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

[Aqualung]

Not opposed means you are silent. It is the absence of argument against oppression (just admitted above) that gives consent to the oppressors. This applies to your second paragraph as well.

I personally don't care why you remain silent.

Once again, why do you think I'm a) not opposed and b) silent? You fail to answer that question every single time I ask it.

 

[Pah]

Once again, why do you think I'm a) not opposed and b) silent? You fail to answer that question every single time I ask it.

From my previous post "I personally don't care why you remain silent".

 

[Aqualung]

From my previous post, why do you even think I remain silent?

 

[Pah]

You'll need somelse to play your game. As they say in court "Question asked and answered, Move on."

A change of subject

It IS a right [Edit: marriage to a loved one is the 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.

Do you deny this is happening?

 

[spookboy0]

Hey Jensa, what's makes it a right?

Another question, what is love?

 

[Nehustan]

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty, Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.

 

[Aqualung]

You'll need somelse to play your game. As they say in court "Question asked and answered, Move on."

You haven't answered my question. Why do you think I'm silent? All you have said was some crap about "ceasar" and asked me meaningless questions.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you deny this is happening?

I would argue that it is not the first time, sans prohibition, that a right is being taken away...

(Now please don't take this as support of these institutions, or as comparison between the Homosexual equality movement)

The right to own a slave; taken away
The right to hire or fire based on age/sex/etc. ; taken away

Now while I am supremely glad that these 'rights' were taken away... their defenders would all claim them as such... and they were 'taken away' via the legislative process... which is how I believe all 'rights' should be granted and removed...

 

[kevmicsmi]

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.

Talk about hypocracy:banghead3 . I see your posts on gay marriage, which I agree with. Constitutionally people should have equal rights under the law. However Pah, you are the same person that has no problem with your government banning legal activities(smoking) in a private establishment. What happened to the freedom to peacably assemble?????I know this is way off topic, and for the record I mostly agree with the OP, BUT THERE IS NOTHING MORE SICKENING THAN A HYPOCRITICAL, INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST POSITION, and that is what you have pah!

I support constitutional protections....for those I agree with:sarcastic

 

[pdoel]

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.

Actually, those items were NOT voted on. Just because something is law, does not mean it was ever put in front of the public to be voted on. Most of our laws are things our lawmakers have decided for us. They are not things that are put on a ballet, allowing the public at large to vote on.

So no, those items you mentioned were NOT voted on. I've never understood why something such as gay marriage would be put on the ballet. Well, in the last election, it was done so to get people out to vote, knowing that those who opposed gay marriage would come out in droves, and would support Bush. So it worked.

But I see a gay marriage issue very much along the same lines as giving rights to women, blacks, etc. Or even allowing inter-racial couples to marry. These were things that were not put on a ballet, but things that our leaders decided, knowing it was what was best for the country.

 

[jamaesi]

Should whites be allowed to vote on black issues like slavery? Should nonArabs be allowed to vote on the treatment of Arabs in America?

Should the nondisabled be allowed to vote on whether or not the Americans With Disabilities Act should stay around or who it should cover. Perhaps deafness isn't disabled enough for some people- perhaps I don't deserve protection under the ADA according to some people.

Should Christians be allowed to vote on if Jews can practice their religion?



Majourity rule is a lynch mob given political power on things they know nothing about.

But I see a gay marriage issue very much along the same lines as giving rights to women, blacks, etc. Or even allowing inter-racial couples to marry. These were things that were not put on a ballet, but things that our leaders decided, knowing it was what was best for the country.

I'm interracial and in an interracial relationship and no one has the right to tell us we aren't allowed to be together (even though because I look white I get to be called the 'race traitour' when we're out together). The same should be true for gay couples.

The ridculality level of all this just shocks me.

I would argue that it is not the first time, sans prohibition, that a right is being taken away...

(Now please don't take this as support of these institutions, or as comparison between the Homosexual equality movement)

The right to own a slave; taken away
The right to hire or fire based on age/sex/etc. ; taken away

Now while I am supremely glad that these 'rights' were taken away... their defenders would all claim them as such... and they were 'taken away' via the legislative process... which is how I believe all 'rights' should be granted and removed...

Those weren't rights, they were bigotry and oppression and hate made legal.

Gay marriage HURTS NO ONE. It discriminates against no one, it hurts no one, it opresses no one- but it does when it is denied.

 

[Jaymes]

Hey Jensa, what's makes it a right?

Under the current laws it's the right of any consenting adult to marry another consenting adult that's not closely related to them. It doesn't matter if they're young, old, black, white, brown, interracial, whatever. It's only when they're gay does it suddenly stop being a right.

What if someone decided to take away the rights of Christians to be legally married? Would you consider that a violation of your rights?

Another question, what is love?

What I feel for Liz.

 

[Pah]

I would argue that it is not the first time, sans prohibition, that a right is being taken away...

(Now please don't take this as support of these institutions, or as comparison between the Homosexual equality movement)

The right to own a slave; taken away
The right to hire or fire based on age/sex/etc. ; taken away

Now while I am supremely glad that these 'rights' were taken away... their defenders would all claim them as such... and they were 'taken away' via the legislative process... which is how I believe all 'rights' should be granted and removed...

