It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I don't think you are in the least bit shallow either, Raven. Shallow are those tanorexic women that kill themselves trying to fit into the latest ultra-tiny fashions walking around half the time looking like skank hookers.

But remember, this is what most men want anyway. Do you ever think THESE women are called shallow ? Ha !!!!!!! They are lauded above all else for their superficiality then anything else.

KJ,

I am sorry this thread has turned so sour, or that It seemed I overreacted emotionally to what people deem should always be an unemotional debate, but I just couldnt' help it. I AM sensitive and I don't see why I should hide it. But I don't think it was fair OR accurate to call Raven shallow.

There are a LOT of people out there that are shallow, I give you that, but you're looking towards the wrong demographic here. You need to be looking towards the status-symbol obessed yuppies if you want shallow.

Shallow is nothing to do with the way a person dresses, it's inside and the way you live and think that determines whether you are shallow. I've spoken to Raven numerous times in u2u and in various posts and she is NOT shallow at ALL.

We will probably never agree on this issue, and that's going to have to be ok I guess. But you will never see me sit down and take other peoples rules or laws or behavioral/fashionable/lifestyle dictates.

As you said 70 % of people ARE sheep (although I'm sure the % is higher)..yes, they ARE and I am not about to be forced into living one of those mundane, soccer mom, minivan and other status symbol worshipping lives.

As for the majority, they rule themselves. I do what I want. If they don't like it they can kiss my ass.




posted on May, 28 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
First off, Im glad and welcome those that are "frustrated" by this topic of discussion, and decided to return here to post their input....ignoring this debate wont make it go away. It seems that after hitting an emotional peak, this discussion simmered down some and decent debate is going on...thumbs up to all.

It was my pleasure to "spice" this issue up by offering new (one could say individualistic) ideas to think about, and by the charged reactions
ive read....while some dont like the ideas ive put forth, they could not just walk away from these ideas.

Down the line we go...

MacMerdin,
I especially appreciate your input, comming from a gay man....and i also am glad that you could see where my questions come from. Your "tolorance" for democratic principles and sensitivity twords the cultural identity issue is encouraging to me that non religious zeal, and logical non emotion laden discussions about this issue can be had.

KayEm,
I appreciate your zest for individuality, but question your disdane (lack of respect) for democratic principles, and the current culture that gives you your freedoms, its history and those that sacrifised to ensure you can live as you do.

In both of your examples of "harm", it seems that you decided to not take their word for it that they were being/feeling harmed...no attempt at any empathy for their position, just a determination that they are not being harmed, or that the harm they percieve isnt worth acknowledgement.
You made a decision and thats fine....but a little understanding of/for the opposing viewpoint goes a long way twords "A huge part of love and tolerance is acceptance of other people just as they are." which you reccomend i try...(i do)

KayEm says,
"The problem here is that I think you are equating people choosing alternative paths/lifestyles/hair/clothing/thoughts with overt thumbing of the nose at the reigning majority. Which it not. "

Choosing an alternate lifestyle is fine, but then you (the gay community) make demands as well....all the while judging and labeling those that do not subscribe to YOUR choices standards. How does this respect the others opinions, or NOT thumb your nose at a "cultural norm". Im not saying you must agree, but that common courtesy should indicate perhaps some discreation If concerns arise from another individule.

You,
"I guess I just don't buy into this "majority" rules crap. Why not ? Because it's unfair to the rest who happen to disagree to have stuff shoved down their throats that they disagree with. "

Noone enjoys this, but perhaps you can suggest a WORKABLE form of governance that a large population could use instead of democracy to create social order? Didnt i say life wasnt fair 3 posts ago? This holds true for many things.

Midnight Raven,

MacM said it, "...when it comes to laws, the majority/culture does have the right to say what is legal and what is not. "

Your rights to do as you will in your house STOP at the courthouse door when you need to interact with the overall cultural order, and gain legal status. Occasionally, there is a larger social order issue than "selfish" individualistic concerns. This is where the "majority" gains the rights to make this determination in a democracy.

Raven,
"So what if I wear long flowy dresses and a pentagram necklace -- does that make me a danger to society?"

No id think it makes you hot!

"Should I deny my own individuality purely because of what the majortiy think. "

No, but again some consideration, understanding, compassion, hell id even take pitty could help bridge gaps between ideologies, as well as giving you a "moral higher ground".

"Do I insist that they do what I want?"

YES, by demanding they accept gay marriage...DUH! By name calling and judging when they decline your request, you only reinforce your insistance and weaken your "moral high ground" for your position.

This post is running long so ill skip Pisky's look at "MINORITY RULE ISSUES" for now...this is why im against the minority getting its way over the majority idea tho. We are still a democratic republic right?

To all that would pigeon hole me into a "suburban conservative" mold...think again....(im conservative on some things, liberal on others)

KJ describes goths and like minded people as "albeit usually work dead end jobs (TV NEWS? LOL), smoke (i inhale), and read about vampires (LOVE THE MASQUERADE RPG). thats me....yet im not goth, no piercings/tats, but love the color black for attire.

both my wife and I have gone to gay nightclubs together with gay friends,
we've gone to "adult" clubs as well...yet i have a clean cut look, keep my lawn cut like the neighbors, and enjoy some of the same pablum entertainment that i help feed to the masses.

I can play barbies with my young niece for hours, or head out and do paintball....Im in my mid 30's and still buy Leggos for myself. Yet i have a very corporate job.

In an area with several million people, there about 15 people that do what i do in TV....i joined TV as i agree that most people ARE mindless lemmings, and I wanted to be as close as i could to where their brains are for my influence as possible. (they give their minds away, we dont have to take them) Im usually considered an odd ball by the mainstreamers i work with, as i usually think outside the box...which most cant fathom.

Where do you think i came up with my points/questions i raised in this thread?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
CazMedia,

I think you just like stirring the pot. I do too, normally but you are totally misunderstanding me at this point.

First of all, I'll tell you again. I am NOT gay. I'll defend the gay lifestyle completely though because I will always back the underdog (I've been the underdog my entire life so I know how it feels).

And I don't get what you mean when you imply that I should (using my examples for harm) treat these people who come to my door with empathy and the same sort of love and tolerance I preach (and DO very much practice BTW).

What does this mean exactly to you ? That I agree to give up my tongue piercing because it happens to offend them and then I throw myself on the ground begging their forgiveness for upsetting them with the mere IDEA of it ?


David Icke teaches that the relatively few people who are illuminati easily control the billions who are us (the masses) by having the sheep police each other (in other words, bringing them into line whenever a black one begins to veer apart from the rest).

It sure seems to me that this is what you are trying to do, Caz.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
MacM said it, "...when it comes to laws, the majority/culture does have the right to say what is legal and what is not. "

This post is running long so ill skip Pisky's look at "MINORITY RULE ISSUES" for now...this is why im against the minority getting its way over the majority idea tho. We are still a democratic republic right?

Where do you think i came up with my points/questions i raised in this thread?



Maybe I'm not reading your posts correctly, but you still haven't shown me the harm of permitting gay marriages/civil unions? How does the State sanctioning these types of marriages create a measurable harm?

My second point is with respect to "majority rules." The constitution provides protection against laws enacted by the majority that seek to harm the minority. Equal protection under the law.

Some may ask what harms are there in preventing same sex marriages? Well how about basic fundamental rights that you and I take for granted. My husband and I are friends with a gay couple who have been together as long as we have. They also have a child. Each must carry their own medical insurance, whereas my husband have a family policy. Medical decisions that I don't think twice about for my family, cannot be made by this couple. Their tax burden is higher than ours since they must file separate returns. These are signficant, measurable harms.

I have debated this issue with friends and family for years now and not once in all these discussions can anyone provide me with logical reason for denying these rights, other than for reasons based in religion. I mentioned early on in this thread that if marriage is a theological based institution, then it has no place being regulated by the States. State recognized civil unions should be granted to those that apply to protect their interests and marriages should be conducted in a house of worship.

So I have to ask you, what are the harms to the majority in allowing such marriages?



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
KayEm says,
"The problem here is that I think you are equating people choosing alternative paths/lifestyles/hair/clothing/thoughts with overt thumbing of the nose at the reigning majority. Which it not. "

Choosing an alternate lifestyle is fine, but then you (the gay community) make demands as well....


KayEm gay ?


Why shouldn't she defend the rights of gays to marry ? I do the same and I'm not gay either. I defend the rights of Christians too, although I'm not a Christian (there's a thread about that somewhere). I just believe in equality and respect for other human beings and their beliefs/lifestyles.



posted on May, 28 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
although I'm not a Christian (there's a thread about that somewhere).


Yeeeehhhhaawwwww!!!! Sorry to be off topic...but this is the first time I've seen someone pointing to a thread that I made. I like you alot Pisky....and Kayem also. You guys rock.



posted on May, 29 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Raven,
"So what if I wear long flowy dresses and a pentagram necklace -- does that make me a danger to society?"

No id think it makes you hot!


Well, thats not exactly what I expected but thank you all the same.


Originally posted by CazMedia
"Do I insist that they do what I want?"

