EPTSadly it looks like this is the second time I've voted no on banning gay marriage to no avail (GA 2004, CA 2008).
Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
Sadly it looks like this is the second time I've voted no on banning gay marriage to no avail (GA 2004, CA 2008). | ||
|
yubee
United States3826 Posts
On November 05 2008 17:40 Bill307 wrote: lol?I think the irony of America not being the "land of the free" disappeared a long time ago. At this point, I would consider it ironic for America to do anything that promotes freedom. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
This is just formally amending the state constitution to protect the will of the people from judicial activism. A single man throwing out the votes of millions is more disgusting and offensive to modern democracy than any particular bill's outcome. Don't listen to me though, I'm just a troll. Resume tirade. | ||
|
NightToad
60 Posts
This proposal seems to blur the line between separation of church and state and effectively converts religious views into law. It is self-righteous and hypocritical to believe your definition of a word (marriage) is more right or sacred than someone else's. Practice your values, teach your children them, but don't impose them on those who disagree. This is really just more of the same religious fascism we have seen throughout history, but with less blood shed. All other propaganda you hear--children of same sex couples, teaching gay marriage in school, ect--are just masks for the real agenda of devoutly religious people who "know" they are more righteous than everyone else and feel the need to save us. I've always found it funny how blind faith is revered, while questioning one's beliefs and being open to other possibilities makes you a bad Christian. At least this is how it is in my very Catholic extended family. Uh...that post took a sharp turn somewhere. I guess I'm more of an atheist asshole than I thought. p.s. I'm pretty surprised with the results on this one. Sorry homos. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 05 2008 17:53 HeadBangaa wrote: Californians already overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage several years ago; over 60%, if I remember correctly. This is just formally amending the state constitution to protect the will of the people from judicial activism. A single man throwing out the votes of millions is more disgusting and offensive to modern democracy than any particular bill's outcome. Don't listen to me though, I'm just a troll. Resume tirade. buncha people thought slavery was ok too | ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
What a well-thought out critique of democracy, IdrA, thanks for that. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
and it was aimed at your rationale, not democracy itself. besides we already had a real discussion about the topic yesterday and considering the last post about it was "hur hur hur fine they can get married just call it somethin else so as not to offend my tiny little mind" im pretty sure you can shut up about it now. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Can take your laptop from you when you fly. Won't let you carry liquids onto planes. Sends Muslims to be tortured indefinitely, without any trial. Arrests people for even the slightest possession of marijuana (except in Massachusetts, now). Bans gay marriage in some states. Bans the teaching of evolution in some states, or forces creationism to be given equal class time. Can legally wiretap anyone. Allows companies to take down any content you upload -- even if it is legal and even completely unrelated to the company's copyrights and trademarks -- simply by citing the DMCA. And I'm sure I'm missing stuff... | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:09 IdrA wrote: and it was aimed at your rationale, not democracy itself. Then use better statement, "What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right." Even so, our government is not designed for singluar visionaries to create our laws. It's a representative democracy. Also, transcending the will of the people for a greater good? Sliding down that slippery slope, friend. Sliding right down. besides we already had a real discussion about the topic yesterday and considering the last post about it was "hur hur hur fine they can get married just call it somethin else so as not to offend my tiny little mind" im pretty sure you can shut up about it now. No no, I said they should get "garried" not married. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
Every godddamned idiot seems to think it's fine for a majority to rule over a minority. You really think the majority will vote in the best interest of both? Fucking laughable. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Oh and I never made a should statement about that. I take our system as a given. Check yo self! | ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:04 HeadBangaa wrote: What a well-thought out critique of democracy, IdrA, thanks for that. I think his point proves very clearly that blindly following the will of the people is wrong. And if for some reason you feel that following the will of the people is more important than doing the right thing, well then I think it's easy to see why that's wrong, too. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
following the will of the people is more important than doing the right thing How do we determine the "right thing"? Don't dodge me, sucka. Answer that. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:14 HeadBangaa wrote: Then use better statement, "What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right." Even so, our government is not designed for singluar visionaries to create our laws. It's a representative democracy. Also, transcending the will of the people for a greater good? Sliding down that slippery slope, friend. Sliding right down. No no, I said they should get "garried" not married. transcending the will of the people for a greater good would be a wonderful idea if there was any acceptable way to pick the person who gets to make the decisions. democracy guarantees mediocrity cuz theres always gonna be a bunch of stupid people in the mix. its just safer than the other systems. given that the only thing against gay marriage (dont start the parenting bullshit again) is prejudice and ignorance i think its pretty justified to say the will of the people should be ignored on this one. "they can get married just call it somethin else" | ||
|
LxRogue
United States1415 Posts
On November 05 2008 17:53 HeadBangaa wrote: Californians already overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage several years ago; over 60%, if I remember correctly. This is just formally amending the state constitution to protect the will of the people from judicial activism. A single man throwing out the votes of millions is more disgusting and offensive to modern democracy than any particular bill's outcome. Don't listen to me though, I'm just a troll. Resume tirade. No one here is arguing that the ballot initiative system is wrong or unjust. No one is debating the facts that gay marriage has been shot down in other states too. What we do debate is that gay marriage, whether you like it or not, is not the government's business to ban, and nor is it their authority to say which couples can have full marriage rights and which can't. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:20 IdrA wrote: transcending the will of the people for a greater good would be a wonderful idea if there was any acceptable way to pick the person who gets to make the decisions. And how do we pick our absolute potentate? Oh I really love where this conversation is going. Dig your hole deeper, let's go. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
literacy is cool | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On November 05 2008 18:14 HeadBangaa wrote: Also, transcending the will of the people for a greater good? Sliding down that slippery slope, friend. Sliding right down. Please explain how refusing to ban gay marriage after this vote (which sounds like it's quite close to being 50/50 split) is going to lead down a slippery slope. Otherwise you're simply spreading baseless fear. | ||
| ||