Oh yeah, it's a right - sure it is.

I hear whistling in the wind.

 

[Pah]

[/color]
You haven't answered my question. Why do you think I'm silent? All you have said was some crap about "ceasar" and asked me meaningless questions.

Yes, of course, you are right :biglaugh:

 

[nutshell]

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.

YOU say it's a right. "Rights" are nebulous things with shifting definitions from culture to culture. Your culture says you have a right to gay marriage and my culture says I have a right to protect my beliefs about marriage. Unfortunetly, we live under the same goverment so we can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, the gay marriage debate is settled state-by-state rather than by the Feds.

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.

Yes. It was voted on when the Constitution was ratified. So, you have no grounds to tear down where I worship (although that was tried in the past without success). My right is found in the Constitution. What your claiming is not.

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.

I understand this concept, but it is always through the power of the vote that rights are legally given. We just can't say "OK now, gay marriage is acceptable." There needs to be a vote to make if legal - either by the people themselves or by the representatives they've appointed through...yes, voting.

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.

We disagree on whether or not homosexual marriage is a right.

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.

I don't deny freedom. You have the right to get married under laws currently established. I believe in submitting to the laws of the country - that is one of my faiths articles of faith so, if a vote decided I wasn't "Christian," I would submit to that. Labels don't change my beliefs.

QUOTE=Pah]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. [/QUOTE]
I support your marriage under the current laws of our country. You choose not to adhere to those laws. Your choice. Not mine.

 

[standing_alone]

Your culture says you have a right to gay marriage and my culture says I have a right to protect my beliefs about marriage.

But why should your own beliefs dictate whether or not I can get married? You can still be opposed to me getting married to another woman even if I was allowed to, but I can't get married if your beliefs become the law of the land. Get what I'm trying to say? Don't believe in gay marriage? Then don't get married to someone of the same gender. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jaymes]

Your culture says you have a right to gay marriage and my culture says I have a right to protect my beliefs about marriage.

Does that include imposing your beliefs about divorce onto other people?

We disagree on whether or not homosexual marriage is a right.

This isn't about whether gay marriage is a right. This is about whether marriage is a right.

I support your marriage under the current laws of our country. You choose not to adhere to those laws. Your choice. Not mine.

How is Pah not adhering to the laws of this country?

 

[Pah]

YOU say it's a right. "Rights" are nebulous things with shifting definitions from culture to culture. Your culture says you have a right to gay marriage and my culture says I have a right to protect my beliefs about marriage. Unfortunetly, we live under the same goverment so we can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, the gay marriage debate is settled state-by-state rather than by the Feds.

It will be decided by the US Supreme Court on the question of "full faith and credit", a clause in the original body of the Constitution.

But to address your culture and my culture. I find it disparaging that you set apart a culture that, I assume, hinges on faith. If you have another in mind beside faith I would like to hear it so I can compare it to the culture that exists that owes allegience to the country embodied in the Constitution. For faith must take a back seat in setting and following law according to the Constitution and constitutional case law.

Be that answer as it may, you have not demonstrated that your beliefs would suffer in any way if marriage would be defined as "between loving, consenting couples". What would suffer is the belief that morality of faith would forever be recognized as not applicable to our secular life. But that is what it should be anyway.

Yes. It was voted on when the Constitution was ratified. So, you have no grounds to tear down where I worship (although that was tried in the past without success). My right is found in the Constitution. What your claiming is not.

Nope, the only vote that counts is the one the US Supreme Court justices take. Since Mormanism was not around at the time of the ratification vote, it can be argued by the majority of the court that only the religions in effect at that time qualify for the protection of the First Amendment. You, howerver, are protected today by case law subsequent to ratification just the same as woman's sufferage, the right of a black person to marry any of another race, the right to engage in homosexual sex, the right to privacy, and so many more. Romer v Evans saw through the wording of the Colorado law and found that homosexuals were entitled to due process in regard to discrimination - a fine precedent that favors, along with Lawrence v Texas, the penumbra of privacy rights, and the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendment themselves, a right to same-sex marriage. What favors your right to worship is the same thing that favors homsexuals marrying each other.

I understand this concept, but it is always through the power of the vote that rights are legally given. We just can't say "OK now, gay marriage is acceptable." There needs to be a vote to make if legal - either by the people themselves or by the representatives they've appointed through...yes, voting.

Why do you think there is such a fevered pitch in getting ammendments passed to redefine marriage as exclusive? Because the Constitution will not, as it stands, support your view. Gay marriage is embodied in the Constitution now.

But you are right in that a vote is neccessary. A law must be passed to abide by a Constitutional decision. The Massachusetts legislature was the government branch that implemented it's current law when the court found the old law and practise to be unconstitutional. Such it is with all government action - a law must cover what the government does even to the establishment of the branches of government.

So when the state amendments and laws are found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, new law must be (or should be) written. I say "or should be" becuase Virginia, contrary to the holding of Lawrence v Texas, still has sodomy laws on the books. Why is it still on the books? Becuase so many other state laws depend on the criminalization of sodomy. And those are still enforced. can you believe it? That's the attitude that guides the Virginia marriage amendment and the inclusive denial of all rights, ALL RIGHTS, to homosexuals.

We disagree on whether or not homosexual marriage is a right.

I understand that but you give no secular reason to hold that view.

I don't deny freedom. You have the right to get married under laws currently established. I believe in submitting to the laws of the country - that is one of my faiths articles of faith so, if a vote decided I wasn't "Christian," I would submit to that. Labels don't change my beliefs.

Would you then have supported "other than white" as a partial person?

It is not your beliefs that would suffer - it's the tax status and zoning privilege, among other things. The unjust rallying cry would be "Government benefits only for true Christians" or "Heresy deserves no constitutional protection" I'm sure you've run into those attitudes before. But you, even in those opressive, unlikely times, could still hold your beliefs.

I support your marriage under the current laws of our country. You choose not to adhere to those laws. Your choice. Not mine.

Geez, I wonder how slavery became illegal?

The concept you espouse leaves a lot to be desired in thorough thinking.

 

[fromthe heart]

I have something to say and I may get slammed by any of those who have any sort of respect for me but here goes....We all have rights...they are our rights. To vote on this one in particular goes against the original rights given to everyone in this country. I do not feel a gay relationship is moral but that is MY opinion...I have NO right to dictate how another should chose to live their life.


Many have moral issues here that deem it their right to demand a vote on this gay marriage issue....I say they have NO right to say anything and gay marriages should be not even an issue...If jane wants to marry sue then they shoudl have the RIGHT to do so...this marriage will not diminish MY rights at all and will NOT affect how I view marriage at all either. These are brothers and sisters of whom I would lay down my life willingly to protect these individuals as well as straight individuals if one should chose to call it that way.

Gay marriage does NOT take away OUR moral feelings as people who believe that this style of relationship is wrong...it does not effect any of what we have as hetrosexuals. I DO NOT to save my life understand why anyone would dictate to another in this way!!! If this is allowed then what...someone will tell me next that I can't follow MY personal liberties??? IF this IS as immoral as I feel it is then it's STILL not for ME to say!!! I will NOT judge another human being and I hope to be allowed the same feelings by others.

Let me tell you CHRISTIANS who are against gay marriage...I'm one of you...stop making me look bad because you feel threatened by this action for some reason. It's not your right to tell them what to do!!!If this is a choice to love differently then it's their choice and their RIGHT...when I stand before God He will know my heart and what I believe and don't believe...that in the end is all that really matters...I only answer for MY actions...not that of anyone who feels it's ok morally for them...this doesn'ty mean we have to say it's our morality but it is their RIGHT!!!

WE need to look carefully at how it is meant to love one another..I will not stop loving someone because of any sin they have committed...I know what sin is for me and I chose accordingly...It's no ones business what we do in who we love and to want to committ to another person of the same sex...if that should be your choice then I feel you should be given the same rights as anyone else...the same right to have your loved one by your side at the hopsital, the same right to leave the one you love your IRA or whatever is deemed to just be in the bounds of marriage. IT IS THEIR RIGHT!!! you don't have to adopt that in your life but you should not have the ability to prevent someone from living their life as they see fit.

I guess I probably said this all wrong somehow and will have someone mad at me but on judgement day I only answer for MY actions so what everyone else does does NOT effect my moral standings for me at all!!!

I meant this as respectfully as I know how!!!

 

[CaptainXeroid]

When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?...

In setting up the question, I think you hit upon the answer.

...This isn't a democratic society...

You are correct, but too many people seem to think it is. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy! IIRC, the blame for this mistake starts with Woodrow Wilson and is shared by every politician since who has referred to America as democracy. This misconception is exascerbated when a popular vote is required for amendements to various state constitutions.

The framers of our Constitution did not want America to be a democracy because they viewed it as mob rule. They did not want the majority plus one to crush minority opinions.

I am not a fan of activist judges, but in the case of SSM, I don't think the Supreme Court of Massachusetts acted as such. The Massachusetts' law did not specify that marriage partners had to be opposite sex, and the court ruled correctly, IMHO.

We have had a myriad of threads about gay marriage, and they all seem to end up at the same place. Those of you against SSM, please know that years ago, I agreed with you. I'd say stuff like "God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve" Then 2 things happened. In the course of life, I got to know some gay people. I was really surprised when they told me they didn't choose to be gay. That caused me to examine exactly what would happen if SSM were legal. I could not find ANYTHING that would adversely impact man-woman marriage, but I found over 1,000 benefits of marriage including control over their assets and end of life decisions that were denied same sex couples because they were not allowed to marry.

As someone who loves liberty and dislikes government interference in the decisions of consenting adults, I voted against the SSM ban in Georgia and hope that DOMA is challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.

So...cycling back to the question in the OP...'What right do you have to vote on my rights?'...the simple answer is that we all have that right as long as people think America is a democracy of any kind. Methinks a massive re-education effort is in order.