joefromchicago wrote:Foxfyre wrote:If I can't make the requirement for age, physical fitness, height, weight, etc. that might be required for me to do something, should I be able to demand that the requirements be changed to accommodate what I want? Is that discriminatory?
It's clear that you still don't get it.
That is the understatement of the year!
Holly came from Miami, F-L-A
Hitch-hiked her way across the USA
Plucked her eyebrows on the way
Shaved her legs and then he was a she
She says, Hey babe
Take a walk on the wild side
Hey honey
Take a walk on the wild side
My, my, so many admirers, so little time.
Perhaps for FF to learn the ridiculous notion of her argument, she should be put into a society where it is illegal for heterosexuals to marry, but not for homosexuals.
According to her logic, after all, that law is not discriminatory to heterosexuals. They can marry if they want to, it's just they have to marry someone of their own sex like everybody else.
I'm sure she'll have no problem adjusting to such a society.
"This is actually the strongest point the anti-gay marriage crowd has. I would ask you, to further discussion on this point, if we should legislate against divorce, pornography, etc? These things cheapen the established norms at least as much as gay marriage would.
Also, what do you mean when you say 'established norms?' To the Greeks 2000 years ago, who by the way invented our government and the majority of western philosophy, homosexuality was not only common, it was normal. The influences upon our society from Greece are incalculable. How can you say what is the 'established norm' and what isn't? "
Initially, let me suggest that "marriage" is not a "legislative issue". Marriage, is basicly a contract, requiring a license, regulated by a State, whereby currently 2 people of opposite sex enter into a contractual agreement relative to the sharing of property. The State provides certain "incentives" to these couples as OUR SOCIETY uses this contractual arrangement to perpetuate the society by the development of Families.
DIVORCE is the termination of the above agreement whereby the disposition of property is determined and, if children are born during the Marriage, certain arrangements are agreed to relative to their health and welfare.
PORNOGRAPHY, as I think you use in your post, is a trade or a business that can be regulated by the State.
Therefore, you can really not compare them to marriage and divorce.
I think when you want to create a society, the people should decide the "rules" of that society. Some societies have decided that marriage can be one man and many women. This society has decided that marriage should be one man and one woman. Utah for example, had to change the tradition they built in their society in order to enter into OUR society. They did not have to, but they decided it would be best if they did.
Therefore, when a minority position wants to change and the majority want to maintain the status quo, then in a democracy, the majority should rule.
That does not mean that those in the minority should be discriminated agianst by legislative issues such as the disposition of property among many others. I think a compromise should be made to the minority to create an equitible balance while maintaining the rights of the majority.
I do support the concept of marriage of one man and one woman. I think it leads to a stable society that places a value on families, protects the rights of mothers and children, especially when a divorce occurs and teaches our children the values of love and family.
One could argue that "traditional marriage" given a 50% divorce rate is not so stable. That is a good argument but does not support the need to change the tradition. More than likely, a major reason for a 50% divorce rate is more selfishness on the parts of the individuals rather than a disintergration of the tradition.
This of course is only my opinion.
So you are a slave? Too bad. The majority rules. You are black and want equal employment opportunities? Too bad. The majority rules. You are handicapped and want accessible accomodations. Tough luck, kiddo. The majority rules.
When it comes to rights, the majority does not rule.
Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race, religion and socio-economic status and that is the way it should stay. Screw you if you don't like it. Maybe we can legislate some kind of property arrangeements for these people who want to destabilize our society by breaking the traditional norm.
Also, marriages must be arranged as is the tradition. Want to marry someone out of love? Screw you, buddy. Stick to the tradition.
This, of course, is only my opinion.
woiyo wrote:
Also, what do you mean when you say 'established norms?' To the Greeks 2000 years ago, who by the way invented our government and the majority of western philosophy, homosexuality was not only common, it was normal. The influences upon our society from Greece are incalculable. How can you say what is the 'established norm' and what isn't? "
The Greeks 2000 years ago? You mean the Romans? Better bone up on your history before making these outrageously silly arguments.
That said, your statement supports the fact that the only thing constant about marriage is that it is in a constant state of change.
Roxxxanne wrote:So you are a slave? Too bad. The majority rules. You are black and want equal employment opportunities? Too bad. The majority rules. You are handicapped and want accessible accomodations. Tough luck, kiddo. The majority rules.
When it comes to rights, the majority does not rule.
I am curious who you think
should rule in the majority's place when it comes to rights. In particular, why would elite domination through the Supreme Court offer a better alternative? After all, your own example of slavery gives me ample reason to be skeptical. Chief Justice Taney, writing for a majority of unelected Supreme Court judges, did not vote to abolish slavery: He emphatically pledged to uphold it. (See
Scott v. Sanford, 1856) Abraham Lincoln on the other hand, a president with a popular mandate, defied the Supreme Court. He was the one who abolished slavery after the Supreme Court had decided to preserve it. You mystify me when you cite slavery as a reason to expect that judicial decrees protect your liberty better than majority rule. Why would you do that?
