The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Troianii, May 9, 2013.

  1. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, a baby wants anal sex?

    Where is your evidence that everyone is born gay?
     
  2. AKR

    AKR New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,940
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not all gay people want gay sex and same straight people do, so I'm not sure what anal sex has to do with anything. I asked if you thought babies can constitutionally own shot guns. I'm not sure why you started talking about babies wanting anal sex. I never said babies could get married, but you said we're born with the right to own a gun. So, your question is completely nonsensical.

    So, you're saying you weren't born straight? I mean, as a baby, did you want vaginal sex? You didn't answer if you could choose to be gay. You seem to think people choose their sexuality, so you could choose to be gay yourself?

    You didn't provide evidence. You just asked ME for evidence of the opposite. You made a claim. You don't prove your claim by asking others to prove the opposite. That's not how claims work. You also did tell me what this has to do with gay marriage.
     
  3. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its not complicated the US Constitution covers rights when its a minority and in the case of Gay Marriage the 14th Amendments equal protection clause requires equality if straights can marry so must gays. That document is the law of the land and the highest law above that there is none even the majority. So there are simple solutions get the government fully out of marriage and offer it no benefits evening the playing field or extend marriage to any agreement between adult citizens to form a household regardless of makeup. Separate however is not equal.
     
  4. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope, again you lose the argument. See post 34 below:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ot-subject-popular-vote-4.html#post1062607537

    Marriage is a licensed activity and thus a PRIVILEGE. To say it is any other thing is makin' stuff up! :angered: The Fourteenth Amendment is a Reconstruction Amendments. After the Civil War people were murdering newly freed slaves and the law would not even investigate. It has nothing to do with gay people wanting to "marry" other gay people. Besides, the PRIVILEGE of marriage is not being restricted.

    mar•riage
    [mar-ij] Show IPA

    noun
    1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

    b. a similar institution (meaning NOT the REAL or SAME situation. Dictionaries show usage. This entry is showing the declining standards or the bastedisation of the language!!! :puke: Even the dictionary states "gay marriage" is not "marriage!" :shock: ) involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir

    I post real definitions to show if the LEFT had to use real definitions of real words they would have nothing to say… :roll:

    Gay people simply want to redefine the already defined word, "Marriage." Gay people actually do marry other gay people of the opposite sex to start families. Again, gay people simply want to redefine the word "marriage" because they want society to be FORCED to accept them and their lifestyle. They can live together and live how they like now. Through contract law they can even create "leangle benefits" if they so wish. What they can't do is be married by definition. They want to change the definition of marriage, or they want SPECIAL PRIVILEGES because they are different. Why should they be granted special privileges and redefine the word marriage? :popcorn:
     
  5. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good thread. There may be some issues with gay couples that are serious enough to maybe speak about a right. Namely, visiting rights in a hospital, recognizing some parental rights of gay people, inheritance etc. These are important, and taken care of with marriage for heterosexual couples. Gays should have something similar available, and convenient enough, too. At least registered partnerships. Altough I support gay marriage, so that is my preference.

    However, when it comes to gay marriage itself, then no, that is in no way an inalienable or basic right, and surely can be subject to a vote. Because legal marriage is just an artificial construct of society, a piece of paper, no more or less legitimate than polygamy. Nobodys rights would be violated if legal marriage was abolished completely. From this point of view, owning an item such as a gun has more of a claim to be a right than some abstract "legal marriage".
     
  6. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now that we have established "marriage" as not a right, but a privilege, and we have established the FACT gay people want SPECIAL privileges we can have an honest discussion. If we redefine the PRVLIDGE of marriage for gay people should we not redefine the word and PRVLIDGE of "marriage" to accommodate those who wish to "marry" their beloved pets? If not, why not? Should the desire for special privileges by some be denied and the desire for special privilege for gay people be granted? Why? How is that "fair?" How is that not a violation of someone's perceived "right" if it is everyone's "right" to have special privileges granted? :popcorn:

    Oh, see how the LEFT debases and degrades this society? :puke:
     
  7. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,745
    Likes Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you get the ribbon.

