|
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.
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well.
|
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.
Not sure if you live in California or not, but if you don't, you should know that Jibba is right--our (California's) referendum system makes california lawmaking completely retarded. Any person can write a random law and as long as they get enough people to sign a petition, the voters will get to vote on whether that law is in or not. This is when the real circus begins. In the 2008 election (the same one in which prop 8 was passed), every single proposition that would cost the state money was voted yes, whereas every single proposition that would save us money was voted against. This is while California is already reeling in mountains of debt.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 10:18 nobodyhome wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD 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. 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. Not sure if you live in California or not, but if you don't, you should know that Jibba is right--our (California's) referendum system makes california lawmaking completely retarded. Any person can write a random law and as long as they get enough people to sign a petition, the voters will get to vote on whether that law is in or not. This is when the real circus begins. In the 2008 election (the same one in which prop 8 was passed), every single proposition that would cost the state money was voted yes, whereas every single proposition that would save us money was voted against. This is while California is already reeling in mountains of debt.
Yeah, it should be really obvious why 50% referendums (or votes of any kind) are a bad idea. You could have opposing laws pass every cycle, based on canvassing ability.
|
On August 06 2010 08:26 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote: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.
Why is religious morality sacred? Why is it something that shouldn't be contested? Where does it obtain that right where it should be immune from secular logic?
|
Polygamist societies all tend to have the same problems. In pretty much all of them, a couple really old, powerful, and wealthy men have all the wives, and all the poorer, younger men get run out of town.
Societies with no young men tend to get run over by societies that do.
|
On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD 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. 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. This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections?
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.
If you believe a simple, moralistic decision to determine if same-sex marriage should be legal in your state is on the hands of legislators, then please also give up your right to vote in the forthcoming elections to your beloved legislators. Obviously those decisions are way too complex for the average person to comprehend.
Yeah, it should be really obvious why 50% referendums (or votes of any kind) are a bad idea. You could have opposing laws pass every cycle, based on canvassing ability. 50% of votes of any kind are a bad idea... Hmm. It's a good thing most Americans don't think this way.
|
On August 06 2010 11:29 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 08:26 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote: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. Why is religious morality sacred? Why is it something that shouldn't be contested? Where does it obtain that right where it should be immune from secular logic?
... logic. Let's apply it before we start talking, shall we.
- Did I ever, EVER say christianity morality trumps others?
- I said I'm against gay marriage. That's my belief, which I'm entitled to just as you are entitled to your own. I don't impose my belief over others. So where's your beef?
- Religious morality is sacred to me and MY beliefs. I'm not saying my beliefs are better than yours.
You're making a strawman. Please stop.
|
On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD 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. 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. This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? Show nested quote +
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.
If you believe a simple, moralistic decision to determine if same-sex marriage should be legal in your state is on the hands of legislators, then please also give up your right to vote in the forthcoming elections to your beloved legislators. Obviously those decisions are way too complex for the average person to comprehend. Show nested quote +Yeah, it should be really obvious why 50% referendums (or votes of any kind) are a bad idea. You could have opposing laws pass every cycle, based on canvassing ability. 50% of votes of any kind are a bad idea... Hmm. It's a good thing most Americans don't think this way.
Amendments in the constitution require a two thirds majority. So there's obviously some things where a simple majority isn't good enough.
|
On August 06 2010 12:38 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 11:29 DetriusXii wrote:On August 06 2010 08:26 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote: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. Why is religious morality sacred? Why is it something that shouldn't be contested? Where does it obtain that right where it should be immune from secular logic? ... logic. Let's apply it before we start talking, shall we. - Did I ever, EVER say christianity morality trumps others? - I said I'm against gay marriage. That's my belief, which I'm entitled to just as you are entitled to your own. I don't impose my belief over others. So where's your beef? - Religious morality is sacred to me and MY beliefs. I'm not saying my beliefs are better than yours. You're making a strawman. Please stop.
Here's a quote from you on the previous page "'m AGAINST prop 8 and always have been because I believe secular law should not impose religious morality upon others.". I can clearly infer from this sentence that you do believe that Christian morality trumps other beliefs.
|
On August 06 2010 12:44 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:38 d_so wrote:On August 06 2010 11:29 DetriusXii wrote:On August 06 2010 08:26 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why is religious morality sacred? Why is it something that shouldn't be contested? Where does it obtain that right where it should be immune from secular logic? ... logic. Let's apply it before we start talking, shall we. - Did I ever, EVER say christianity morality trumps others? - I said I'm against gay marriage. That's my belief, which I'm entitled to just as you are entitled to your own. I don't impose my belief over others. So where's your beef? - Religious morality is sacred to me and MY beliefs. I'm not saying my beliefs are better than yours. You're making a strawman. Please stop. Here's a quote from you on the previous page "'m AGAINST prop 8 and always have been because I believe secular law should not impose religious morality upon others.". I can clearly infer from this sentence that you do believe that Christian morality trumps other beliefs.
lol
prop 8 = ban on gay marriage.