The constitution seeks to protect the population from minoritarian as well as majoritarian tyranny. Mr. Justice Taney's decisions can be seen as consonant with the Constitution as ratified--and it can also be seen as a case of minoritarian tyrrany, in that it referred to constitutional mandates grown unpalatable to the majority.
At all events, Mr. Lincoln did not abolish slavery--that was accomplished with the ratification of the XIIIth amendment.
Setanta wrote:At all events, Mr. Lincoln did not abolish slavery--that was accomplished with the ratification of the XIIIth amendment.
Fair enough. But even so, all the people who wrote and ratified this amendment got their positions through majority vote. This fact confirms my support of majority vote, and undermines Roxxane's opposition to it when it comes to protecting rights.
Roxxxanne wrote:woiyo wrote:
Also, what do you mean when you say 'established norms?' To the Greeks 2000 years ago, who by the way invented our government and the majority of western philosophy, homosexuality was not only common, it was normal. The influences upon our society from Greece are incalculable. How can you say what is the 'established norm' and what isn't? "
The Greeks 2000 years ago? You mean the Romans? Better bone up on your history before making these outrageously silly arguments.
That said, your statement supports the fact that the only thing constant about marriage is that it is in a constant state of change.
Huh, Set, are you gonna let this slide past ya?
Thomas wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:So you are a slave? Too bad. The majority rules. You are black and want equal employment opportunities? Too bad. The majority rules. You are handicapped and want accessible accomodations. Tough luck, kiddo. The majority rules.
When it comes to rights, the majority does not rule.
I am curious who you think
should rule in the majority's place when it comes to rights. In particular, why would elite domination through the Supreme Court offer a better alternative? After all, your own example of slavery gives me ample reason to be skeptical. Chief Justice Taney, writing for a majority of unelected Supreme Court judges, did not vote to abolish slavery: He emphatically pledged to uphold it. (See
Scott v. Sanford, 1856) Abraham Lincoln on the other hand, a president with a popular mandate, defied the Supreme Court. He was the one who abolished slavery after the Supreme Court had decided to preserve it. You mystify me when you cite slavery as a reason to expect that judicial decrees protect your liberty better than majority rule. Why would you do that?
Where did I say slavery was abolished by judicial decree? Your post mystifies me. Slavery was abolished because it was wrong. And there was a powerful political movement to abolish it. In theory, rights should have nothing to do with politics. And I will say it again, when it comes to rights, the majority doesn't rule. However, in reality, there must be strong political support to suceed in garnering rights for a previously oppressed group.
Thomas wrote:Setanta wrote:At all events, Mr. Lincoln did not abolish slavery--that was accomplished with the ratification of the XIIIth amendment.
Fair enough. But even so, all the people who wrote and ratified this amendment got their positions through majority vote. This fact confirms my support of majority vote
It most certainly does not. Lincoln wasn't elected becasue he promised to free the slaves. Civil rights for African-Americans were not achieved through referendum either. Nor were women's rights.
Thomas wrote:Fair enough. But even so, all the people who wrote and ratified this amendment got their positions through majority vote.
Depends on what you mean by "majority vote." Lincoln certainly did not win a majority of votes in either of his elections (unless you don't count the "absentee voters" in the southern states in the 1864 election). Likewise, US senators were not elected by popular vote but by state legislatures; in the days before "one man, one vote," there was no guarantee that a majority of state legislators represented a majority of the state's citizens.
More importantly, constitutional amendments are not enacted by majorities. They are enacted by
supermajorities. It takes two-thirds of each house of congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. In effect, that is a system of
minority rule, since a minority is able to block any amendment (see, e.g., the equal rights amendment).
The issue of slavery is a constitutional anomaly anyway as the concept of inherent rights did not apply to slaves under the original constitution.
My point was that abolition was not achieved (or denied) through referendum.
Roxxxanne wrote:It most certainly does not. Lincoln wasn't elected becasue he promised to free the slaves. Civil rights for African-Americans were not achieved through referendum either. Nor were women's rights.
Could have fooled me. I was under the impression that the Civil Rights Acts were passed by Congress, and that the 19th and 24th amendments were ratified by majorities -- or super-majorities, as Joe calls them.
joefromchicago wrote:More importantly, constitutional amendments are not enacted by majorities. They are enacted by supermajorities. It takes two-thirds of each house of congress and three-fourths of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. In effect, that is a system of minority rule, since a minority is able to block any amendment (see, e.g., the equal rights amendment).
My point is that I believe a (sufficiently strong) popular mandate is the best defense of our rights that we have. The dichtonomy between "rights" and "majority vote" is a false one. Nobody has demonstrated that giving more power to unelected judges improves the protection of rights.
The Civil Rights Act was never subject to a popular vote and had it been, it would have likely been defeated.
Congress passed it despite majority disapproval. I would venture to say that if the Civil Rights Act had been put to a referendum, it possibly might have passed in a few Northeastern states. New York, Massachusetts, maybe Vermont.
LBJ twisted a lot of arms to get the 1964 bill passed. You obvioulsy have a lot to learn about the reality of American politics.