    It is about evolving the language to mean things not meant. Change the definition of a word, you change the law... and you don't have to provide anything more than a philosophy to do it. You can even call it science... but it isn't.
     
  8. Diuretic

    Diuretic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    11,481
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Indeed it does. Fortunately people have thought about this over the years and can come up with a fairly handy list of rights.
     
  9. Aldric

    Aldric New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to Aristotle, by living in a city, we agree to bend to its rules and values.
    The rules and values are being practice by a majority of people who wish to live according to those rules.

    Now. If a group suddenly decide that they want to seceded from the rest, can we consider they still part of the society and got all the benefits of it ( public service, protection, political rights ? )
    How restrictive are those rules depend of the country, but still, who is making the laws ?

    A pile of lobbies (Bankers, religious, LGBT, ect .. ) all trying to blend the country in how they fit ?
    The people, which will get the majority to decide the bottom line what is okay and what is not.
     
  10. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "RIGHTS" are defined by Natural Law. People have the "RIGHT" to do what ever they like until that "RIGHT" infringes on the "RIGHTS" of someone else. This thread is not about "RIGHTS." It is about a group of people DEMANDING SPEACLE "PRIVILEGES." Oh, they claim their DEMANDS are based on "RIGHTS" but they lie! :shock:
     
  11. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are a great many teen suicides in general the fact that a few of them are gay isn't terribly remarkable. Further a lot of the choices we make in this life aren't conscous choices. The same arguments the author used to try to prove that being gay has biological roots could as easily be used to argue that homosexuality is simply a regressive personality to trait linked to bad experiences with the opposite sex and a fantasized ideal of what the homosexual's or lesbian'searly life was like.
     
  12. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    UN Declaration of Human Rights that the United States did sign includes this language:

    Article 16.
    • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Okay lets see this is plain English.

    16.1 Declares Marriage a Right, we signed it so in the US and signing nations its a right by our own hand. And open to men and women afforded equal rights to this so is gender neutral. It doesn't say two men or two women are excluded from this or cannot form a household and the USA never amended its signature to exclude same sex marriage. I checked.

    16.2 Full consent required.

    16.3 Families are to be protected by the state in principle.

    So under the signature of our nation its a right, same sex marriage neutral in language but since men and women are jointly under the provision and its not stated opposite sex couples and it was never later amended by the US its a right to same sex couples and marriage units are to be afforded the protection of the state. And marriage is a RIGHT it says it. So sensibly the USA cannot ban any marriages where parties enter into it of legal age.

    Unless your denying the USA signed this? And since its one source used by the various international courts and legal bodies it holds a firm basis as a key document for human rights.
     
  13. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well first, what the UN says doesn't apply to us, unless ratified by the Senate - was it ratified? And second, you're not interpreting it, you're adding to it. The bold in the UN statement in no way states that 'gender is neutral,' it says they shall have equal rights as to marriage.

    The UN has had other resolutions related to the issue that run along the lines of your views, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter here: it doesn't say what you want it to say.
     
  14. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's terrific that most Americans have now progressed to the point that they oppose gender discrimination in marriage contracts, but the rights of both parties of a couple to enter into such a contract is still not subject to a plebiscite since it concerns the Constitutional rights of individual Americans.

    [​IMG]

    Such a popular vote might well be appropriate in regard to other issues - such as closing the loopholes in extant background checks in gun purchases as was proposed in the Manchin-Toomey bill. With 90% of the public supporting the measures to end the permissiveness that allows criminals and crackpots to easily obtain the weapons they use to kill the innocent, the outcome of the popular vote would, at least, be a powerful statement to politicians in the pocket of special interests.
     
  15. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was alleged marriage is not a RIGHT but the UN as almost its first act as a body of world government declared ,including the US as a signee, a RIGHT. And since the document is used as one of the core human rights agreements makes this document one that matters.

    I added as a note after we signed it we never corrected it to exclude same sex marriage so therefore is open to all kinds of marriage the genders involved not explicitly heterosexual although later agreements kept this neutral we did sign and ratify.

    But I never stated the Declaration of Human Rights is a constitution issue its agreed upon by the major powers of the world as to be important as its a UN core agreement as to human rights. This used by various international courts and bodies as a basis for decisions such as International Criminal Courts.

    But the US did sign it so marriage is a RIGHT.
     
  16. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not without ratification by the senate it's not.
     
  17. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Until there is no legal need to get a "marriage license" marriage is a privilege. Perhaps you should lobby to end the "marriage license" so "marriage" can be defined by the "TWO" or MORE (as you wish to change the definition and restrictions of marriage) getting married. :roll:

    Until such time that the "marriage license" (declared STATE permission to exercise a "right" making it a privilege) is abolished you really have no argument at all other than one group demands special privileges over another.
     
  18. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48


    The question posed by the survey was as follows: "Overall, do you support or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?" Had I taken the survey I would have known of the agenda and answered it dishonestly with a "no."

    In truth, I have no problem with gays and lesbians marrying. Again the definition of "marriage" includes a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians marry NOW, and they marry each other. That is not illegal and that is by definition "marriage." Same sex marriage is not marriage at all by definition. Same sex "marriage" was not asked about in the survey. Those who want such a status don't want to be "married" as they want something else defined by them, or want special privileges.

    Also, I did not see the kind of Super Majority support in that poll that would allow the changing of the Constitution through the legal amendment process. Again, if you want to change society amend the Constitution. The poll does not in any way show the required Super Majorities to change the Constitution to give special privileges for one group of people who demand acceptance.
     
  19. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody has the "right" to get married. Marriage is a form of special privilege that the majority exerts on the minority by legislating themselves benefits and using government to force third parties to abide by a contract which they never signed. Ex: hospitals being required to allow visitation for spouses.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone else is similiarly restricted to marrying someone of the opposite sex.
     
  21. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Men and women have a right to marry.

    Only men and women create families. The nuclear family is a fundamental group unit of society. Two gay guys and an adopted child is not.
     
  22. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly! The "Same Sex Marriage" movement seeks special privileges, not rights at all... :roll:

    They have to LIE stating their "rights" are being violated to be taken seriously at all. Why would anyone pay attention to the REQUEST of a known liar from the get go? :popcorn:
     
  23. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. Just no. Rights aren't spawned from treaties, let alone unratified ones.
     
  24. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,212
    Likes Received:
    14,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what you imagine the "agenda" is in the question, nor what yours is.

    No. That depends upon which definition you arbitrarily decide suits whatever your agenda might be.

    Of course, if you are concerned with the legal definition of the word "marriage" as opposed to the lexical one, that currently varies from state to state and nation to nation and is, as is any popular dictionary definition, subject to changing usage.

    The restriction you would continue to impose is noted, but it's unclear what personal fears you harbour concerning all mutually-agreed couples entering into marriage contracts with all the rights and responsibilities attendant. You can derive comfort from the reality: There have been no demonstrable adverse consequences in those states where progress has occurred, and gender-equality established.

    Equality requires no "special privileges". In fact, it's quite to the contrary.

    Nor does equality demand a Constitutional amendement - as was the case when the Court in Loving v Virginia overturned state anti-miscegenation statutes at a time a supermajority in those states would likely have wished to perpetuate the de iure discrimination. Mixed race couples may have been told, "You are free to marry someone of your own race!" or "You want "special privileges" but such plaints would have been as silly then as now.
     
  25. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Biggest lie is these courts, declaring as a finding of fact that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples, as old as the institution of marriage, has nothing to do with heterosexuals potential of procreation and has instead been a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals based upon animus towards homosexuals. Absurd
     

Share This Page