|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
On the contrary, I believe the Bill of Rights, and every other Amendment and Right under the Constitution is there specifically to protect the individual and group from government, not from the majority opinion.
You make a distinction between "government" and "majority opinion" which suggests you believe that these rights are protected from government, but NOT from majority opinion.
I suggest to you that the very definition of a democratic government is, in fact, the will of "majority opinion" and therefore, in terms of the protection of rights, are one and the same.
Again, this is a contradiction. What good are rights, if they can simply be overturned by the will of the majority. I believe that in your system, as it is in ours, that is now the role of the judiciary.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
This is the true beauty of the Constitution, in that it allows the people to govern themselves, rather than to dictate to them what is right and wrong. The decision of socially, morally acceptable behavior is left to the people to craft into law, and cannot be dictated to them. If that were possible, who would do the dictating?
What it seems you are suggesting is that, if a majority so wishes, "they" could craft laws that disregarded the protections afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights.
I can't think of any example where this has happened. I can, however, think of many where the opposite has happened. Laws crafted based on the majority view of socially, morally acceptable behaviour have been struck down because they were unconstitutional.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,096
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,096 |
Can someone please tell me in their own opinion if my posts violated the forum rules? I know my words were a little harsh but.....?  Im sorry if I had the balls to actually come out and say what plenty of people were already thinking. PS. FarkStick can kiss my big white behind. Did that violate any rules?
98 Contour SVT (soon to be reborn)
2000 GMC Envoy... Screw you guys, I like it.
89' Mustang 5.0 (Just bolt on's... for now)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
What it seems you are suggesting is that, if a majority so wishes, "they" could craft laws that disregarded the protections afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights.
Well, it will take somewhat more than "the majority", but yes they can. The Constitution can be admended. Please see Article V for details.
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
It is not equality to mandate that everybody is limited to only marrying members of the opposite gender. Heterosexuals are fundamentally made to be romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite gender. Homosexuals are fundamentally made to be romantically and sexually attracted to the same gender. Allowing one to follow their fundamental beings in a civil institution and prohibiting the other is NOT equal treatment of both.
While nudists see nudity as a natural state, people are not fundamentally nudists or non nudists. While we are all born naked, nudists are not born that way. Gay people are.
Gay people are not asking anyone to approve of same-sex marriage. People are free to detest homosexuality, consider same sex marriage as an institution of Satan himself. I am not asking a single one of you to change your opinion of gay marriage, you all are free to hold whatever morals and values you want on the subject. However, you do NOT have the right to impose those same values and morals on others. Same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact on any heterosexual in America. The amendments banning same-sex marriage have a very real impact on homosexuals.
It is discrimination to place differing values on people for the way they are born.
As a society prizing freedom, we give up the ability to censor that which we don't like, but which does not harm us.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
What it seems you are suggesting is that, if a majority so wishes, "they" could craft laws that disregarded the protections afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights.
Well, it will take somewhat more than "the majority", but yes they can. The Constitution can be admended. Please see Article V for details.
Thanks - very interesting; and as you say considerably more than a majority is required.
As a practical matter, this would appear to be a very complex and difficult process. I can see now why the states that proposed amendments chose the method they did; a lot easier to achieve than an amendment to the federal constitution.
I can also see, again as a practical matter, where senators and congressman would have to be relatively certain of the backing of their constituents, before voting in favour of a highly controversial amendment.
Doesn't make the debate any easier, does it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,812 |
ATTN: dnewma04 Quote:
Fat Mike, I donâ??t mean to single someone out, but you mentioned mentioned your gay friends. First, if you had friends that werenâ??t sincere, nice, and generally good people, I wouldnâ??t see why they would be your friends to begin with. To look at this objectively, you have to step back away from the scenario because by mentioning what great people they are, you are allowing the presentation of your opinion to become clouded. How good of people they are is completely irrelevant to the topic. Whenever anyone resorts to the â??I have many black friendsâ?, or â??I have a lot of gay friendsâ?, in my opinion you lost the argument before you even started. Itâ??s almost like responding to an argument with educational qualifications and proceeding to not provide any more data to back your point. Not a personal attack, just something to consider.
As I stated before, I know several gay people that I don't like, not because they are gay, but because they annoy the hell out of me. But I can see how you would have missed that since there are 460 some replies to my post. 