I'm against prop 8. I don't think there should be a ban on gay marriage.
I think this way because I believe in separation of church and state, which is biblical btw (1st peter), and that secular law should not be subjugated in support of religious ideals.
Your reading comprehension is trash.
|
On August 06 2010 12:42 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:On August 06 2010 10:07 SkyLegenD 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. 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. This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections?
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.
If you believe a simple, moralistic decision to determine if same-sex marriage should be legal in your state is on the hands of legislators, then please also give up your right to vote in the forthcoming elections to your beloved legislators. Obviously those decisions are way too complex for the average person to comprehend. Yeah, it should be really obvious why 50% referendums (or votes of any kind) are a bad idea. You could have opposing laws pass every cycle, based on canvassing ability. 50% of votes of any kind are a bad idea... Hmm. It's a good thing most Americans don't think this way. Amendments in the constitution require a two thirds majority. So there's obviously some things where a simple majority isn't good enough. Two-thirds majority from the states. Completely different story.
|
On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections?
...
The president is already elected by elected representatives.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
|
On August 06 2010 12:49 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:44 DetriusXii wrote:On August 06 2010 12:38 d_so wrote:On August 06 2010 11:29 DetriusXii wrote:On August 06 2010 08:26 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 21:31 DetriusXii wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why is religious morality sacred? Why is it something that shouldn't be contested? Where does it obtain that right where it should be immune from secular logic? ... logic. Let's apply it before we start talking, shall we. - Did I ever, EVER say christianity morality trumps others? - I said I'm against gay marriage. That's my belief, which I'm entitled to just as you are entitled to your own. I don't impose my belief over others. So where's your beef? - Religious morality is sacred to me and MY beliefs. I'm not saying my beliefs are better than yours. You're making a strawman. Please stop. Here's a quote from you on the previous page "'m AGAINST prop 8 and always have been because I believe secular law should not impose religious morality upon others.". I can clearly infer from this sentence that you do believe that Christian morality trumps other beliefs. lol prop 8 = ban on gay marriage. I'm against prop 8. I don't think there should be a ban on gay marriage. I think this way because I believe in separation of church and state, which is biblical btw (1st peter), and that secular law should not be subjugated in support of religious ideals. Your reading comprehension is trash.
You're actually right. I read the sentence as
"I'm against prop 9 and always have been because I believe secular should not impose upon the religious morality of others"
|
What's the big deal? They shouldn't get legal tax breaks due to their inability to have hildren naturally, and only should be given tax breaks if they adopt.
Let them eat da poo poo!
|
I hate it when people say you get tax breaks when you get married. You don't. In-fact you get taxed even harder when you are married compared to when single.
|
On August 05 2010 06:15 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:
He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs If you believe in Democracy, that's pretty much the purest form of it...
The Constitution of the US was designed specifically to protect the rights of the minorities, unlike true democracy.
|
On August 06 2010 12:59 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? ... The president is already elected by elected representatives. You're speaking of the Electoral College who virtually all electors abide by. The technicalities you're speaking of holds no weight in this argument.
|
On August 06 2010 13:46 SkyLegenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:59 Mindcrime wrote:On August 06 2010 12:24 SkyLegenD wrote:On August 06 2010 10:15 Pandain wrote:
This is actually true. I mean, one of the main reasons that The Founding Fathers had a represenative form of government( i.e. senators/house of represenitives) instead of a true democracy is that they thought the lay people would be too "uneducated" enough to make vital decisions for themseleves. So instead they had people vote for people who they thought would lead well. Would you say the electing of a president is a "vital decision?" If so, would you be more than happy to relinquish your right (assuming you are an eligible American voter) to vote to your local congressmen in the 2012 elections? ... The president is already elected by elected representatives. You're speaking of the Electoral College who virtually all electors abide by.
Could you restate that in English?
|
On August 06 2010 13:46 blastedt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 06:15 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:
He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs If you believe in Democracy, that's pretty much the purest form of it... The Constitution of the US was designed specifically to protect the rights of the minorities, unlike true democracy.
The Constitution was designed specifically to create a stronger federal government that all states could accept. It was a political document.
Protecting the rights of minorities? Prior to 1868? That's preposterous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
