Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

[PureX]

If we're talking about things that could affect the fabric of society, then we must turn to society to try to resolve the issue.

The United States is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. What this means is that the majority do not rule in America, but that there is a balance of power established between the will of the majority and the rights of individuals and minorities. This balance of power was established and is maintained by the founding documents of the nation, not by the will of the majority, or by any governing body or person's decree, and so cannot be altered by any vote.

We are a limited democracy in that the will of the majority is limited by the rights of the individual and the rights of minorities as established and protected by the founding documents of the nation. Those documents are unfortunately somewhat vague, and sketchy, and could not for-see many of the conditions that would manifest over the years, but nevertheless, we do try very hard to stick to the spirit of those documents if not to the letter, as best we are able.

Any issue regarding the essential freedom, rights, and protections of any citizen in this country cannot be settled by a vote, because that would be giving the will of the majority power over the rights of an individual or minority, which would defy the most fundamental principals of this nation.

According to the spirit of the founding documents of the United States, homosexuals already have the right to marry. Unfortunately, the American people have been so thoroughly prejudiced against homosexuals until this point in history, that it didn't even really occur to us that we'd been denying these citizens rights that have been guaranteed to them by the most fundamental principals of the nation, and that our prejudice has been written into thousands of "illegal" laws as a result. So what needs to happen, now, is that the American people need to finally recognize their own prejudice, and begin undoing the unfair effects of our prejudice by correcting the "illegal" laws that have been written as a result of it. I believe this is just beginning to happen, and that it will happen fully in time.

 

[nutshell]

When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?This goes doubly so if someone is straight, since it won't affect them at all.

This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?

Legally, gay marriage is not a right yet so, technically, you're "right" isn't being affected because it doesn't exist.

We must operate within the bonds of our laws. There is a right way to change things...through voting.

I don't support gay marriage, but I believe it will inevitably become a reality.

 

[Jaymes]

Funny, I thought it was a human right to marry another consenting adult. Straight people sure have it. It was around during Loving vs. Virginia. Why's it mysteriously absent when gays want it?

 

[nutshell]

Funny, I thought it was a human right to marry another consenting adult. Straight people sure have it. It was around during Loving vs. Virginia. Why's it mysteriously absent when gays want it?

I don't know...perhaps it's that same mysterious reason why the government prevented my ancestors from practicing polygamy even though that too was between consenting adults.

For good or bad there has always been a morality attached to our laws. Currently, gay marriage is seen immoral by many, but that seems to be changing every day.

 

[Jaymes]

I no more think polygamy should be stopped than I think gay marriage should be stopped. I don't think people should vote on it, either. This isn't a society where we vote on every aspect of complete strangers' lives, despite what American Idol would have us think.

 

[Pah]

Legally, gay marriage is not a right yet so, technically, you're "right" isn't being affected because it doesn't exist.

We must operate within the bonds of our laws. There is a right way to change things...through voting.

I don't support gay marriage, but I believe it will inevitably become a reality.

It IS a right and the vote being taken is to deny the exercise of that right. It is the first time, aside from prohibition, that a right is being taken away.

Tell me, nutshell, was your right to worship as you do - has that been voted on? No? Then we should tear down where you worship. THAT is the logical extension of the thoughts expressed in your post.

But rights are not the subject of the vote. What is being denied is freedom to exercise that right. Do you get the distinction? Rights are something you acquire at birth - freedoms let you enjoy those rights. You always have rights but some, in some countries, do not have the freedoms.

Homosexual marriage rights are being surpressed by denying the freedom to marry whom you chose, who consents to the marriage and who is not a close relative.

Now when you deny freedoms to another you suffer the risk of losing freedoms yourself. You must be acutely aware of the feelings of some Christians that they do not consider you a "full christian". Suppose they forced a vote (and there are organizations dedicated to acquiring that power) and you lost the freedom to be called a Christian? Can't happen? Guess again. The very same Christians that spearhead the homosexual denial are the very same ones that would "sink" your being called a Christian. Where will it happen? - in South Carolina, if they succede in gaining the power they seek.

So you go right ahead and not support the rights and not support the drive for homosexual marriage. I will continue supporting both the homosexual rights and the rights for you to worship as you do and in spite of your non-support.

 

[WeAreAllOne]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Pah again.



​

​

​

:clap Good post!

 

[Fluffy]

When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?This goes doubly so if someone is straight, since it won't affect them at all.

This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?

1) Those who vote against gay marriage normally also believe that allowing gay marriage will affect them in some way. What would be a sufficiently arbitrary way of determining whether it would or not? Another vote ?

2) You argue that a straight person should have no right to vote on issues that soley affect gay people because "they usually have no idea what it's like to be gay." Does that mean that people must now prove that they have some idea about the issue that they are voting on before they are allowed to vote on it or does this only apply to gay issues? How could we go about doing that practically? Why should gay rights gain this special benefit when there is no precedent?

Please remember that I am bi and I fully support gay rights. However, I am very edgy about restricting the vote in order to get them.

Edit: How would we go about legalising gay marriage if not through a vote? Surely if we prevented any vote on them and then say the supreme court pushed the law through, then if the judges were then replaced by more conservative ones at a later date, we would be unable to prevent them from simply changing the law back again?

 

[Jaymes]

I don't want to restrict votes in any way. I just don't think human rights are something that should be voted on.

 

[Fluffy]

I don't want to restrict votes in any way. I just don't think human rights are something that should be voted on.

And some people do think that human rights should be voted on. How should we decide who is right? Go with the majority?

If you prevent the people from deciding on gay marriage and leave it up to the government or the courts then human rights come under full control of their particular political biases.

 

[Jaymes]

If we decide it's right to vote on human rights, then it follows that we should be able to vote on all human rights. Who can marry who, whether torture is legal, whether cruel and unusual punishment is legal... maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't trust people enough to let them vote on that.

 

[Fluffy]

If we decide it's right to vote on human rights, then it follows that we should be able to vote on all human rights. Who can marry who, whether torture is legal, whether cruel and unusual punishment is legal... maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't trust people enough to let them vote on that.

Well for me there is nothing in common between the right to marry (irregardless of gender) and the right to life. Similarly, there is nothing in common between the right to vote and the right to no cruel or unusual punishment. In my mind there are clear differences and meanings between all of these things.

Therefore there is no reason why it is unreasonable to say that people could vote on the right to marriage but not vote on whether torture should be legal.

At the end of the day however, who is going to decide on these things? The government and it is the majority that gives the government power. You can't escape the tyranny of the majority under a system like that because you can't set up limits on future governments with any assurance that they won't just be overturned.

 

[Aqualung]

If we decide it's right to vote on human rights, then it follows that we should be able to vote on all human rights. Who can marry who, whether torture is legal, whether cruel and unusual punishment is legal... maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't trust people enough to let them vote on that.

But, weren't these things already voted on? There is an ammendment against cruel and unusual punishment. This thing has been voted on. There is nothing about marriage.

 

[jamaesi]

I don't know...perhaps it's that same mysterious reason why the government prevented my ancestors from practicing polygamy even though that too was between consenting adults.

Then you should be acutely aware of the horror it is to let others decide rights for other people.

 

[Pah]

But, weren't these things already voted on? There is an ammendment against cruel and unusual punishment. This thing has been voted on. There is nothing about marriage.

Let's vote on the right to be called Christian. Would you like that to be the subject of a vote? We could call it the Heresy Amendment.

 

[Aqualung]

Let's vote on the right to be called Christian. Would you like that to be the subject of a vote? We could call it the Heresy Amendment.

I must say, freedom of speech (ie, the freedom to call myself what I will) is already a part of our law.

 

[michel]

If we decide it's right to vote on human rights, then it follows that we should be able to vote on all human rights. Who can marry who, whether torture is legal, whether cruel and unusual punishment is legal... maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't trust people enough to let them vote on that.

I agree. The trouble is we would spend our entire lives voting; that is essentially what democracy is about. Our wishes should be represented in Goverment. That is fine in theory, but as soon as you bring in the politician things go wrong.

 

[Pah]

I must say, freedom of speech (ie, the freedom to call myself what I will) is already a part of our law.

There is no problem amending the First Amendment - that's where it likely would be done. There is also no problem restricting a right in a following amendment. There was obviously a right to more than two terms for president but it was restricted wasn't it? There was obviously a right to drink alcohol but it was eliminated and then a following amemndment eliminated the limitation. You really should learn that when one right can be altered, all of them can.

So go your merry way thinking what you will. When one right is denied, all rights may be denied.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Martin Niemoeller- a pastor arrested in Nazi Germany for speaking out against abuse of Jews

But I'll be there to speak for you becuase I spoke for the black man and I speak for the homosexual - now why don't you speak for others.

 

[Aqualung]

Wow, that quote is becoming worse than that Newton quote "If I have seen farther it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants" or whatever. :biglaugh: Not everybody has to use that same quote over and over.

now why don't you speak for others.

Once again, you have me confused with someone else. Why can't you just admit it? You're wrong about who and what I speak for. You keep saying it in thread after thread after thread that I am speaking out against "equal rights" for homosesxuals. You obviously know nothing.

Nowhere in this thread have I said that gay people shouldn't have the right to get married. All I'm saying is that people have the right to vote against a proposition making it illegal.

Stop twisting my words. You seem to have a horrible habbit of doing it, and it's getting really tiresome and old.

 

[Smoke]

In a society where democracy is the preferred system, denying people a vote based on sexuality is unlawful and is abandoning the very essence of the system.

BINGO!
So is denying people the right to marry based on sexuality.