YES, by demanding they accept gay marriage...DUH! By name calling and judging when they decline your request, you only reinforce your insistance and weaken your "moral high ground" for your position.


I'm not insisting anything, I just want them to recognise that gays are human beings too. If a person is gay and wants to marry his/her partner then why not ? Its not harming me and its not harming anyone else (providing they are doing it in the spirit of love). So what if people don't agree with it, if its not harming them and its not harming anyone else then why not just leave them alone ?



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The problem is, when asking "who/what does this harm?" You first need to establish what constitutes harm....this will depend on which side of this issue you ask as to the answer to where harm is being percieved. BOTH sides can cite "harm" on this issue. A decision either way will "harm" the other side.

My basic question boils down to harm against democratic principles.
When the minority is allowed to circumvent the will of the majority in a democracy, how is this democracy?

Because a society of free willed people decide upon something thru democratic means.......does not mean they chose the best course of action.

But because the choice could be made "wrong" dosent not mean that using the democratic method to get there was wrong.

Under democracy, someone is always the loser...whether its 75%/25% or 49%/51%....there can be only one winner. This doesnt make the losing side any more "right/wrong" mearly the less desired or the choices of the population.

If we are not utilizing democracy here, then exactly what mechanism do we use to organize our society? Exactly who in the minority is making these decisions for the overall majority. It seems clear what a majority constitutes, but which minority view should become adopted? how do you determine which minority....vs the other minorities? (the ole slippery slope argument where someone asks "why not NAMBLA in stead of/as well as gays? Or why not use the KKK's minority view to decide this issue?)
Democracy seems to be the fairest way to resolve social issues.

Im sure i could and have listed other "harms", but the FIRST harm is to democracy...things trickle down from there.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
"My basic question boils down to harm against democratic principles.
When the minority is allowed to circumvent the will of the majority in a democracy, how is this democracy?"

The Constitution prevets MOB rule, if it were up to the majority to make decisions for the whole of society, then laws could be made that violated individuals rights that are not a part of that majority. That's how. The frameworkers forsaw this and that is the whole reason for that aspect of government. We are not a Democracy but a representative Democracy.







[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Narnia]



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Narnia says,
"The Constitution prevets MOB rule, if it were up to the majority to make decisions for the whole of society, then laws could be made that violated individuals rights that are not a part of that majority. That's how. The frameworkers forsaw this and that is the whole reason for that aspect of government. We are not a Democracy but a representative Democracy."

Could you show me where in the constitution this "prevention" exists?

Better read back a few of my posts to where i show discrimination is legal...and tell me again that the majority has not already made decisions that violate individual rights over social concerns. Your freedom of speech doensnt include incitment to violence or yelling fire in a crowded movie house. Freedom of speech is a right, there are plenty of non rights issues that also have limitations...including the choice of marriage.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
My basic question boils down to harm against democratic principles.
When the minority is allowed to circumvent the will of the majority in a democracy, how is this democracy?


There is no harm against democratic principles. As I noted in my earlier post the constitution provides that "any law enacted by the state that prohibits an individuals protections under the constitution is null and void." The majority can pass all the laws they want, but if they violate the constitution, which is given precedence, the law is unconstitutional. This is what makes a democracy great. Here's a link to the 14th amendment.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


Because a society of free willed people decide upon something thru democratic means.......does not mean they chose the best course of action.


Hell no, look at segregation or not allowing people of color and women to vote.


If we are not utilizing democracy here, then exactly what mechanism do we use to organize our society? Exactly who in the minority is making these decisions for the overall majority. It seems clear what a majority constitutes, but which minority view should become adopted? how do you determine which minority....vs the other minorities?


You are attempting to make this an issue of minority versus majority, when its actually a case of constitutionality vs states rights and that my friend was decided a very long time ago. While the issue involves a minority point of view it could very easily relate to a majority issue. Say congress attempted to pass a law prohibiting its citizens from having more than one child.


(the ole slippery slope argument where someone asks "why not NAMBLA in stead of/as well as gays? Or why not use the KKK's minority view to decide this issue?)


There is no slippery slope in either of these cases. NAMBLA promotes the sexual indocrination of children. How are children consenting adults? The same is true for the KKK, segregation was determined the court system many years ago. Neither of these organizations has a constitutional leg to stand on.

FYI: I do appreciate your thoughts on this as opposed to many others who attack. It's a pleasure to debate thoughtful arguments.



posted on May, 31 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
TO CAZ MEDIA:



YOU SAY “Could you show me where in the constitution this "prevention" exists?”

MY RESPONSE:

Exists? Did you take American Government 101 in high school or college? The entire US government was designed so that “mob rule” would be prevented.

Examples of mob rule:
The Jim Crow Laws
Lynching
Segregation
The Detaining of Japanese Americans during WW2
Slavery

ALL of which were found UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The following are quotes from Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, James Madison’s ideology set the precedence to our Constitution and the disdain for pure democracy. They were also 2 of the 3 founders of the Federalist papers arguing for a republic:

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

--Alexander Hamilton

“the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly bedenounced as the very definition of tyranny.”
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

--James Madison

Even our pledge of Allegiance acknowledges a Republic as opposed to a Democracy:

"I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

As it pertains to this discussion, the following amendments 9 and 14, do such to prevent “mob rule” in relation to violating an individuals rights:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.






YOU SAY
“Better read back a few of my posts to where I show discrimination is legal...and tell me again that the majority has not already made decisions that violate individual rights over social concerns.”

MY RESPONSE

Okay, lets talk discrimination and the reality of our culture. Of course if you are talking about pure equality, we come from different economic backgrounds, races, creed, sexual orientation, religion. Are we all equal, I suppose the relativity of that statement would have to be examined. A wealthy person would be able to buy a nicer car, house, etc.…….than a low income persons. In that respect no they are not equal.

By the quote, “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…….”

Well then what exactly is meant by equal? On these terms as stated by our great constitution, equal in the eyes of justice, equal in the realm of opportunity. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the biggest equality factor in our government is our right to vote, that same low income persons, that I used in example, and the wealthy persons vote ARE EQUAL.








YOU SAY:
“Your freedom of speech doesn’t include incitement to violence or yelling fire in a crowded movie house. Freedom of speech is a right, there are plenty of non rights issues that also have limitations...including the choice of marriage.”

MY RESPONSE:

Freedom of Speech is a right so long as it does not cause harm or injury to another persons, it is logical then that one must not yell Fire when there is not. Choice of marriage harms no one, it promotes a nurturing bond between two persons. Whereas yelling fire in a crowded room of people, when there is no fire, can lead to hysteria and ultimately harm to those persons involved.
















[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Narnia]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Narnia]



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
First of all, My argument is NOT whether or not Texas's Sodomy Laws are legal or not. (Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader-Ginsberg already anounced that the Supreme Court decision to strike down those laws was NOT based on Constitutionality, but instead on French/Internatioal law.

Excuse me?? Does the Supreme Court now enforce Foreign laws as well as our own?

This is supposed to be acceptable...but when Massacheutcetts announces that they will legalize "Gay" Marriage, (in direct violation of the Defense of Marriage Act) this is ALSO acceptable??

How many propositions has California had sticken down because of "Constitutionality." or because they violated Federal law??

It's HIGH TIME for the Supreme Court to keep their nose out of the States Business! Either Texas and Massachuecetts are BOTH RIGHT...or they're BOTH WRONG...which is it?

You CAN'T use the common denominator that the "individual's freedoms" are at stake, since the very definition of a law, is that it restricts an individual's actions. OKAY?



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Toelint: I reviewed SCOTUS's decision - where did you find that the court used French/International law? Based on my review of the 52 page decision, it all came down to equal protection under the 14th amendment. Please post a link to these comments or the verbage itself, I'm intrigued.

As far as your arguments that the Mass. law violates Clinton's defense of marriage act - you and I discussed this several pages ago. The DoM act will likely be deemed as unconstitutional as well. The process for appealing laws that are unconsititutional take time, usually years.

Your comments regarding the Feds staying out of States business has also been addressed. States can pass any laws they want, but if they violate any section of the US constitution, they can be deemed as unconstitutional and struck down. Hence, the unconstutionality of segregation.

While we might not agree with all of the decisions the Courts make, they are a safety net to protect the interests of all Americans. Let me know when you have the Ginsberg's comments, so that I can better answer your concerns.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
more.abcnews.go.com...

The following quote comes from the above story:The court has struggled with how much protection the Constitution offers in the bedroom. The court ruled 5-4 in 1986 that consenting adults have no constitutional right to private homosexual sex, upholding laws that ban sodomy.

A nearly indentical quote can be found at:
www.cnn.com...

I'm still searching for exact quotes from Ginsberg...I'll get back to you.

Also check out www.leanleft.com...

Read carefully the post that mentions
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1981) & ¶ 52.

I also found the following statement at

www.renewamerica.us...

"Liberal Supreme Court associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has admitted in a recent lecture that the court consulted international law to help influence two recent court decisions. This influence was likely at least partially responsible for Justices Kennedy and O'Connor changing their verdicts on the constitutionality of state sodomy laws."

I'll add more to this post as I find it, 'kay?
[edit on 8-6-2004 by Toelint]

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Toelint]

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Toelint]

[edit on 10-6-2004 by Toelint]



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I am also looking into constitutional issues that go against the gay rights adgenda.....specifically in dealing with the case vs the Boy Scouts....
This is where the US supreme court sided with the scouts for 2 reasons...basically the freedom of assembly, and the right to be left alone (I.E. to not be forced to include people into your group that dont expouse your core beliefs)

Needless to say, with the last poster's example and the scouts case...both seem to indicate that the courts seem to be siding with the majority....now that the CA courts are wrestling with this (i expect another setback for pro gays) as well as in MA courts also "freezing" the gay marriges they've done to review the legal effects...id say that from a constitutional stand point, pro gay folks are in trouble.

This also brings up a side point of mine against gay marriage....why hasnt anyone looked at the laws and which ones would be affected, how? where are the loopholes for abuse? Are they even constitutional is where were at now, yet many are still trying to ram this idea thru....
Where is the plan for implementation? All ive seen is a demmands list, not a plan. "we have to change now, before anyone can actually look into the ramifications of this change" seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Dont even get me started on my "discrimination is legal" arguments, ive been holding them back, but they also point twords the constitutionality of discriminatory laws, implying there is the possibillity that gay marriage laws could also fall under this "legal discrimination".



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Lets see what the world community thinks....And ill use a source that normally id despize, in the spirit of a robust and open forum on this topic.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... here is some exerpts.....

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Lets notice a few things
(1) says men and women, not men and/or women. It doesnt say people, citizens, or any other gender nutral thing...it says men and woman.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

OMG...the UN has decreed that the family unit is NATURAL and entitled to be protected??? Furthermore, this man/woman/family idea has been determined as a FUNDAMENTAL UNIT in a society by the UN!!!

Doesnt that bring me back to my original idea?
ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. If the society or state wish to protect traditional family values then the UN thinks this appropriate.

More internation opinion thru the UN,
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

brings us back to another of my points,
some "groups" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation?

The US supreme court supports this contention....Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale

The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group's constitutional right of expressive association.

He added, however, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong." (something ive said MANY times defending my position, go find where i said gays were wrong/bad/immoral ect...its not there.)

(back to me here) This appears to be 20/(2) in a reverse fashion....no one can be forced to become a part of the group, THUS the group then cant be forced to accept someone either.

If groups can "legally discriminate" in this fashion,
then again, why is the "group" of marriage any different? (not everyone chooses to marry nor is it manditory or nessissary in life)

There was a HUGE celbration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1999, and they remain the same to this day....

Ive only tried to apply these ideas to one democratic nation (the USA, as others have the right to determine their cultural values themselves)
I was EXTATIC when i came across the fact that the worlds "savior" organization had put these same ideas INTO CHARTER....wow,
So im not alone in the WORLD with these ideas eh?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Hmmm, 10 whole days later after my post, and nothing more about legalities/constitutionalities?

No one else want to stand up and tell me why a minority issue must be adopted by a democratic majority?

No one want to comment on a huge worldwide organization comprised of many different cultural values managing to come to the conclusions ive cited and that they have adopted as a guideline for societies to adhere to?

No answers to my simple questions?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Greetings again, Caz

I think everybody has basically stated their opinions on the issue and that is basically that. Why do you imply that because nobody responds, that means essentially that we can't take the heat and so are avoiding the kitchen ?

As I said, I think people are just fed up with your extraneous arguements when what the original issue basically asked was whether or not we agreed with same sex marriage. Again, people have replied and argued and since nobodies changing anybodies mind, we've moved on to other ATS business.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Hello kayem,
(ive been on vacation for a week and was amazed that the 2 members that were trying to cite legal reasons a society cannot set boundaries for itself to respond as i provided some of what they asked for.)

I know your not changing your mind, but this debate isnt over
in fact as the courts have it in their hands now, so obviously questions remain.

Why are my arguments "extraneous"? Why are basic principals of democracy, sociology, as well as internationally reccognized human rights conventions that ive provided extraneous?

Why is it wrong to expect an answer to these questions?

What can I infer from a lack of responce? My GUESS would be that answering the main questions ive posed will indeed run contrary to the desire of the person that cant/wont answer....if they answer "no" to democratic/sociological ideas, then theyve got to be able to explain what kind of governmental system were working with...i thought it was democracy...if its not then explain when this changed?

Again i dont care weather this issue is "right/wrong", i care that the way this is being worked out is legal, proper, and in conjunction with democracy and soiological definitions.

Could you talk about how you feel about the UN human rights document I cited?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join