Cazmedia, dictionary definitions of democracy are all well and good but healthy democratic principles in real political terms should be about
constantly questioning those principles and striving to improve them, not pedantic appeals to the status quo.
So you are now advocating changing either, the definitions of democracy, OR the form of government that we are using to govern our society.
either way this would be trying to alter a very basic and fundamental piece that the entire culture is based on.
Striving to improve "conditions" of living within a paticular democracy are very different than trying to "improve" democracy itself.
Are you saying that a given democracy does not have the right to set boundaries, thru democratic means, that the majority in that democracy deem are
needed for their culture?
If your answer is yes, then exactly what form of governance would you propose to replace the democracy?
The definition of democracy goes hand in hand with its practice....If you say one thing and do another....what have you done? NOT what you said, but
something different. You cant say this is a democracy, yet then do something non-democratic and still say your a democracy. Either you fit the
definition, or you dont. Trying to change the definition to fit what youve done seems dubious to say the least.
In the California case, the democracy...the process by which the voters there determined that this idea was not for them.....was completely hijacked
when the minority attempted to circumvent this democratic process and the laws, by effectivly "stealing" the rights of those within the democracy,
that used the cultures legitimate means to make this decision.
Why is it ok for this minority group to have assumed the right to steal the rest of the populations votes, nullify them, and institute their plan
This sounds like rule by the few,for the many, not rule by the people for the people....this begs the question of...if this behaivior was allowed,
then which minority group is next to assume the same power....how about the KKK, or communists, or who exactly? Democracy, while not perfect, seems
far better than rule by an elite few.
My example of citizen vs non citizen rights is not a straw argument....
look at it like this....to give rights of citizens to non citizens, simply because they earn a living and pay taxes is crazy. Do those same non
citizens that get bennifits have to ...oh say...sign up for selective service? Potentially having to be drafted and risking their lives for those same
bennifits that citizens enjoy? NO they dont, then why should they have the same rights unless they are willing to make the same sacrifice/commitment
that the citizens do for the same? Become a citizen, you'll be more than a guest.
Rights and responsibillities are 2 sides of the same coin. contributing more/less to the taxes doesnt make you more/less a person..citizen or not.
Also, unless your a civil servant of some kind (millitary, government worker...dare i say politican) you are not contributing to society..you
contribute so that you can realize a personal profit of some type. This is not to say that persons intentions and indeed actions do not help society,
but that is to say that there is a vested personal (selfish) reason that they do what they do, unless they then give all their gains not nessisary to
survive back to the society, or live under a working communistic state. If contrubuting to society was all that is nessisary, then why dont we just
sell citizenships? or just sell the gay marriage thing?
The fact that anyone, gay or str8, contributes something, everything, or nothing to their culture, has nothing to do with the actual democratic
process for determining a societies rules/laws. poor and rich all get to vote.
What criteria are we using to say someone contributes to their culture?
Where is the cut off line for what is/is not considered "contributing"?
If a "level of societal contribution" can be agreed upon, do you then advocate removal of rights until that person meets the standard?
By talking about economic examples...i was trying to point out the fallicy of the argument presented which says "noone str8 will be affected in any
I showed 2 effects that translate into affecting EVERY citizen, weather they percieve this effect or not, gay or not. The idea that enacting gay
marriage into law doenst affect anyone not gay is a LIE of the biggest magnitude.
I have asked over and over again...lets discuss the implications of enacting this change BEFORE we go blindly into this. There are/will be affects to
the culture overall that i feel have been pushed aside in the zeal to feel good about including everyone in everything. There are plenty of
"protections/bennifits" here that some groups enjoy that are denied other groups. Is this equality?
read this for specific examples of "legal discrimination"
Democracy isnt about equality, it is a mechanism (tool) that a large group of people can use to create an orderly culture. (governance) Weather that
group of people use this tool to create "equallity" is up to them, thru democratic means, to determine.
Uber begs the question,
am I an equal and valued citizen or am I not.
Value is a subjective term....what criteria can we all agree on that will guide us as to any citizens value?
As far as equality? see my above link and then question can equality truely ever be achieved? Remember...even the pricvate sector (non-federal)
examples of "legal discrimination" are derived from the bill of rights, and the legal interpretations of the first ammendment. Otherwise, they
would have already been eliminated as being "unequal" under the law.
To close, i am really really interested in ANYONE that will take the following questions, and answer them one by one.
Why is it wrong to ask these societal questions that obviously can effect anyone, weather they percieve it or not.
Why would it be wrong for a democratic society to expect these answers before enacting legislation of this kind?
Why is it wrong for the democratic process of the voters of California to say no to this issue? (or any democratic culture)
Why is it right for the minority to violate the laws there, nullifying all those votes both for and against, and just try to in essence "steal" your
way from the rest of the majority? (under a democracy)
Does a democratic culture have the right, thru democratic means, to set boundaries (laws/values) for itself?
Noone ever answers these questions. gee i wonder why?
i feel that trying to support circumvention of democracy in action to, support any minority adgenda, raises issues about which form of governance you
are trying to suggest using instead of the democracy that is in place here.