Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 170
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    DL: Your argument regarding same-sex marriage advocates buying into the system by voting is absolutely absurd. No one in California who was pro-same-sex marriage brought that to the people. It was determined via the court system that the constitution of California allowed same-sex marriages. People who believed otherwise brought the amendment to the voters. Should everyone who was for same-sex marriage have stayed home instead?

    My main point, and I apologize if in my general crankiness and stress level yesterday I did not make this clear, is that this is not an issue that should have ever gone to the people of California. Civil rights in this country have never been at the whim of the majority. Would you believe it was ok if after "Brown vs the Board of Education" the USA passed a constitutional amendment changing the equal protection clause to make "separate but equal" legal? After all, the people who are against it get the chance to vote.

    Democracy at the point of a gun (vote and lose your right to complain; don't vote and lose your right anyway) is not democracy. The rights of two consenting adults to form a lasting legal union is not one that my neighbors get to determine. And when the constitution grants a minority a right, the answer is not to override the constitution. That is absolutely anti-American in my view.
    As I said at the beginning of this thread, I've not heard one logical argument against gay marriage....

    I still have not...

    Banning gay marriage makes no sense. Neither do the arguments against it...
    Last edited by theog; 11/10/2008 at 10:41 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    As I said at the beginning of this thread, I've not heard one logical argument against gay marriage....

    I still have not...

    Banning gay marriage makes no sense. Neither do the arguments against it...
    Exactly! There is no logical argument.
  3.    #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    Exactly! There is no logical argument.
    Agreed. Sort of my point all along...you're dealing with illogical and/or ideological and/or ignorant people and the only way to deal with them is to turn their logic around and give them no way out. Right now most of them are hiding behind religion IMO.

    But maybe my idea isn't the best either. Perhaps Obama will have a chance to appoint a more liberal bench and this whole thing will play out in your favor the next four years. I certainly hope so.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I think I proposed that about three pages ago.
    And rightly so. It's simply the way this will go.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed. Sort of my point all along...you're dealing with illogical and/or ideological and/or ignorant people and the only way to deal with them is to turn their logic around and give them no way out. Right now most of them are hiding behind religion IMO.

    But maybe my idea isn't the best either. Perhaps Obama will have a chance to appoint a more liberal bench and this whole thing will play out in your favor the next four years. I certainly hope so.
    True. I think your point (re: civil unions and then working towards marriage) is likely what will occur if the courts don't get involved on a national scale. If it goes to the supreme court, I think there's a much higher chance of marriage (or forced national adoption of civil unions). Mostly I'm basing this guess on the number of state courts (at last count I believe 5?) who have forced civil unions or marriage on their states, along with the previous precedent that the government cannot legislate private relationships (Lawrence v Texas-sodomy laws get struck down). If you remove the government's (tenous) interest in the physical relationship, it becomes increasingly difficult on a legal level to block all unions.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    True. I think your point (re: civil unions and then working towards marriage) is likely what will occur if the courts don't get involved on a national scale. If it goes to the supreme court, I think there's a much higher chance of marriage (or forced national adoption of civil unions). Mostly I'm basing this guess on the number of state courts (at last count I believe 5?) who have forced civil unions or marriage on their states, along with the previous precedent that the government cannot legislate private relationships (Lawrence v Texas-sodomy laws get struck down). If you remove the government's (tenous) interest in the physical relationship, it becomes increasingly difficult on a legal level to block all unions.
    I hope not... why have civil unions when we already have a system in place to deal with this "issue."

    If civil unions are "just like" marriage, then why the name change? Having it named "marriage" does not undermine the church.

    Personally, I think the issue is a lot deeper than just "marriage" or "church."
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Okay DL, here is your big chance. Please articulate succinctly what is your position on the following (please keep the "why" to one sentence) to :


    Wow, this is even more interesting than I thought. Bujin makes the charge that I “rant about how gay people don’t deserve civil rights” and when I challenge the notion by suggesting that one cannot prove it, you jump in and demand that I prove him wrong?

    Please. The burden of proof is on the accuser and considering how I’ve already laid out a plan that gets gay persons every single liberty they are asking for I’d say this will be a tough one to prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin
    [T]he fact that the vote turned out the way it did, on an issue regarding denying civil rights to the minority group, is the definition of Tyranny of the Majority.


    Actually, even if you were right about this being TotM, you would still have it wrong—which is why I’m pretty certain you haven’t read up on the concept (Wikipedia doesn’t count). Alexis de Tocqueville, the writer who first coined the phrase, notes that TotM exists when a majority actually controls the outcome of a situation—not where the outcome of the situation proves to be in their favor. You haven’t demonstrated that heterosexuals actually controlled anything. All you’ve done is say, “They won so it must be tyranny!” That’s isn’t so and no amount of saying it is will change it.

    IF you wish to demonstrate that heterosexuals were in control, you would need to demonstrate that they knew full well they would win by even offering it up to vote—and given the 52.3% to 47.7% result, it would be virtually impossible to prove that heterosexuals were able to actually control the outcome when a mere 3.3% more against Prop 8 would have cost them a “win.”

    Get back to me when you’ve actually studied the material.

    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear
    Should everyone who was for same-sex marriage have stayed home instead?


    YES . . . and

    My main point, and I apologize if in my general crankiness and stress level yesterday I did not make this clear, is that this is not an issue that should have ever gone to the people of California.


    My point exactly! If you truly believed this to be an issue of civil liberties and not something to be voted on, then what business did you have in voting in the first place? Voting acknowledges a certain acceptance that a loss is possible. Here’s what should have happened:

    Those who are advocates of same-sex marriage should have refused to vote, period. That doesn’t mean stay at home and drink sweet tea; that means you refuse to vote and organize protests, boycotts or some other appropriate action.

    The moment an advocate stepped into the polling booth to vote on Prop 8, they acknowledged it was acceptable to vote on by their very own vote. After which, it is completely out of line to turn around and claim that voting on such an issue wasn’t fair.

    And no apology necessary.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8.    #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Wow, this is even more interesting than I thought. Bujin makes the charge that I “rant about how gay people don’t deserve civil rights” and when I challenge the notion by suggesting that one cannot prove it, you jump in and demand that I prove him wrong?

    Please. The burden of proof is on the accuser and considering how I’ve already laid out a plan that gets gay persons every single liberty they are asking for I’d say this will be a tough one to prove.
    I'm not accusing you of anything nor am I defending Bujin. In fact, I made no mention of his name at all. I'm trying to understand your position better than you've managed to articulate it.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 11/10/2008 at 03:43 PM.
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Actually, even if you were right about this being TotM, you would still have it wrong—which is why I’m pretty certain you haven’t read up on the concept (Wikipedia doesn’t count). Alexis de Tocqueville, the writer who first coined the phrase, notes that TotM exists when a majority actually controls the outcome of a situation—not where the outcome of the situation proves to be in their favor.
    I'm sorry, but you're not correct, either about TotM or my being informed about the concept - the majority controls the outcome by virtue of being the majority:

    Tyranny of the Majority (emphasis added):

    - From Duke School of Law:
    Human rights in a democracy are minority rights, in the sense that it will never be politically popular to subject the majority to human-rights-abusive measures, and, even if it were, it would not raise the troubling issues of tyranny or oppression as described by Tocqueville and Madison. The Japanese internment at issue in Korematsu v. United States would have been impossible if the United States was primarily composed of people of Japanese ancestry. To emphasize that human rights in a democracy are minority rights, although tautological, is to prove that a democratic government can abuse those rights whenever it is politically popular to do so.
    - From Toqueville, Democracy in America:
    If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength.
    - And from the ever-popular Answers.com:
    A fear expressed variously by Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill. If the majority rules, what is to stop it from expropriating the minority, or from tyrannizing it in other ways by enforcing the majority's religion, language, or culture on the minority?
    Now that I've finished clarifying this issue, I'm officially off to do other things. Entertaining though this was.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/10/2008 at 04:33 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm not accusing you of anything nor am I defending Bujin. In fact, I made no mention of his name at all. I'm trying to understand your position better than you've managed to articulate it.
    He has already went on to change his mind on issues several times in this thread... I'm not sure why you think he would answer your questions directly.

    I think dlc has other issues...

    Ben went silent.... dlc went ballistic.

    Did you know DLC's initials mean: Democratic Leadership Council
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm sorry, but you're not correct, either about TotM or my being informed about the concept - the majority controls the outcome by virtue of being the majority:
    Impressive use of Google . . . now if we can just get you to understand what you actually post we'll be on our way to freedom!!

    - From Duke School of Law:

    Human rights in a democracy are minority rights, in the sense that it will never be politically popular to subject the majority to human-rights-abusive measures, and, even if it were, it would not raise the troubling issues of tyranny or oppression as described by Tocqueville and Madison. The Japanese internment at issue in Korematsu v. United States would have been impossible if the United States was primarily composed of people of Japanese ancestry. To emphasize that human rights in a democracy are minority rights, although tautological, is to prove that a democratic government can abuse those rights whenever it is politically popular to do so.
    Good, a democratic government can abuse minority rights. However, oddly enough Proposition 8 was, I believe, something that the people (not the government)--including advocates--voted on.

    Strike # 1 - Where does this quote state that in a vote, if he who wins also happens to be the majority automatically becomes a tyrannical one?

    - From Toqueville, Democracy in America:

    If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength.
    This one's really good . . . because a man is capable of wronging his adversaries a majority is capable of doing the same thing. But there is a measure of hypocrisy if you attempt to use this as an implication.

    Strike # 2 - By citing the above, those who voted for Prop 8 won because they were wronging their "adversaries." But here's the interesting catch if one isn't free to vote without castigation or political denigration (hint: being called a tyrant), then simply put one isn't free to vote and is himself subject to tyranny.

    Note: This is my favorite and I'm glad you posted it because it really kills your case about tyranny.

    - And from the ever-popular Answers.com:

    A fear expressed variously by Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill. If the majority rules, what is to stop it from expropriating the minority, or from tyrannizing it in other ways by enforcing the majority's religion, language, or culture on the minority?
    And your last quote--which also says nothing to the actual case. Hint: Just quoting stuff you found on Google doesn't cut it.

    Strike # 3 - While the above be true, it would be nice for you to cite the entire text . . . I'll add what you "missed:"

    "Madison's answer in The Federalist is the best known. He argued that the United States must have a federal structure. Although one majority, left to itself, would try to tyrannize the local minority in one state or city and another majority, left to itself, would do the same in another, in a country as large and diverse as the United States there would not be one national majority which could tyrannize over a national minority. But if there was, the powers which the states retained would be a bulwark against it. The separation of powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary at federal level would be a further protection against majority tyranny".

    Weird, really it is. While it is possible for a local majority to tyrannize the local minority, the actual concern wasn't the varying locales, it was that tyranny of the majority might be a national problem.

    Interesting that your citation, when all pieced together, has nothing to do with varying local tyranny (and still doesn't support the notion that such is what happened), but everything to do with national tyranny.


    Tsk, tsk. Three strikes . . . I guess that means you are out. Nice try though and I'll give you credit for the three citations that you actually attempted to use--you just used them wrong, that's all.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    He has already went on to change his mind on issues several times in this thread
    Yeah . . . ummm, I looked for those several times and wasn't even able to find one. Could you lend a hand?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Actually, even if you were right about this being TotM, you would still have it wrong—which is why I’m pretty certain you haven’t read up on the concept (Wikipedia doesn’t count). Alexis de Tocqueville, the writer who first coined the phrase, notes that TotM exists when a majority actually controls the outcome of a situation—not where the outcome of the situation proves to be in their favor. You haven’t demonstrated that heterosexuals actually controlled anything. All you’ve done is say, “They won so it must be tyranny!” That’s isn’t so and no amount of saying it is will change it

    IF you wish to demonstrate that heterosexuals were in control, you would need to demonstrate that they knew full well they would win by even offering it up to vote—and given the 52.3% to 47.7% result, it would be virtually impossible to prove that heterosexuals were able to actually control the outcome when a mere 3.3% more against Prop 8 would have cost them a “win.”
    Get back to me when you’ve actually studied the material.
    Oh boy. You google a phrase and read something on wikipedia and then stepped in it.

