What Has Happened to Our Democracy?

[Titanic]

Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

You're joking, surely....

[Phatscotty]

You're joking, surely....[/quote]
not at all, you make a strong statement yourelf. I will reconsider based on your smilies

[Timminz]

Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Statements like this are the reason people who know what words mean don't take you seriously.

[Phatscotty]

Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Statements like this are the reason people who know what words mean don't take you seriously.

well, then I guess we disagree. why can't you be ok with that? i mean, lets take the statement. executive branch should lead from the center....ok timminz, where should it lead from? congress is very far left....ok timminz, where is congress? president achievements from the left.....cap n trade,healthcare takeoever, and stimulus plans.....if those arent the radical left, which end of the spectrum do those items belong? I'm sorry man, but I can lay out a case. Dont know why you take the time

[Timminz]

Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Sorry for not being more focused, with the quote. The bolded part is what I was talking about.

[Snorri1234]

On the other hand, the right to bear arms is constantly under attack.

So? Who cares? Noone is going to take your guns away.

[Snorri1234]

well, then I guess we disagree. why can't you be ok with that?

Because agreeing to disagree about fucking facts is retarded.

[thegreekdog]

I agree with Quirk, although I'm not sure about whether marriage or pot smoking are rights in the strict sense of term. I guess I wouldn't call them rights, although I think gay people should be permitted to marry and that adults should be permitted to do drugs (any drugs, not just pot) in the privacy of their own homes without fear of arrest.

In any event, the majority almost always oppresses the minority, even in a representative democracy. It happens on all issues and in all walks of life. GabonX could complain about the right to bear arms (an actual right, I might add), while I could complain about laws restricting gay marriage. What should happen is enough people in the majority care enough to change the law (or the Constitution, if we want to make these things rights protected by the Constitution).

[Snorri1234]

I agree with Quirk, although I'm not sure about whether marriage or pot smoking are rights in the strict sense of term. I guess I wouldn't call them rights, although I think gay people should be permitted to marry and that adults should be permitted to do drugs (any drugs, not just pot) in the privacy of their own homes without fear of arrest.

Yeah they're not exactly rights. However it's certainly possible to argue that gay people have the right to gay-marriage if heterosexual marriage is allowed. Marriage is not a right, but people do have the right not to be discriminated against.

[GabonX]

The thing is it isn't necessarily discrimination.

Being gay isn't akin to being member of a minority race. There is no legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is behavioral.The two groups have an identical set of rights.

All people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. If a person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex that's fine, but the idea that they are being discriminated against because they cannot marry someone of the same sex is false. They are not being denied any right which the general public does not have.

Frankly gay people getting married wouldn't bother me, but I find the arguments they use to defend their movement to be reprehensible and fallacious. Honestly, I wish the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. I'm sick of the debate, and it's not going to end unless bureaucracy is scaled back.

[Snorri1234]

The thing is it isn't necessarily discrimination.

Being gay isn't akin to being member of a minority race. There is no legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is behavioral.The two groups have an identical set of rights.

All people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. If a person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex that's fine, but the idea that they are being discriminated against because they cannot marry someone of the same sex is false. They are not being denied any right which the general public does not have.

Frankly gay people getting married wouldn't bother me, but I find the arguments they use to defend their movement to be reprehensible and fallacious. Honestly, I wish the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. I'm sick of the debate, and it's not going to end unless bureaucracy is scaled back.

I think you're not understanding the argument as to why it is discrimination. It's not actually based on sexuality but on gender.

A marriage is a legal contract between two people. If a man wants to engage in such a contract with another man and is banned because he's not a woman, that's discrimination based on gender. It is actually the same reasoning as to why one should allow marriage between differently coloured people. Or any other legal contract in fact.

[thegreekdog]

The thing is it isn't necessarily discrimination.

Being gay isn't akin to being member of a minority race. There is no legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is behavioral.The two groups have an identical set of rights.

All people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. If a person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex that's fine, but the idea that they are being discriminated against because they cannot marry someone of the same sex is false. They are not being denied any right which the general public does not have.

Frankly gay people getting married wouldn't bother me, but I find the arguments they use to defend their movement to be reprehensible and fallacious. Honestly, I wish the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. I'm sick of the debate, and it's not going to end unless bureaucracy is scaled back.

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's legally discrimination or not... those people should still have a choice to marry if they want. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why gay marriage should not be sanctioned by the government (although, I have heard good arguments as to why the Constitution does not protect gay marriage).

[GabonX]

Well they do have a choice to marry if they want to. The problem is that the Government does not recognize the form of marriage that they want..

Regardless, I can sympathize with that position much more than the false claim that not allowing gays to marry is a form of discrimination, or worse yet, that not allowing gays to marry is a violation of the Constitution

Like I said before, if it were up to me the government would have a greatly reduced role in the recognizing of marriages.

[pimpdave]

Well I think it's ridiculous.

[GabonX]

I think you're not understanding the argument as to why it is discrimination. It's not actually based on sexuality but on gender.

A marriage is a legal contract between two people. If a man wants to engage in such a contract with another man and is banned because he's not a woman, that's discrimination based on gender. It is actually the same reasoning as to why one should allow marriage between differently coloured people. Or any other legal contract in fact.

That is a better position to take, but it seems that most people who argue for gay marriage argue from the pretense that they are a distinctly recognized group. I've heard people make the argument that the gay demographic is akin to a minority group, specifically black people.

I just don't see it like that. People are people, and in my mind there is no real distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual other than behavior.

[Snorri1234]

I think you're not understanding the argument as to why it is discrimination. It's not actually based on sexuality but on gender.

A marriage is a legal contract between two people. If a man wants to engage in such a contract with another man and is banned because he's not a woman, that's discrimination based on gender. It is actually the same reasoning as to why one should allow marriage between differently coloured people. Or any other legal contract in fact.

That is a better position to take, but it seems that most people who argue for gay marriage argue from the pretense that they are a distinctly recognized group. I've heard people make the argument that the gay demographic is akin to a minority group, specifically black people.

I just don't see it like that. People are people, and in my mind there is no real distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual other than behavior.

There is actually no problem with saying that gay people are a minority group. And that they're being discriminated against based on their sexuality. Because that's actually true.

And it's a bit absurd to argue that the only difference is behavior and it's therefore not discrimination. Not only is it not merely a difference in behavior, it's akin to saying that beating up people with glasses because they wear glasses is not discrimination. Wearing glasses is behavioral, but that doesn't mean you can discriminate based on it.

[thegreekdog]

Except that you can discriminate against someone who wears glasses. If Corporation X had a policy of not hiring people who wear glasses, the unhired have no real recompense. Of course, the need to wear glasses is not a choice, so it's a really not a good example. People who cannot see without glasses must wear glasses to see and thus are not making a choice per se.

[Snorri1234]

Except that you can discriminate against someone who wears glasses. If Corporation X had a policy of not hiring people who wear glasses, the unhired have no real recompense. Of course, the need to wear glasses is not a choice, so it's a really not a good example. People who cannot see without glasses must wear glasses to see and thus are not making a choice per se.

Those damn bastards could just not wear glasses and live the rest of their lives partly blind.

[Snorri1234]

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF A WEARING-GLASSES-GENE!!!

[thegreekdog]

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF A WEARING-GLASSES-GENE!!!

It's a disability. The disabled are protected, so there's no need for evidence. You need another example. Something like, "people who drink tea instead of coffee."

[Snorri1234]

In all seriousness though, saying that because homosexuals can choose not to bone people fo the same sex it's behavioral and therefore can't be discriminated against is rather silly.

[thegreekdog]

In all seriousness though, saying that because homosexuals can choose not to bone people fo the same sex it's behavioral and therefore can't be discriminated against is rather silly.

I don't think that particular statement is silly. I think it's silly that gay marriage has any effect at all on people other than those who engage in gay marriage. That's what the silly thing is. "Oh noes... Bill and Bob got married... now I'm gonna die!"

[Snorri1234]

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF A WEARING-GLASSES-GENE!!!

It's a disability. The disabled are protected, so there's no need for evidence. You need another example. Something like, "people who drink tea instead of coffee."

But nobody has linked me to any evidence of a gene that makes people wear glasses!


My point is that even if there was nothing genetic about homosexuality it's still obvious that they are not making any kind of choice as we normally define choice. Drinking tea instead of coffee is not as important as whether you like to bone dudes or not. It's a pretty major thing in your life, unlike whether you prefer tea or coffee and much like whether you need glasses or not. The fact that you can choose to not wear glasses and be partly blind is kind of like how you can choose to actually not bone dudes and have a miserable (sex)life.

[Quirk]

Sorry I haven't been able to respond. I've been working a lot of overtime since I started this thread. I should have time to post Tuesday night.