Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 398
  1.    #1  
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060706/...s/gay_marriage

    A most interesting story and a surprising one - a judge that believes the people have the right to say yes or no.

    Ben
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060706/...s/gay_marriage

    A most interesting story and a surprising one - a judge that believes the people have the right to say yes or no.

    Ben
    Ultimately this right will be bestowed on our gay brothers and sisters but it's nice to see you clinging to the belief the majority may discriminate against a minority.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Ultimately this right will be bestowed on our gay brothers and sisters but it's nice to see you clinging to the belief the majority may discriminate against a minority.
    Ignore the subject matter for a moment. Don't all laws and rulings have that effect? When ever a law is enacted, or a ruling is given, it has the effect of discriminating against those who desire to behave otherwise.

    When ever people wish to live together, it is incumbent on them to establish standards of behavior; rules of engagement. Without such, you have anarchy.

    I guess what I'm saying is, if you support democracy, you inherently "cling to the belief that the majority may discriminate against a minorty."
  4. #4  
    Indeed. Let discrimination ring.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Ignore the subject matter for a moment. Don't all laws and rulings have that effect? When ever a law is enacted, or a ruling is given, it has the effect of discriminating against those who desire to behave otherwise.

    When ever people wish to live together, it is incumbent on them to establish standards of behavior; rules of engagement. Without such, you have anarchy.

    I guess what I'm saying is, if you support democracy, you inherently "cling to the belief that the majority may discriminate against a minorty."
    Lol, ignore the fact that he just compared gay couples to criminals.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, ignore the fact that he just compared gay couples to criminals.
    Who is he?
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Ignore the subject matter for a moment. Don't all laws and rulings have that effect? When ever a law is enacted, or a ruling is given, it has the effect of discriminating against those who desire to behave otherwise.

    When ever people wish to live together, it is incumbent on them to establish standards of behavior; rules of engagement. Without such, you have anarchy.

    I guess what I'm saying is, if you support democracy, you inherently "cling to the belief that the majority may discriminate against a minorty."
    Of course you need to factor in a set of laws (i.e. the Constitution) that protects the "common welfare". That's what seems to be at issue. Some would consider "common welfare" to mean protecting the minority--whomever they may be. I don't think that's the case, nor do I think it has been shown to be the case throughout the history of our country. Note that the Constitution was not a seen as a protection for polygamists.
  8.    #8  
    And what is wrong with majority rule? Is that not what this country is based upon? Tell me where it says anything different? We have a legislative branch that frankly does not have the right to legislate and we have a judicial branch that reserves the non-existing right to legislate.

    Buba, you are all done messed up here by saying there is discrimination. There is none. These people have a right to marry - a man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a man. There is no discrimination. What is important is the norms of society and preventing the marriage of a man to a man - how does that harm society? Does a homosexual union produce anything of value to the society? No, it does not. All it does is provides a "feel good" for an overwhelming small minority of people. You cannot please everyone regardless of the society you choose - norms are important. And do not waste your breate stating I am hateful. Your responses are much more adversarial than mine, express much more anomisity than I do. There is no anomisity in this post.

    Ben
  9. morrie's Avatar
    Posts
    259 Posts
    Global Posts
    265 Global Posts
    #9  
    i am not gay but ALL people have the right to the american dream.
    morris stalk
  10.    #10  
    Protection of the common welfare - yes, an important consideration. If you let it all hang out, which is what daThomas wants, then how does society protect itself? Do whatever you want results in anarchy, a break down in society. Society does not benefit. Do you want to go so far as to have drug transactions legal? Look at Mexico - do you want that here? A small minority might, so from his view point that means YES let's go at it. What a bunch of ...

    Really off course.

    Ben
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    And what is wrong with majority rule? Is that not what this country is based upon? Tell me where it says anything different? We have a legislative branch that frankly does not have the right to legislate and we have a judicial branch that reserves the non-existing right to legislate.
    Ben



    Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-Black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that Whites were the Chosen people, Blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation. Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, buttressed the belief that Blacks were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to Whites. Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the White race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to Blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-Black stereotypes. Even children's games portrayed Blacks as inferior beings (see "From Hostility to Reverence: 100 Years of African-American Imagery in Games"). All major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of Blacks.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by BaClinger
    And what is wrong with majority rule?
    lol Da
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Protection of the common welfare - yes, an important consideration. If you let it all hang out, which is what daThomas wants, then how does society protect itself? Do whatever you want results in anarchy, a break down in society. Society does not benefit. Do you want to go so far as to have drug transactions legal? Look at Mexico - do you want that here? A small minority might, so from his view point that means YES let's go at it. What a bunch of ...

    Really off course.

    Ben
    Nope. You're exagerating and making statements in my name. Don't please.

    I am stating that you cannot deny 2 people willing to make the commitment the same rights under the law that you're providing the hetero majority. It's that simple.
  14.    #14  
    Where in the Constitution does it say that all people have the right to the American dream? I do not believe the "American dream" is defined in the document.

    Why redefine the core of society for a small minority? I have no problem at all with a civil union, but marriage, nothing less than the basis of civilization, has served us well for centuries in its current form of man/woman. Society benefits in its current form; society will not benefit if it is changed to a "free for-all" and frankly, that is what will happen - at what point is the line drawn? Do you advocate human & dog? and that is not an extreme - there are people out there that what to let it go where it goes.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by morrie
    i am not gay but ALL people have the right to the american dream.
  15.    #15  
    Where does it state in the Constitution you have a right to marry? No where to my knowledge. No effort at all is being made to deny a legitimate action. None. Two homosexuals have a right to a will, so let them make a will. Let them have a civil ceremony. Not a problem. Just no need to change a social norm again for a small and a very small minority at that.

    daThomas - at what point do you draw the line? Surely there is a point.

    Ben



    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Nope. You're exagerating and making statements in my name. Don't please.

    I am stating that you cannot deny 2 people willing to make the commitment the same rights under the law that you're providing the hetero majority. It's that simple.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by BaClinger
    And what is wrong with majority rule?
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Where does it state in the Constitution you have a right to marry?
    The equal protection clause for one.
  18.    #18  
    Current American society does not condone the action you are accusing it of. Get real or go east or go to another continent, 'cause a lot of places do.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol Da
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Where does it state in the Constitution you have a right to marry? No where to my knowledge. No effort at all is being made to deny a legitimate action. None. Two homosexuals have a right to a will, so let them make a will. Let them have a civil ceremony. Not a problem. Just no need to change a social norm again for a small and a very small minority at that.

    daThomas - at what point do you draw the line? Surely there is a point.

    Ben
    When two people are married they are afforded certain rights and protections between one another. The gov't hands out marriage licenses. So this is more than a social norm, it's a law which applies rights which are being denied to a specific group. The logic is inescapable. Well for most people.
  20.    #20  
    Point it out to me. It speaks in generalities, marriage is not mentioned nor from my knowledge was it an intended.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    The equal protection clause for one.
Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions