| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Judge rules that "Proposition 8" is unconstitutional; ...breaking news | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 4 2010, 12:49 PM (4,091 Views) | |
| Mikhailoh | Aug 7 2010, 04:18 AM Post #151 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
We're arguing about how many angels can dance... The fact remains that in every referendum voters have selected traditional marriage. For people to say 'but we know BETTER that YOU!' is pretty damn elitist. Despite all the rhetoric about our educational system, the American public is not stupid. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 7 2010, 04:23 AM Post #152 |
|
MAMIL
|
Rather similar to people who say it's time to overthrow the government by some means other than the democratic process, no? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 7 2010, 04:43 AM Post #153 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Who said that? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 7 2010, 05:07 AM Post #154 |
|
MAMIL
|
You haven't been concentrating. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 7 2010, 05:48 AM Post #155 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Strange. Last time I used fractions, 15-20% was... 15-20%. But if you can get the numbers to read backwards to what the article says, great. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 06:10 AM Post #156 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No Mik, we aren't. We're arguing about the very core concepts of our form of government. Specifically, we're discussing why this country was deliberately *not* established as a pure democracy. Our government was designed in a way specifically to mitigate the effects of simple majority rule, out of recognition that the opinion of the majority is sometimes not the best path. Internally, we all know this is true, even while we may disagree on the specifics of when the majority should be heeded and when it shouldn't. That sounds elitist because, well, it actually *is* elitist to an extent. The framers of our Constitutional form of government had no issue with this type of elitism. They recognized that in general, the majority will of the people was a good indicator of what to do, but they also recognized the limitations of that generality. Most of the social, economic, and political improvements in this country have begun as minority viewpoints, and were often enacted by the ruling "elite" before the general public accepted the correctness of the action. To be quite clear, most of the social, economic, and political setbacks have followed the same path. But the fact remains that it isn't a terribly relevant point when arguing against this judge's decision, or the actions of various state legislatures regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, to point out that the majority of the general public opposes their actions. And it certainly isn't a valid argument that the judge, or the legislatures, are overstepping their proper bounds simply because they disagree with public opinion. That public opinion is changing, gradually but steadily, and will, before the passing of probably one more generation, have flipped from the current majority view. Further, as has already been pointed out, the majority in the south favored slavery before the Civil War. The majority of whites everywhere harbored racist views against blacks, Native Americans, and others. The majority of the voters at one time didn't believe women should vote. And obviously, the list can go on and on. So I might be interested in taking note of the majority opinion of some issue, but my opinion about what is actually *right* about the issue, or the way our society should handle it, has absolutely nothing to do with what the majority opinion is. People have often criticized politicians for waffling on issues, and taking positions only after checking to see which way the political wind and the most recent polls are blowing - and they're correct in that criticism. Whether we're talking about our personal opinions, or whether we're talking about proper action on the part of governmental officials, we're called to make decisions that we feel are right, not what might be popular. And in the case of government officials, even if they sometimes act that way on issues we disagree with, that is actually part of their charge in taking on their job. The American public is not stupid. But, being human, we are all subject to holding opinions which reflect our own self interest, whether as individuals or part of various groups, on political, economic, religious, racial, or other grounds. We're subject to holding and espousing opinions that are more geared to our own personal betterment than on the overall good of our society and government. In other words, we're subject to forming factions, as Madison put it. Those factions, whether they hold the minority or majority opinion, can work contrary to the best interests of the country, and must be able to be kept in check. That's the basis of our form of government, elitist or not. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 06:13 AM Post #157 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Larry, read the definition of Loyalist - "Loyalists" were not the only group of people who did not support declaring independence. But more importantly, just read: The Revolutionaries (also known as Americans or Patriots) had the active support of about 40 to 45 percent of the colonial population. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Aug 7 2010, 06:21 AM Post #158 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I think if 40-45% of Americans supported overthrow of the federal government with the remainder either neutral, opposed to the current government but not supporting overthrow or supportive of the government that would be a significant problem for the federal government. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 06:23 AM Post #159 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I agree. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 7 2010, 06:33 AM Post #160 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Dewey, in an all-or-nothing scenario, what you write has some truth behind it. But that's not what we're talking about here. I believe the majority of Americans, myself included, would agree with the civil union concept. But that is not enough for the gay rights movement which indicates to a whole lot of people, again myself included, that it's not about equality but endorsement of something that I believe is a choice at least as often as it is inborn. it isn't the civil rights movement and it never will be, no matter how they try to frame it that way. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 10:30 AM Post #161 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Mik, if the civil union provided the exact same rights as a traditional male/female marriage, then the argument would be over - especially if the government took up my preference, that they deal *only* in licensing and recognizing civil unions, and leaving religious bodies to confer "marriage," and set policies for whom they will or won't confer the title to. I believe that the problem comes in when/if the term "civil union" is used to define something that has different rights & responsibilities than "marriage." As long as creation of a civil union that has rights and responsibilities exactly equal to marriage is seen as conveying "special rights" to same-sex couples, then we are not offering all of our citizens equal protection under the law - and that is very much a civil rights issue. Even more: let's assume just for a moment that you're correct - that homosexuality is "a choice at least as often as it is inborn." Embedded in your own belief is a dilemma. If homosexuality is "inborn" even half, or a third, or a quarter, or a tenth, of the time, it becomes by definition a matter of offering equal treatment, and civil rights, under the law. We don't determine whether civil rights are to be protected by mere percentage of the population a group comprises. If any people are born with same-sex attraction, then we must not discriminate against them in this matter. It is very much a civil rights matter, a matter of equal rights and equal protection under the law. If you go back and see my posting in this thread, you'll notice that I didn't make any comment until pretty late in the game. That was deliberate. I know everyone's opinion on the question of same-sex marriage, and everyone knows mine. There really isn't much, if any, use discussing the same issue, making the same arguments, yet again. It does get old after a while. What I have been commenting on here is that the argument that the judge's opinion is contrary to the results of the public referendum on the matter, or that state legislatures pass laws allowing same-sex marriage when a majority of the state's population disagrees, is not really a particularly meaningful argument. When that is the case, it's barely relevant, and it is definitely not evidence of dereliction of duty on the part of the public official, since the system has in fact been designed specifically to enable those kinds of actions. I can guarantee that not just if, but when, public opinion does finally shift to a majority of people believing that same-sex marriage - or the same thing, simply called a "civil union" - is acceptable, the same folks who have suggested here that the judges and state legislatures should always follow the majority will of the people, and that they've acted improperly if they don't, would immediately become the loudest advocates for the protection of the public good from the mobocracy, through the genius of the framers of our Constitution who gave us our representative republic. I obviously agree with this particular judge's ruling. There have been many other judges' rulings I've disagreed with. Some have matched the majority opinion of the populace; others have matched the minority. But whether I agree or disagree with the ruling is determined on the merits of the issue, not whether it aligns with public opinion. Whether I'm going to argue to support, or dispute, a judicial, legislative, or executive decision, it's going to be on valid grounds. My point in this thread has mostly been to say that simply rendering a decision contrary to the will of the majority is not a valid argument to dispute the ruling. Not in this case, and not in many, many other cases in the past. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Aug 7 2010, 11:06 AM Post #162 |
|
Shortstop
|
All citizens have the right to marry as defined by law. What is being asked is to redefine the law - and retroactively redefine all existing marriages. I draw the line there. I'm sure you draw the line somewhere too. For example if people wanted to marry their young children would you want the state to say that is the same as me marrying my wife? Or if people wanted to marry their dogs would you want the state to say that is the same as me marrying my wife? I think the question is where do you draw the line? At some point this matter of rights becomes a matter of state sponsored perversion. Draw the line where you will. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 7 2010, 11:31 AM Post #163 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am pretty sure you are confusing the protection of rights of the individuals with the protection of the rights of the corporate entity. Which individual rights as citizens, or what failure to extend equal protection to individuals, are you talking about? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Aug 7 2010, 12:56 PM Post #164 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Dewey, I keep coming back to one sentence you typed above: "That public opinion is changing, gradually but steadily, and will, before the passing of probably one more generation, have flipped from the current majority view." I'm not connecting your sentence to the current topic, but rather the overall perspective of your statement, and how changing "That public opinion is changing" to "That public opinion can be changed" becomes the essence for justifying a cause, any cause. Simple. Now all we need to do is to determine which causes are for the public good. hmmm, quickly getting out of my league. . . |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 7 2010, 01:02 PM Post #165 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I believe that is exactly what I can support - a domestic corporation for same sex couples that conveys all the same rights and responsibilities. But I see no reason why, under the law, my marriage ought to be redefined against the will of the majority of the people, myself among them. But as I said, it's not about rights and responsibilities It's about everyone saying that homosexuality and all the fetishes and disorders that have attached themselves to that movement are A-OK. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 01:26 PM Post #166 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If same-sex marriage were made legal in the State of Ohio today, the definition of your marriage would be defined precisely the same tomorrow as it was the day you wed. Likewise, the definition of marriage for your daughter and future son-in-law on some future date would be precisely the same as it was the day you and your wife married. Modifying the law to change *who* may choose to wed changes nothing about the definition of what marriage *is.* Even if a person wants to say that the definition of the term is inherently and inextricably connected to one male and one female, if the state decides differently, the definition of their own male/female marriage, and that of any person's in the future, remains completely the same. The definition of one's own marriage is completely independent upon whomever else may choose or be legally granted permission to marry. In fact, in some manner or another as lived out, everyone defines the institution in different ways within the confines of their own marriage, without having the slightest effect whatsoever on how it is defined by their neighbors.
That may be your take on what the question is. I disagree. I don't believe accepting that gay and lesbian citizens should be legally able to wed means accepting all of the most perverse or destructive same-sex behaviors; just as I don't believe that accepting the right of a man and woman to wed means accepting all of the most perverse or destructive behaviors arising from heterosexuality. If that argument were valid, we would not be discussing acceptance of same-sex marriage, but prohibition of heterosexual marriage. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 01:53 PM Post #167 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In fact, my comments deliberately weren't limited to specifically this issue, Rainman. It's when examining the specific arguments applied to this issue, and observing how and when the same arguments are applied to other issues, that I see the lack of validity of most, if not all, of the arguments themselves. In discussing this topic, night becomes day and day night. People who would threaten to go to war over the government's intrusion into their own private lives and individual rights become the people who would exert the exact same types of intrusions into the lives of others. Arguments that people accept without hesitation as invalid, or immoral, a generation or generations after people attempted to make them in an earlier societal dispute, suddenly become valid and moral once again in this question only because it is current and not history. And when this fact is pointed out, all sorts of explanations and justifications are offered by souls well-intentioned and otherwise why this time, it's different. I've just reached the point where I don't believe it's different at all, and that we will be judged, by both our God and our descendants, over which side of this current debate we fell on, just as we judge those who debated the issues that we either remember from our past or read about in history books. Considering either my human judges or my eternal one, I'm comfortable with where I've decided to stand. Regarding public opinion, it changes over time. More often than not, when it changes, it does so partly out of self-generated change, and more often than not, as a result of others raising awareness/consciousness/understanding of some issue. This is usually achieved by those who have been on the short end of some social condition, gradually seeking redress of what they view as injustice, their not being afforded the full rights that they should have as citizens. If they make their case well, they will help to gradually change public opinion. We've seen this numerous times in our own nation's history, and even more times in the history of human civilization. So whether we like it or not, we have always been engaged in this question of which causes are really in the public's best interest, and which should result in a changed public opinion, and which are not. That becomes the basis and justification for the debate, but is not of itself justification of the correctness of any particular issue. Simply accepting that public opinion can change, and that people can work to affect such change isn't, of itself the slippery slope on which civilization will eventually slide down into oblivion. It is accepting that we change over time, and many times, almost in spite of ourselves, we have changed for the better. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Aug 7 2010, 01:54 PM Post #168 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Great Post, Dewey!
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 02:11 PM Post #169 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No, I'm not confusing either of them, but I am saying that they're inextricably interrelated. If either is abused, the other is equally adversely affected.
I'm specifically referring to the rights of individual citizens to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, and to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities conveyed by such union. I find no such specific language in the Constitution that specifies who may or may not marry. And it's just as well, as I believe that one's right to enter into such a covenant is one of our many rights granted to us by our Creator, not by government - just as I believe that human beings have a human/civil right to not be considered the property of others, or that female citizens have a right to vote and to participate in the political process, even though those and other rights were either not found, or were specifically denied, in the Constitution, and were not accepted by our society until a later time when the restriction of those rights correctly came to be seen as improper and unconstitutional. History, even if not considering morality, has shown that the lack of specific mention, or the existence of specific proscription, of some right by our Constitution has ultimately not been the determinant of whether that right was actually protected by the document itself. I believe that strongly standing up for the rights of same-sex couples to wed is the right thing to do, both morally and Constitutionally, for them as individual citizens. But I also believe that we strengthen our society as a whole when we do so, because we prove that we actually do respect and agree with the principles embedded within our founding documents, and that we're serious about applying them, even when it means we have to change some of our own long-standing perceptions. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 03:18 PM Post #170 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Copper: a lot of what I'd have said in response to you, particularly regarding the idea of "redefining" marriage, I've just said in other replies. But to your other point, you are exactly right - this is an issue of where lines are to be drawn. I believe that we've been drawing the line in the wrong place for a long time, and that we're now at the point in our society where more and more people are coming to see that, and, just as I have, they are beginning to change their opinions. As to the idea of the slippery slope and the hypotheticals that run along the lines of "What's next, if we allow two people of the same sex to get married, won't we have to allow someone to marry a chicken sandwich, too?" I really don't go down that path. An issue is right or wrong based on its own merits, not on how someone may extend or distort it in the future. None of the absurd extensions have anything to do with examining the actual merits of the issue at hand. If our society has as much difficulty as it apparently does with accepting two organisms of the same species, same level of sentient being, and same level of maturity and capability of consent being granted the right to marry, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the possibility that it might some day become legal for a person to marry his car. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Aug 7 2010, 03:45 PM Post #171 |
|
Shortstop
|
Very good. There is a line to be drawn - and there are extremes to which nobody wants to go. When the line moves there is a cost and a benefit. Moving from the current line to yours: Cost: Make a whole lot of people unhappy, added burden to the state Benefit: Make a smaller number of people happy, maybe cut down on some promiscuity Possible benefit: shut up the noise makers (naaaahh) The cost outweighs the benefit - the move loses. I see no civil rights involved here - none at all, not even close. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 7 2010, 04:11 PM Post #172 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect you for it. I just disagree with your analysis - and each day, more and more other people do as well. I think that's a very good thing, legally, societally, and morally. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Aug 7 2010, 06:25 PM Post #173 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Gays are human. Gay rights are human rights. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Aug 7 2010, 06:35 PM Post #174 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Pedophiles are human. Serial killers are human. Bestialists are human. Fascists and Cambodian communists and Sudanese killers are human. Being human establishes exactly nothing. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Aug 7 2010, 06:43 PM Post #175 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's never more obvious that our opinions are largely a product of our environment than when one compares younger generations with older generations. What a beautiful control group, same nature more or less, and different nurture. See what changes. I guess the things that change are the things that are ripe for change. The things that are clung to by the older generation based on fear and dogma rather than anything real. Someone had a quote from Kenny in their sig about people needing to die (of natural causes, of course) for certain ideas to die. That's a blunt way to put a blunt and plain truth. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |











4:56 PM Jul 10