81artmonk Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 And you know, the gov't SHOULDN'T forbit prostitution, polygamy, etc, etc. And just cause a majority believes something doesn't mean it should become law (and vice versa). As I pointed out to larry, that is the way our government works. those with the most votes win. Until it changes or one side can convince enough people they are right it will stay the same. It's kinda funny how larry and some others are quick to point out the constitution and equality and how we are denying peoples rights yet denounce the same system in place(constitution) which provides the same system that he is holding up and tearing down all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Yes Larry I read the thread, thanks for asking.... Did you read my posts? What liberty is being infringed upon by not marrying someone of the same sex and or multiple partners? On a personal level I could care less if Dan Snyder married the Redskinettes but why should the government formally recoginize his banging and supporting the Redskinettes as a marriage? What is the benefit to the state?? Children are born via 1 man banging 1 women (you probably already knew that:)) . If the mother and father are not both working together to support the child there are good chances the child will be dependent on the state for resources ($$$), therefore the institution of marriage (parents) is a good thing for the state as it helps alleviate the welfare burden on those of us who did not bring said child into this world. People can have civil unions and do whatever they want to, but it is in the states best interest to promote keeping the fathers around with the mothers to raise the children they bring into this world. You could argue what does it hurt to let gays marry. In a static environment I would have to say nothing. In the dynamic environment that is the real world I would say it would do nothing to help. I love your points. I think what larry doesn't get is that the system in place allows for certian ideals and morals to prevail for now. From reading his posts he doesn't seem to like this system where those with the most votes win. As I pointed out before, if America had wanted to bestow a right on a group of people who they thought should have that right, wouldn't it have happened by now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 It's kinda funny how larry and some others are quick to point out the constitution and equality and how we are denying peoples rights yet denounce the same system in place(constitution) which provides the same system that he is holding up and tearing down all at the same time. Ummm... I don't think anyone has a problem with the system in and of itself, it's the people running the system that are causing issues. It's not really hypocritical to point out the obvious (that we're using the system to contradict its own core values). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Ummm... I don't think anyone has a problem with the system in and of itself, it's the people running the system that are causing issues. It's not really hypocritical to point out the obvious (that we're using the system to contradict its own core values). I don't want to sound rude, but the system is in place to allow us to elect people to represent us and our values. In turn those people make the law. You can't say the people running the system are the problem, cause that would be saying Americans who elected them are the problem. Thus saying the system is flawed. IMO, if Americans want to bestow upon the gay community this right, isn't it up to us the people to elect those who share those views and thus change the laws to allow gay marriage?? The system gives us the power. If we elect people who don't share those views, how can we blame the system for failing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I don't want to sound rude, but the system is in place to allow us to elect people to represent us and our values. In turn those people make the law. You can't say the people running the system are the problem, cause that would be saying Americans who elected them are the problem. Thus saying the system is flawed.IMO, if Americans want to bestow upon the gay community this right, isn't it up to us the people to elect those who share those views and thus change the laws to allow gay marriage?? The system gives us the power. If we elect people who don't share those views, how can we blame the system for failing?? The system in place is designed to allow for majority rule while providing certain protections for minority groups. When you have people running the government who wish to deny something to a minority group that everyone in the majority has access to, you've got a problem. The reason we have a representative democracy is because the founding fathers didn't fully trust the American public to make the right decisions all the time. Elected officials should have been the creme of the crop... men who were intelligent, educated, and successful in fields other than politics. The people occupying our country's highest offices right now don't even begin to reflect what the founding fathers had in mind. Modern politicians could scarcely stray further away from what the system was originally designed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 EA, were'nt we suppost to be a constitutional republic and not a democracy, for exactly this type of thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 The system in place is designed to allow for majority rule while providing certain protections for minority groups. When you have people running the government who wish to deny something to a minority group that everyone in the majority has access to, you've got a problem.The reason we have a representative democracy is because the founding fathers didn't fully trust the American public to make the right decisions all the time. Elected officials should have been the creme of the crop... men who were intelligent, educated, and successful in fields other than politics. The people occupying our country's highest offices right now don't even begin to reflect what the founding fathers had in mind. Modern politicians could scarcely stray further away from what the system was originally designed to do. You are right,it is also a reason for the co-equal branches with a Judiciary system to prevent abuse. I still don't see same sex marriage as a minority or equality issue as far as the law is concerned Are all sub-groups within society a minority group with legal standing?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Actually, nowadays it's the best lobby that wins: if everyne could choose, do yuo REALLY think they'd support the "Bridge to Nowhere"? And marijuana legalization might very well be close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.