Gay marriage?

I asked this question to get other opinions, not be be attacked by Deborah for no reason. I did not post any opinions I simply followed the thread and posted more questions. I don't know why Debroh has a chip on her sholders but I ask for any of you A2K memebers to look back and tell me if I said anything out of the way?

Actually it is. I thought that we were voting for this in about 16 states this year, so the outcome from that will decide if "we" allow it or not.

We are not a democracy. We are a republic--which is a representative form of government that captures the best elements of democracy while jettisoning its worst. Too many people throw around that term "democracy" without understanding what it means. If they understood it, they would realize that they're probably not advocates of its purest form, which would mean that we decide every matter by majority vote. Perhaps ancient Athens for a brief time came closest to this, but no society of any size and complexity can practice this form of governance for very long. It's unwieldy and unworkable, endlessly contentious, and disrespectful of certain inalienable rights of individuals who may find themselves in the minority.

People like the sound of "democracy" because it implies that all of us have equal say in our government and that a simple majority is somehow inherently fair in deciding all or virtually all issues. Upon closer examination, it should become very apparent that subjecting every decision of governance to a vote of the people is utterly impossible. Many decisions have to be made quickly; many decisions require knowledge of the issue that few people possess or have the time to become expert on; and many decisions don't belong in the hands of any government at all.

An example of the last point: Suppose someone says, "I just don't like people with red hair. I think we should confiscate their property. Let's have a vote on that." A democratic purist would have to reply, "All in favor say aye." A person interested in securing and protecting individual rights would have to say, "That's not a proper function of government, and even if 99 percent of the citizens vote for that, it's still wrong and illegitimate. There's nothing about mob rule that makes such a decision legitimate. There is never, anywhere or any time, any justification for any government to take someone's property just because he has red hair, and no pile of votes or dimpled chads can change that. Is that anti-democratic? Yes, it is. Some things, like individual rights, are infinitely more important than the notion that Jim and Sally Taxeater want to stick their grubby little fingers into Joe Taxpayer's pockets."

So if I were in a debate on this subject, I'd be tempted to say, "We're not a democracy any more than we're a divine right monarchy. Period. Next question?"

A republican form of government modifies pure democracy considerably. It provides a mechanism whereby almost anyone can have some say in some matters of government. We can run for office. We can support candidates and causes of our choosing. We can speak out in public forums. And, indeed, a few matters are actually decided by majority vote. But a sound republic founded on principles that are more important than voting (like individual rights) will put strong limits on all this. In its Bill of Rights, our Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law . . ." It doesn't say, "Congress can pass anything it wants so long as 50 percent plus 1 support it even if none of the voters know a thing about the issue." How brainless and destructive that would be! If some debater wants to say "We're a democracy" then you could fire back, "Then explain why there's a laundry list of things our Constitution says not even Congress can make a law about."

Bottom line: We are not Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves. We are not a pack of wolves and a handful of sheep voting on what to have for lunch. We're a republic with certain limitations on what the mob can do to others who are not members of the same mob.

The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)

Debra_Law wrote:

The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)

We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.

Baldimo wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)

We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.

What difference would that make?

Are you saying that if someone chooses something you don't like...that is reason enough to deny them certain rights?





Does this mean anything goes?

We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

The Coalition for Blondes and Brunettes have obtained enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent people with red hair from marrying each other. What do you say people? Should we allow people with red hair to marry each other?

(I mean, after all, the mob rules . . . doesn't it?)

We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.

What difference would that make?

Are you saying that if someone chooses something you don't like...that is reason enough to deny them certain rights?





Does this mean anything goes?

The answer to your question is...No.

Now, would you answer my question?

Baldimo wrote:

We know that red hair isn't an option. We can prove that red hair is genetic. There is science to prove this, where there is no science to prove that homosexuality is genetic. People can say that they were born that way, but this can not be proven it is a fact. I'm sure if it could be proven then people such as my self would change our minds.

Do the research, baldimo. The science is there.
Truthfully, I've lost patience with those who say the science isn't there, and then can't be bothered to read the scientific literature on the subject.