    So since Tocqueville never presented, nor mentioned, not alluded to such a a weird proof system as you say exists for Tyranny of the Majority, one can only assume you haven't read Tocqueville.

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Those who are advocates of same-sex marriage should have refused to vote, period.
    The moment an advocate stepped into the polling booth to vote on Prop 8, they acknowledged it was acceptable to vote on by their very own vote.
    Lol, so people in Germany in the 1930's should not have voted against Hitler. Interesting
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    He has already went on to change his mind on issues several times in this thread... I'm not sure why you think he would answer your questions directly.
    Spot on. I count about 20 bizzare reversals and contradictions
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Oh boy. You google a phrase and read something on wikipedia and then stepped in it.
    Okay, sure.

    So since Tocqueville never presented, nor mentioned, not alluded to such a a weird proof system as you say exists for Tyranny of the Majority, one can only assume you haven't read Tocqueville.
    Democracy In America, Book I Chapter 15

    "If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions, an executive so as to retain a proper share of authority, and a judiciary so as to remain independent of the other two powers, a government would be formed which would still be democratic while incurring scarcely any risk of tyranny."

    You do realize the California Supreme Court ruled favorably in permitting Proposition 8 to be on the ballot. This was mere days (18 to be exact) after they overturned Prop 22, as it violated the, at the time, current Constitution of California.

    Basically, Tocqueville was all about checks and balances to significantly reduce the potential for tyranny. A lack of checks and balances (such as in the case of Jim Crow as previously mentioned or even better the story of the Baltimore newspaper during the war of 1812) needs to exist in order for the tyranny of the majority to exist. At this point, all favorable argument for TotM regarding Prop 8 rest solely on the notion that the majority one and not one single person has stated how a lack of checks and balances existed. Even worse for proponents of TotM conspiracy theories, Madison (as I aptly noted) had little concern for regional TotM and insisted that checks and balances needed to be in place via a Federal government and quintessentially, regional issues would work themselves out.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16.    #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Okay DL, here is your big chance. Please articulate succinctly what is your position on the following (please keep the "why" to one sentence) to :

    1. Civil Unions of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?

    2. Legally Recognized Marriage of Gay Couples (yes or no and why)?

    3. Do Civil Unions and Marriage Offer to the Same Legal Rights (yes or no and why)?

    4. Should Government Be Allowed to Decide Which Marriage, and from Which Churches, are Recognized as Legal Unions (yes or no and why)?

    5. Similar to Previous Civil Rights Matters, Should the Federal Government Play a Role in Standardizing Gay/Lesbian/Straight Couples Rights in Marriage and/or Civil Unions? (yes or no and why)?
    In case this was overlooked, I'm awaiting a reply to this as well DL. Thx
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Even worse for proponents of TotM conspiracy theories, ...
    Lol, now Tocqueville and most historians discussing Tyranny of the Majority are "conspiracy theorists."

    Ok
  18. #138  
    I haven't time to be part of this discussion -- and its admittedly not a topic that especially interests me --

    but Olberman spoke movingly about the importance of what happened in California and on Prop 8 last night, and I think what he said is worth hearing.





    BTW -- I've created a youTube account specifically for postings from here -- if anyone wants to use it, PM me on how to access it...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I haven't time to be part of this discussion -- and its admittedly not a topic that especially interests me --

    but Olberman spoke movingly about the importance of what happened in California and on Prop 8 last night, and I think what he said is worth hearing.





    BTW -- I've created a youTube account specifically for postings from here -- if anyone wants to use it, PM me on how to access it...
    Very nice.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Lol, now Tocqueville and most historians discussing Tyranny of the Majority are "conspiracy theorists."

    Ok
    Dude, seriously. Stop posting, you are making a fool out of yourself. When I stated "proponents of TotM conspiracy theories" (which for the record your QUOTING of me was wrong) I followed it up with the following (in the same sentence, which is no wonder why you can't seem to quote correctly):

    Even worse for proponents of TotM conspiracy theories, Madison (as I aptly noted) had little concern for regional TotM and insisted that checks and balances needed to be in place via a Federal government and quintessentially, regional issues would work themselves out.



    That's right, I followed my comment up with the acknowledgement of regional TotM!!

    Talk about reading comprehension.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions