|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| xingyiman wrote: |
The people spoke......
Obama for President
No to gay marriage
What's the problem? |
The problem is that bare majorities of voters should not have the power to strip or confer rights on any segment of the citizenry. The very idea is repugnant, and only a step or two removed from torch-bearing mob rule.
Someone on one of these threads lauded the referendum process as the nearest thing we have to direct democracy, and I agree, which is why, of course, referendum votes are such a horrible idea. The founders of the US certainly knew better than to attempt direct democracy, because they knew that most people are too stupid to qualify for a direct voice in the governance of a country.
I haven't been a citizen of CA for more than 20 years, but if I had been on 11-4, I would not have voted on Proposition 8. As I've said on another thread, the last time I voted in any kind of gay rights referendum was indeed the last time I will ever do so. US government was established, in part, to protect minority rights from rabid majorities. These plebiscites seek to undo that wisdom.
At the very least, a popular vote that seeks to strip rights from some segment of the populace should have to achieve some super-majority.
Mormons? Catholics? Fundamentalists? Soccer Moms? I don't care what demographic put this vote over the top. The vote should never have been permitted to begin with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seosan08
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whine, snivel, whinge, cry............  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| xingyiman wrote: |
The people spoke......
Obama for President
No to gay marriage
What's the problem? |
The problem is that bare majorities of voters should not have the power to strip or confer rights on any segment of the citizenry. The very idea is repugnant, and only a step or two removed from torch-bearing mob rule.
Someone on one of these threads lauded the referendum process as the nearest thing we have to direct democracy, and I agree, which is why, of course, referendum votes are such a horrible idea. The founders of the US certainly knew better than to attempt direct democracy, because they knew that most people are too stupid to qualify for a direct voice in the governance of a country.
I haven't been a citizen of CA for more than 20 years, but if I had been on 11-4, I would not have voted on Proposition 8. As I've said on another thread, the last time I voted in any kind of gay rights referendum was indeed the last time I will ever do so. US government was established, in part, to protect minority rights from rabid majorities. These plebiscites seek to undo that wisdom.
At the very least, a popular vote that seeks to strip rights from some segment of the populace should have to achieve some super-majority.
Mormons? Catholics? Fundamentalists? Soccer Moms? I don't care what demographic put this vote over the top. The vote should never have been permitted to begin with. |
I absolutely agree. Thank you for putting it so well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seosan08
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| xingyiman wrote: |
The people spoke......
Obama for President
No to gay marriage
What's the problem? |
The problem is that bare majorities of voters should not have the power to strip or confer rights on any segment of the citizenry. The very idea is repugnant, and only a step or two removed from torch-bearing mob rule.
Someone on one of these threads lauded the referendum process as the nearest thing we have to direct democracy, and I agree, which is why, of course, referendum votes are such a horrible idea. The founders of the US certainly knew better than to attempt direct democracy, because they knew that most people are too stupid to qualify for a direct voice in the governance of a country.
I haven't been a citizen of CA for more than 20 years, but if I had been on 11-4, I would not have voted on Proposition 8. As I've said on another thread, the last time I voted in any kind of gay rights referendum was indeed the last time I will ever do so. US government was established, in part, to protect minority rights from rabid majorities. These plebiscites seek to undo that wisdom.
At the very least, a popular vote that seeks to strip rights from some segment of the populace should have to achieve some super-majority.
Mormons? Catholics? Fundamentalists? Soccer Moms? I don't care what demographic put this vote over the top. The vote should never have been permitted to begin with. |
I absolutely agree. Thank you for putting it so well. |
You're welcome!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| US government was established, in part, to protect minority rights from rabid majorities. |
Check your history books. It was indeed also established to protect majority rights from rabid minorities. No one is being stripped of any rights (lets all hear it for PC propoganda!).
Homosexuals have never had the right to be stripped of because societies up to this point have traditionally held that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. California voters simply decided that it should remain so and you simplycan't accept that. It was not a matter of "bigoted" Mormons or what have you stoking fear anymore than to say Obama was elected soley on trumped up Bush hatred.
You may have gay friends that are good people as have I, but as another poster already stated "where does it stop?" Should we then grant rights to a person who wants to "marry" their dog or cat?
Like it or not marriages are about families and last I checked without the aid of lawyers or doctors(female or at least "crossing over) gays and lesbies can't produce families.
And as such the male anus not being made for sexual intercourse and females unable to inseminate by definition they are evolutionary dead ends.
What they want is not marriage in the traditional sense but acceptence of their lifestyles which, from reproductive success models are deviant. Voters in California and elsewhere made it clear that it is the majority opinion. It never ceases to amaze me that before the vote on a decisive issue that left wingers are always in the "majority" until they lose and then they are the "victimized minority". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xingyiman wrote: |
No one is being stripped of any rights (lets all hear it for PC propoganda!)
Homosexuals have never had the right to be stripped of .... California voters simply decided that it should remain so and you simplycan't accept that. |
Actually, gay Californians were granted that right last summer. In fact, the official title of the thing was "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT." Which makes my comment not PC propaganda, but fact.
Stripped of, eliminated, whatever. I do accept that voters stripped fellow citizens of a right. I can accept it without liking it or thinking it's right. But I also realize that this vote was just a temporary setback. This will eventually be settled in the courts, where it should be settled, on the basis of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Quote: |
| US government was established, in part, to protect minority rights from rabid majorities. |
Check your history books. It was indeed also established to protect majority rights from rabid minorities. No one is being stripped of any rights (lets all hear it for PC propoganda!). |
Tell that to Mr Sulu!
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Homosexuals have never had the right to be stripped of because societies up to this point have traditionally held that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. |
It used to also be defined as a life time commitment.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| California voters simply decided that it should remain so and you simplycan't accept that. It was not a matter of "bigoted" Mormons or what have you stoking fear anymore than to say Obama was elected soley on trumped up Bush hatred. |
There may well be a point there. But I support gay marriage so feel that there has been an injustice here. I see gay marriage as progress towards a more humane society whatever tradition and history say.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| You may have gay friends that are good people as have I, but as another poster already stated "where does it stop?" Should we then grant rights to a person who wants to "marry" their dog or cat? |
Absurd, how does a dog give consent?
Anyway just to feed your fear
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=UbP3l3Oj6Qk
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Like it or not marriages are about families and last I checked without the aid of lawyers or doctors(female or at least "crossing over) gays and lesbies can't produce families. |
Yet sterile couples (including couples too old to have children) marry all the time. You want to take away their right to marry? Anyway your statement is untrue, many gays have children without lawyers or doctors(unless they are having sex with them). Plenty of gay mums and dads out there.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| And as such the male anus not being made for sexual intercourse |
Neither was the female mouth. You gonna turn down a BJ now?
| xingyiman wrote: |
and females unable to inseminate by definition they are evolutionary dead ends.
What they want is not marriage in the traditional sense but acceptence of their lifestyles which, from reproductive success models are deviant. |
As are sterile couples and those too old to conceive.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Voters in California and elsewhere made it clear that it is the majority opinion. It never ceases to amaze me that before the vote on a decisive issue that left wingers are always in the "majority" until they lose and then they are the "victimized minority". |
Plenty of right wing nutjob gays out there too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