The point I was going for there was that a lot of people tend to not look at gay people on a personal level, and rule them out as people they would try to get to know on the basis that they're gay. Also, that has not been my only argument, but once again, there are 460 some replies to this post, and I haven't read them all either. I have looked at both sides of this issue. I grew up in a very conservative baptist house, and spent a year at bible college, and the way most Christians I encountered talked about and viewed gay people, really, really bothers me. Very few of the Christians I met, and I have met A LOT of Christians, even knew a gay person or tried to develop any sort of friendship with them. Instead, they would relentlessly make fun of them, call them "fag" or "homos", and showed absolutely no respect for them as people.
One of my close friends at bible college was an in-the-closet gay guy. He was a very nice guy, but a little flaming, so everyone there knew he was gay even though he never admitted it. All the students and RA's treated him like he was some sick pile of sh*t. The constantly harassed him, pulled pranks on him that bordered on sexual assualt, and would call him a dirty fag to his face. The result of their "Christian love"? He tried to kill himself towards the end of the school year. You think they'd at least try to live up to their "WWJD" bracelets and t-shirts, because I'm sure Jesus would have harassed him and drove him into deep depression.  Based on that personal expierence, I hope you can see why I'm angry about this issue, and why I care so much about it.
I know not all Christians are like that, but way too many of them are, and they're the same ones who voted to pass this measure. They're all about individual freedoms, unless that freedom makes them feel icky when they think about...
Granted my personal expierences have fueled a lot of my passion for this topic, but I think I've done a good job at using facts and valid arguments other than the "a lot of my friends are gay" approach.
So dnewma04, in conclusion, read some of my other posts and don't tell me my arguments are invalid based on the fact that I have friends that are gay. If you have any questions about this issue and want more detailed facts and sources, let me know. I'd be more than happy to provide you with information.
1999 Black SVT
"If I were an admin I'd ban you without a second thought. " ~Trapps
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 772 |
No it doesn't. Just trying to spread some education. 
former owner, 95 SE MTX
02 Ford Explorer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840 |
Originally posted by sigma:
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's an irrelevant reply to your statement that society finds gay marriage immoral but doesn't find inter-racial relationships the same.
Perhaps the point you're missing is that interracial relationships/marriages are still between one man and one woman. I daresay you know this already though. Thus, your comparison between it and homosexual marriage is now a nullified point.
I too expected better of you Sig. Maybe next time. 
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
While nudists see nudity as a natural state, people are not fundamentally nudists or non nudists. While we are all born naked, nudists are not born that way. Gay people are.
So you say. Just as you can say this, I can say that I don't believe you can be born that way, or that nudists CAN'T be born the way they are.
WTF brought up nudists anyway? How does it fit into anything of the purpose in this thread? 
And for nearly the 500th time, an opinion will be formed saying something that opposes this. And then another is spawned. This is getting old. 
Troll. 1997 VW Jetta MkIII GLS 5spd
All hail my appearance on CEG!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
Same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact on any heterosexual in America. The amendments banning same-sex marriage have a very real impact on homosexuals.
It is discrimination to place differing values on people for the way they are born.
As a society prizing freedom, we give up the ability to censor that which we don't like, but which does not harm us.
Perfectly said. All of you people who are screaming that gay marriage will somehow "destroy" the "sanctity of marriage" will gladly gloss over the fact that marriage doesn't mean what it used to in the first place. The definition is the same, perhaps, but the MEANING (read: a person's emotions regarding it) are different. The 50% rate of divorce should prove that to you.
I just do NOT understand how anybody's marriage will suddenly mean less if two men or two women can marry each other. Can ANY of you people looking to pen a Constitutional Amendment blatantly disallowing a portion of the citizenship of this country from marrying please explain to me how it will be lessened, without going into the slippery slope argument?
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
It is not equality to mandate that everybody is limited to only marrying members of the opposite gender. Heterosexuals are fundamentally made to be romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite gender. Homosexuals are fundamentally made to be romantically and sexually attracted to the same gender. Allowing one to follow their fundamental beings in a civil institution and prohibiting the other is NOT equal treatment of both.
While nudists see nudity as a natural state, people are not fundamentally nudists or non nudists. While we are all born naked, nudists are not born that way. Gay people are.
Gay people are not asking anyone to approve of same-sex marriage. People are free to detest homosexuality, consider same sex marriage as an institution of Satan himself. I am not asking a single one of you to change your opinion of gay marriage, you all are free to hold whatever morals and values you want on the subject. However, you do NOT have the right to impose those same values and morals on others. Same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact on any heterosexual in America. The amendments banning same-sex marriage have a very real impact on homosexuals.
It is discrimination to place differing values on people for the way they are born.
As a society prizing freedom, we give up the ability to censor that which we don't like, but which does not harm us.
That is all well and good, but only if you believe they are born that way. The verdit is far from in on that one....
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
