U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/split-californias-proposition-8-on-same-sex-marriage-189980.html)

phillyfan26 09-26-2008 11:51 PM

SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500 (Post 5493355)
In other words, cultural elites with little or no tolerance for dissenting political views or religion based moral codes. I don't know if Sarah Palin will ever be vice-president or president but it's safe to assume she could never be mayor of San Franciso.

"Cultural elites" is the favorite term of conservatives with no grasp as to what liberals even stand for. It's a mix of ignorance and jealousy, with no basis in reality.

Your signature sickens me, by the way.

INDY500 09-27-2008 09:32 AM

Quote:

cultural elites... little or no tolerance for dissenting political views or religion based moral codes.
Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyfan26 (Post 5494297)
Your signature sickens me, by the way.

Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.

Irvine511 09-27-2008 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500 (Post 5495028)
It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.



i say we put your civil rights up for vote.

phillyfan26 09-27-2008 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500 (Post 5495028)
Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.

The economy, foreign policy, gun control ... those are issues. Those have viewpoints.

Civil rights is not that way. There's right and wrong with that.

namkcuR 09-27-2008 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500 (Post 5495028)
Thanks for proving my point. :applaud:

It's a ballot initiative, democracy in it's purest form. You know, self-determination. Sorry if even the merest hint of an opposing viewpoint so "sickens" you. Maybe public debate in a free society just isn't for you.

You really have no idea how offensive what you're saying is to A)Those of us who support gay rights and B)ESPECIALLY those who are actually affected by it due to being gay.

I recently happened upon a quote from actress Jennifer Beals - she's not a star by any means and there's probably a lot of people who don't know who she is. But from what little I've read of her, she seems like a very intelligent person. What she says is dead-on. Here is the quote:

"I'm always shocked that gay marriage is such a big deal. You have to realize how precious human life is, when there are tsunamis and mudslides, when there are armies and terrorists - at any moment, you could be gone, and potentially in the most brutal fashion. And then you have to realize that love is truly one of the most extraordinary things you can experience in your life. To begrudge someone else their love of another person because of gender seems to be absolutely absurd. It's based in fear, fear of the other, fear of what is not like you. But when you are able to see lives on a day-to-day basis, rather than reducing it to politics, then it humanizes a whole community of people that were otherwise invisible."

Taken from her imdb profile page.

phillyfan26 09-27-2008 11:13 AM

It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals). The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution). And, unfortunately, we have moved on from the vision of the founding fathers and allowed fear to replace logic.

anitram 09-27-2008 11:21 AM

You know putting it to a vote may not be such a bad idea. That way in 50 years when these people's children and grandchildren wonder who the hell was it that wanted a 2nd class citizenry a la the back of the bus for blacks, they won't have to look far or wonder.

Irvine511 09-27-2008 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram (Post 5495371)
You know putting it to a vote may not be such a bad idea. That way in 50 years when these people's children and grandchildren wonder who the hell was it that wanted a 2nd class citizenry a la the back of the bus for blacks, they won't have to look far or wonder.



the citizens of CA are going to vote, and they are going to reject it.

it's still offensive in the extreme. should they have voted to allow African-Americans to attend the University of Alabama?

Dalton 09-27-2008 12:06 PM

I'd like to vote on whether or not them uppity blacks can drink from my watering fountain. You let'em do that and the next thing you know they'll want to be president.

Irvine511 09-27-2008 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalton (Post 5495530)
I'd like to vote on whether or not them uppity blacks can drink from my watering fountain. You let'em do that and the next thing you know they'll want to be president.



and then they'll be givin' out condoms to 5 year olds.

Dalton 09-27-2008 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 5495541)
and then they'll be givin' out condoms to 5 year olds.

Jelly balloons?

Irvine511 09-27-2008 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dalton (Post 5495543)
Jelly balloons?



dental dams as well.

Dreadsox 09-27-2008 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyfan26 (Post 5495333)
It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals). The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution). And, unfortunately, we have moved on from the vision of the founding fathers and allowed fear to replace logic.

It was to protect minority groups?

This is the same constitution that counted slaves as less than a whole human? Weren't they a minority?

The point of moving from the Articles of Confederation was what?

Please direct me to some historical books where the sentiment above, is expounded upon.

phillyfan26 09-27-2008 06:32 PM

James Madison - Federalist 10 and Federalist 51.

The slaves were counted less than a whole because they were forced to compromise with the southern states in order to move forward. Had they not, the Articles would have remained and the union would have further split, and I imagine it would have taken much longer for the slaves to get their rights.

Quote:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

INDY500 09-27-2008 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyfan26 (Post 5495333)
It should not even be put to a vote. The point of the US Constitution was to protect the minority groups (in this case, homosexuals) from the "tyranny of the majority" (in this case, fearful heterosexuals).

I think "tyranny of the government" is more accurate but you could argue that is the majority, anyway.

Without majority rule how can we be self-governing? Western societies live under a combination of two theories; liberalism (individual rights) and democracy (popular sovereignty). We respect the rights of the individual but they must either be universal or enumerated in our Constitution.

Every time an issue is declared "a right" and thus free from the vote, we extinguish part of our liberty. Ever think of that?

Quote:

The whole point of moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to avoid democracy being allowed to vote rights away (as it was allowed in the early Pennsylvania Constitution).
A self-determining society may well decide to allow same-sex marriage but to say that it has ever existed as a right would simply be untrue.
It certainly isn't in the Constitution in any specific language one could point to and no philosopher, legal scholar, religious thinker or civic leader has ever put forth the argument that it is implied prior to this generation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com