), that life is more valuable. But even through the 10 years he could only conceptualize it, he couldn't 100% apply it to his own life, as evidenced by his dependency on going yellow-eyes to win tough fights. It's only when his master refuses to acknowledge him as student -- after he attemtped to Battousaid while learning the Amakaru Ryu no Hiormeki (LOL IM A NERD) -- that Kenshin learned that life + love is more valuable than ideas + sacrifical willingness. Pretty much best anime ever Your Bible also says that divorce is wrong. A lot more times than saying gay marriage is wrong. But Christians aren't protesting divorce anywhere near the same level as gay marriage. Your Bible says that the punishment for sex before marriage after the partner is stoning. But I'm sure plenty of good Christian males are allowed to void that law. The Christian opposition to gay marriage is hypocritical as they don't seem to be getting worked up against divorce. I know you may have beliefs against gay marriage, but beliefs change over time. I used to be a Roman Catholic, but I shed my religious faith and now consider myself a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's valid moral logical arguments outside religion. Don't be blind to refuse to accept those arguments just because you're Christian.
Why don't you stop to read before you go off on your little tirade. I'm AGAINST prop 8 and always have been because I believe secular law should not impose religious morality upon others.
Gay marriage is against my morals. But that doesn't mean I want a law banning gay marriage. And it doesn't mean I hate others who do.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 08:12 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 08:06 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet. Exactly. Plus, comparing the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of something like meth or heroin is like comparing the dangers of a fluffy kitten to the dangers of a Bengal tiger. More like comparing the damages of a pitbull with rabbies to the damage of monster truck
There's more pitbull owners than monster truck owners, which is really what it comes down to. Monster truck owners can't speak for themselves because they're too busy injecting their veins with more... monster trucks.
It amuses me when people talk about legalizing narcotics because no one is really advocating for it. Sure, you can say that it would allow for a more coherent drug policy, but who's supporting it? Old people don't get benefits because it's the right thing to do, they get benefits because they've formed a political movement and advocate for their position. I don't think we're going to see a group of junkies zigzagging their away across the National Mall any time soon, only be to be sidetracked by a "sexy" looking cherry blossom.
|
On August 05 2010 21:37 koOl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 16:59 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 15:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice. Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here. You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y. Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name. I think gay marriage is wrong. I am against it. But the scope of my belief is limited to me and a few of my immediate family members, because I personally don't believe any belief should be valued over a person. If others choose such a path then I respect their differences. I can understand why you might have misread something since the OP was horribly written. It was written more to unlodge the thoughts stuck in my brain than for actual clarity reasons. There were so many conflicting ideas raging through my head and I was just as confused writing it as you may have been reading it. But basically, my ideas are as follows: 1.) It's mostly Christians who were for prop 8 2.) I'm christian. Am I for prop 8? 3.) Gay marriage is wrong. My bible tells me so. Actually, the topic is not even approached, but being gay is an act of sodomy in the bible, so I guess gay marriage being wrong is an extension of that. 4.) Marriage extends far beyond the history of Christianity. There's no denying this. 5.) This means that different religions and even different denominations within Christianity have different definitions of marriage. 6.) In regards to our nations laws, each religion should be free to practice their religion within realistic limits. Extending this, each definition of marriage should also be respected. 7.) So if each definition is to be respected, then there shouldn't be one overarching definition of religion, or marraige, that imposes its will over other religions. 8.) Then that means I am against prop 8. And I can do so while remaining a Christian because I believe in freedom of religion and I can respect their ideas even though I believe they are wrong. Plus, there shouldn't be laws that imposes our religion over others or circulates our ideas into secular law. Separation of church and state. 9.) The only way I can see Christians being able to realistically support prop 8 is if there is plausible evidence that Christian churches are being forced to conduct gay marriages against their will. Even then I don't think prop 8 is legally sound, but I can justify the rage from Christians if they're being coerced to go against their religion. That means their freedom of religion is not being respected and are lashing out justifiably. I can write my thought process a bit more clearly cuz so much time has passed, but even still it is a bit confusing. Hope this helps. And yeah, I mean Rurouni Kenshin. Basically that whole show's moral premise is based around idealogy vs. humanity, as in do you value ideas over life? Or vice versa? Kenshin's prior life as Himoura Battousai represents a life where he valued ideas over life. His 10 years of penance and his backwards sword represents his new philosophy, as taught by Tomoe (watch the OVAs!), that life is more valuable. But even through the 10 years he could only conceptualize it, he couldn't 100% apply it to his own life, as evidenced by his dependency on going yellow-eyes to win tough fights. It's only when his master refuses to acknowledge him as student -- after he attemtped to Battousaid while learning the Amakaru Ryu no Hiormeki (LOL IM A NERD) -- that Kenshin learned that life + love is more valuable than ideas + sacrifical willingness. Pretty much best anime ever the bible says that eating shrimp is an abomination the bible says wearing two different clothes at once is an abomination the bible says its ok to stone an adulterer... so why are you not avocating for these things? because these beliefs are rooted in discrimination and biggotry. i am gay and have been with the guy i love for two years. i am 17 years old but if sometime down the road we are still together and decide to get married i would want that to be possible. people say that gay people are not discriminated against or face hardships in society...but many of us have. i have lost friends and know i cannot just say to anyone that my boyfriend is my boyfriend for fear of what people will say. my boyfriends parents pretty much disowned him when they found out he was gay. these are all issues of discrimination and this marriage deal is just another one being fough over
thanks for your story, but I really recommend you READ FIRST
|
On August 06 2010 08:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 08:12 D10 wrote:On August 06 2010 08:06 BrownBear wrote:On August 06 2010 07:43 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 07:39 D10 wrote:
Alcohol leads to higher crime/murder rates but its legal, i guess your argument fails brownbear No, they tried to ban it. We see how that turned out. So ideally, Alchohol should've been banned but by then it had already been too ingrained in American Culture. So we should still illegalize other products because it hasn't as of yet. Exactly. Plus, comparing the dangers of alcohol to the dangers of something like meth or heroin is like comparing the dangers of a fluffy kitten to the dangers of a Bengal tiger. More like comparing the damages of a pitbull with rabbies to the damage of monster truck There's more pitbull owners than monster truck owners, which is really what it comes down to. Monster truck owners can't speak for themselves because they're too busy injecting their veins with more... monster trucks.
