"If it wasn't for God stepping in, I would have simply caved in and did my thing and likely demand you accept my lifestyle in your face,."
Nonsense. Proposition 8 was simply about gay people asking for the same legal rights as straight people. The United States is not a theocracy. If you wish to write your religious beliefs into the law of the land, why aren't you taking away rights from people who commit adultery or who divorce?
Posts: 232 | Location: The Land of Trees and Heroes | Registered: 10 June 2007
Isn't this issue of adulterers and divorced people a non-issue? Adulters and divorced people aren't married and don't have the same relationship rights that married people have. Nor, to my knowledge, are they seeking to force a majority to grant these rights to them.
Besides, the argument of Prop 8 was the desire of the majority to retain a definition of marriage that is at least 6,000 years old. Gays weren't pushing Prop 8, they were opposing it. So when we look at the intent of Prop 8 we have to look at what it was intending to accomplish.
Why don't gays seeking this right, work to get a legitimate amendment passed to the state constitution to permit this marriage? Perhaps because they could not get a majority to support it?
While it is possible to have a tyranny of the majority, it is also possible to have a tyranny of the minority.
As far as the topic of this thread goes, it is called "A Miscellany of Topics," so it seems that the subject matter is pretty free-flowing.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr. Dark,
Originally posted by philnic: People, people. Please keep your religous discussion to the Religion thread. And your political discussion to the Politics thread.
That's what I like to see - a mad Englishman!
"Live Forever!"
Posts: 6909 | Location: 11 South Saint James Street, Green Town, Illinois | Registered: 02 October 2002
Originally posted by embroiderer: rocket, I didn't catch the Mission Impossible theme in the video music. It's to doo, to do to do to do, to doo, to do to do do to doo!
300 Miles per Gallon? You gotta be kidding!
L(not my f-ing ass off)OL!
She stood silently looking out into the great sallow distances of sea bottom, as if recalling something, her yellow eyes soft and moist...
rocketsummer@insightbb.com
Posts: 1397 | Location: Louisville, KY | Registered: 08 February 2006
Originally posted by rocket: The F in this case stands for the very good and misaligned word "fucking", one of my favorite words in the English language...
"Sci-fi, that most hideous neologism that sounds like crickets fucking."
- Harlan Ellison
"Live Forever!"
Posts: 6909 | Location: 11 South Saint James Street, Green Town, Illinois | Registered: 02 October 2002
Wow! I think we're going to get in trouble Doug, quick lets take turns writing "wow" on both threads until our dark humor is somewhat buffered by a few pages between f-words. lmfao, oh well I never did have much of an ass to speak of.....
She stood silently looking out into the great sallow distances of sea bottom, as if recalling something, her yellow eyes soft and moist...
rocketsummer@insightbb.com
Posts: 1397 | Location: Louisville, KY | Registered: 08 February 2006
Originally posted by Mr. Dark: Isn't this issue of adulterers and divorced people a non-issue? Adulters and divorced people aren't married and don't have the same relationship rights that married people have. Nor, to my knowledge, are they seeking to force a majority to grant these rights to them.
Besides, the argument of Prop 8 was the desire of the majority to retain a definition of marriage that is at least 6,000 years old. Gays weren't pushing Prop 8, they were opposing it. So when we look at the intent of Prop 8 we have to look at what it was intending to accomplish.
Why don't gays seeking this right, work to get a legitimate amendment passed to the state constitution to permit this marriage? Perhaps because they could not get a majority to support it?
While it is possible to have a tyranny of the majority, it is also possible to have a tyranny of the minority.
As far as the topic of this thread goes, it is called "A Miscellany of Topics," so it seems that the subject matter is pretty free-flowing.
Mr. Dark, dear friend, you have hit it on the head. The reason we have Supreme Courts is to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority from imposing their will, incorrectly, on the minority. If not for this provision of the Constitution, we would still have separate but equal schools and any number of other social injustices that the majority would have been in favor of. Some times it just takes a while for the majority to realize that they were wrong and in the interm injustices are prevented from harming those in the minority.
Posts: 847 | Location: Laguna Hills, CA USA | Registered: 02 January 2002
