|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
You stated that you don't see how it's discrimination.
I pointed out how it is.
Regardless of a majority vote, it is STILL discrimination.
No, I asked Viss, how it was legislating discrimination...
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Sorry for not responding... bishop375 answered the question pretty much as I would have, so I left it alone. Originally posted by Davo:
Would you then agree that Medicare and welfare are discriminatory programs? I can't get Medicare unless I'm old and I can't get welfare unless I'm a poor single mother. Seems like they're treating and considering based on categories rather than merit in these cases. Do you support that?
If two twelve year-olds from Texas want to marry, can they? If you don't let them marry, isn't that discrimination, since you're saying they can only marry if they're of age?
You're ignoring the "treatment or consideration" part of the posted definition. Whether the treatment or consideration is helpful or harmful to society is what we're discussing. If Medicare and welfare are morally offensive to you, you're welcome to vote for a leader who pledges to ban them. Same goes for your underage marriage example.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
You're ignoring the "treatment or consideration" part of the posted definition.
How so? I'm confused. Don't welfare and Medicare policies 'treat and consider'??
Originally posted by Viss1:
Whether the treatment or consideration is helpful or harmful to society is what we're discussing. If Medicare and welfare are morally offensive to you, you're welcome to vote for a leader who pledges to ban them. Same goes for your underage marriage example.
Your first post in this thread was a sarcastic reference to 'legislating discrimination'. I guess it was ambiguous, so I'll ask: Do you support the principles that resulted in the vote/law? I don't see how the basic principle of 'discrimination' observed in this amendment is different than that of welfare and Medicare. Except for the fact that this was given a general vote among the people. If you think people voting for amendments to their constitutions is bad, please say so. If not, then don't complain just because the result isn't something you agree with.
And I'm yet to see the debate about whether or not this is good for society.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Sorry for not responding... bishop375 answered the question pretty much as I would have, so I left it alone.
Originally posted by Davo:
Would you then agree that Medicare and welfare are discriminatory programs? I can't get Medicare unless I'm old and I can't get welfare unless I'm a poor single mother. Seems like they're treating and considering based on categories rather than merit in these cases. Do you support that?
If two twelve year-olds from Texas want to marry, can they? If you don't let them marry, isn't that discrimination, since you're saying they can only marry if they're of age?
You're ignoring the "treatment or consideration" part of the posted definition. Whether the treatment or consideration is helpful or harmful to society is what we're discussing. If Medicare and welfare are morally offensive to you, you're welcome to vote for a leader who pledges to ban them. Same goes for your underage marriage example.
An Texans voted that they didn't want it for 'their' society....
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Majority rule works both ways. If you don't like tax money funding poor womens' abortions, don't try to start your own pseudo-society - vote for leaders who oppose it. IMO being an American doesn't mean dropping out of society and starting a cult if you don't like the way the majority of your countrymen vote.
You're right. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way these days. As the original article suggests & the subsequent posts indicate, majority rule will be challenged in Texas, and I expect the ACLU will be involved.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Majority rule works both ways. If you don't like tax money funding poor womens' abortions, don't try to start your own pseudo-society - vote for leaders who oppose it. IMO being an American doesn't mean dropping out of society and starting a cult if you don't like the way the majority of your countrymen vote.
You're right. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way these days. As the original article suggests & the subsequent posts indicate, majority rule will be challenged in Texas, and I expect the ACLU will be involved.
Yup, and the will of the minority will rule the majority.....is that democracy?
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Last edited by Desea vivo el Todras; 11/09/05 03:15 PM.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,709
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,709 |
Originally posted by hetfield:
Quote:
Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down.
I love that movie.
haha thats great! Good flick too!
Originally posted by Chickens:
Religion can't do much for ashholes (unless you are an alterboy)
98.5 Se w/SVT mods
98 E0 SVT~ sold
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Do you support the principles that resulted in the vote/law? I don't see how the basic principle of 'discrimination' observed in this amendment is different than that of welfare and Medicare. Except for the fact that this was given a general vote among the people. If you think people voting for amendments to their constitutions is bad, please say so. If not, then don't complain just because the result isn't something you agree with.
I think my posts make it pretty clear that I support the democratic process that resulted in the ban, even though I disagree with the result. I disagree with the result because it targets the personal actions of one specific group, while not addressing the same action among any other group. This fits into the definition bishop375 provided.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 329
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 329 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
A possible solution to this dilema is segregation. Like minded people should be able to get together & form their own community to share their values & views with their children & neighbors.
Man, TX cracks me up. With their whole Texas Pride and Don't mess with TX crap. Wasn't TX independent from the US at one time? I wish they could have stayed that way. Maybe they can have it now. Better yet let's just sell them back to Mexico or something. I don't know how much we could get for them though. Don't really care about this law btw. Sounds mostly like bs politics. 
1998.5 SVT
I'm working on it.
WTB 2.0L Contique.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
I disagree with the result because it targets the personal actions of one specific group, while not addressing the same action among any other group.
Not quite. Notice how it doesn't say "gays can't marry"...
Originally posted by Prop 2:
â??Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.â?
It implicity targets the actions of one group, not directly. And it certainly does target the actions of another group (men and women who want to get married).
|
|
|
|
|