hahahahahaha brilliant :D
|
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other.
|
On August 06 2010 09:03 nosliw wrote:
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other.
I do support it, actually. This is assuming it's the form of polygamy where all parties involved are happy with the arrangement and willing to be in such a partnership, and not the form of polygamy practiced by some religious sects where the girls are often forced into the marriage and are very much not happy with the arrangement, even if they are forced to say they are.
|
On August 06 2010 09:03 nosliw wrote:
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other.
You are right, it doesn't make any sense to ban one and allow the other. My position is that if a man can have two wives and can keep them from tearing each other apart, he deserves whatever benefits being married entitles. The big difference here is that there aren't many people (except some religious groups that practice it) that feel like speaking up and try to make it legal. You don't see many polygamy pride parades out there. I bet many gay marriage supporters wouldn't care if polygamy was legalized, but saying that out loud wouldn't exactly make their cause any easier. And if you look world wide outside of the western world, polygamy is more wide spread than same sex marriage, so who knows in 50 years maybe we will have a similar discussion regarding polygamy.
|
On November 05 2008 05:29 d_so wrote:
but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
|
I think that the way polygamy has been banned is just a cop out on the real problems - insular communities with forced marriages. I would argue that polygamy is infact fine... but child marriage is not.
|
On August 06 2010 09:03 nosliw wrote:
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other.
Yea, I really don't care if polygamous marriage is legalized.
The only thing is taxes and divorces would be a nightmare to figure out >_<
|
On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy.
The general population is unfit to make legislation.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your typical liberal argument. We the people are too stupid, too naive, too uneducated to make any decisions based on traditions and sometimes even common sense for that matter. Therefore, we the people need some government overlord, in this case, a judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge.
|
On August 06 2010 09:47 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 09:03 nosliw wrote:
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other. Yea, I really don't care if polygamous marriage is legalized. The only thing is taxes and divorces would be a nightmare to figure out >_<
Just imagine paying child support to your 5 ex-wives as well as keeping you 5 new happy. 
|
On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The general population is unfit to make legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your typical liberal argument. We the people are too stupid, too naive, too uneducated to make any decisions based on traditions and sometimes even common sense for that matter. Therefore, we the people need some government overlord, in this case, a judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong. The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge.
Reality has a clear liberal bias.
|
On August 06 2010 09:03 nosliw wrote:
We should just compare homosexual marriage to polygamy (1 man + multiple women AND 1 woman + multiple men). I am guessing all the homosexual marriage supporters ALSO support polygamy, otherwise, please state why one and not the other.
Polyamorous marriage is only equivalent to two-person marriage if EVERY PAIR OF PEOPLE in the polyamory is married.
Polygamy is usually a marriage of one man to one woman, and that man to a second women, wherein the women are not married. This is not a comparable circumstance.
Although I support the elimination of government marriage, which would give polygamy the same legal standing (none) as monogamy.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The general population is unfit to make legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your typical liberal argument. We the people are too stupid, too naive, too uneducated to make any decisions based on traditions and sometimes even common sense for that matter. Therefore, we the people need some government overlord, in this case, a judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong. The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge.
Legislating is a full time job that requires hundreds of staffers to read, do research and summarize positions. General citizens are unfit to pass legislation because they have other jobs and do not have hundreds of staffers. You do not pass legislation based off of common sense, because common sense doesn't actually exist. Good public policy is supported by data and continually monitored. Law is also difficult to read and must be interpreted (contrary to popular, misled belief), which is a skill that generally takes years of training to acquire.
This is the short and polite way of saying you're wrong. If you want to get into a discussion on republicanism or an institutional perspective of the legislative process or discretionary vs. statutory policy, I'd be glad to instruct you further.
|
On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The general population is unfit to make legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your typical liberal argument. We the people are too stupid, too naive, too uneducated to make any decisions based on traditions and sometimes even common sense for that matter. Therefore, we the people need some government overlord, in this case, a judge to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
I would like to contend the bolded text, but your proof is too elegant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
