quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: ppl are changing rapidly...and becoming more tolerant . what is now the majority will soon be a minority. Women, and blacks weren't accepted by the majority until their ignorance was replaced by enlightenment. Gay marriage will soon follow. Christianity has to come out of the dark ages sooner or later.
I agree. And that's the way it HAS to be, Jordan. Allow people (read: the majority) time to accept something; and then when they have, laws can be passed then (and only then) to make sure it holds.
quote:SF, you are mistqaken about the country being a Democracy, we are not a Democracy adn the majority most certainly forbidden access to the power to rule.
this is a common misconception about our system of govt. in fact it is complete myth. call it an urban myth if yuo like, but it lives in the country folklore too.
Glass, I know we aren't a democracy in the technical sense (or the realistic sense any more) of the term, but my point is still valid. (If we're being honest, we haven't been a republic since the Civial War either.) However, we like to assure ourselves that we are better than the petty dictatorships that exist in the world by believing that 'We the People' have some control over who gets picked to lead us.
That is the basis of my assertion that the majority must have the final say. A look back on history proves that EVERY time the majority of people aren't in agreement with how the country\tribe\group is being run there is rebellion and war.
EVERY TIME!
There are those in this country that would like to see our 'tolerance' allow them to practice their religious beliefs openly and fully. (ie Sharia law in America, polygamy, voodoo sacrifice, etc.) As a people (read: majority of people)we have determined that this will not happen (yet). Are we being intolerant in this? That's up to each individual to decide. Anthropologically, the answer doesn't matter. We the People (again read: majority of people) have spoken and it is up to our lawmakers to reflect that choice.
the majority is the average IQ of 100. now i don't want to be rude to anybody, but you should take a serious look at the implications of a 100 IQ. I do not think most of the people here are IQ 100. there si defintion of how IQ measuremnt works adn 100 is THE median. that is themob's mentaltiy, and i will go further adn explain to you that the mob becomes an animal and some point in time, it has no IQ at all.
that is whyI am a Republcian and always will be even tho the party is now a POS>
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"I agree. And that's the way it HAS to be, Jordan. Allow people (read: the majority) time to accept something; and then when they have, laws can be passed then (and only then) to make sure it holds." _________________________________________________
Laws to be passed for what?
I don't understand these ideas, not in reality.
Some things sound good on paper but in reality don't really cut it.
Will the majority accept and understand the gays, depends how you define understand and accept.
Are you talking in public or behind close doors?
Who is the majority in this country anymore and who controls the majority thoughts the most?
The older I get, the more libertarian I lean. I think that in an ideal world/society people should be able to believe and act however they wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That being said, I don't believe that a truly libertarian society can EVER exist. Because of this, laws have to be made by the majority to define what constitutes acceptable behavior in their group.
The Civil Rights movement was a change in attitude by the majority of people. They had determined that segregation, in particular, and racism, in general, was unacceptable. Laws were passed to force those who did not hold such views to behave in a manner that the majority held as acceptable. Laws did not make people more tolerant or less racist. They simply forced civil BEHAVIOR on the MINORITY who held the belief that racism and segreation were ok. If the majority were of the opinion that racism was ok (as was the situation previously) then the laws would never have been passed and the status quo would have continued until that changed.
This is how political movements make long-term changes. They CONVINCE enough people that their ideas have merit and thus become the majority. This is why Obamacare cost many Democrat representatives their jobs in Congress. Their stance on it was contrary to the will of the majority and the Independants rebelled.
The 'mob' is where the power lies, Glass. They are the ones you have to appease if you wish to retain your power. If you CONVINCE them that you 'get them' and that you are the 'best choice' then you get to maintain power. If someone else does a better job at CONVINCING them you lose it. This is why Jefferson was such a proponent of an educated electorate:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)
Our current generation (or at least the bulk imo) has CHOSEN to bury their heads in the sand and hope that their leaders do what is 'right' without actually defining what that means. Until we (as a collective whole) define what 'right' means we will constantly be swayed by whichever orator strikes our current fancy or holds out the bigger carrot to exchange for our votes.
It doesn't matter whether it's through action or abdication...the MAJORITY gets what it thinks it wants in the end.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Originally Posted By Seeking Freedom:
"I agree. And that's the way it HAS to be, Jordan. Allow people (read: the majority) time to accept something; and then when they have, laws can be passed then (and only then) to make sure it holds." _________________________________________________
Laws to be passed for what?
I don't understand these ideas, not in reality.
Some things sound good on paper but in reality don't really cut it.
Will the majority accept and understand the gays, depends how you define understand and accept.
Are you talking in public or behind close doors?
Who is the majority in this country anymore and who controls the majority thoughts the most?
-
those are really good questions iwish, i were present at a legal gay wedding "test" in virginia in the mid 90's. It was at an officailly recognised very large natioanal mebership Church that allows gay marriage. The wedding was attended by over 300 people, the TV news was present as invited participant guests and as camera reporters. They did get a license and ad attempt ot legalise it but i think they were blocked eventually. the names on the license were not clearly feminine and and one of the wives could pass her name off as male a teh license stage. The wedding went off without a hitch which was surprising. I was attending as a bodyguard. I had noting to do but eat and enjoy the day and it was pleasant day. The wmen who go tmarried are now divorced and one of them si married to a amn which i do not find surprising. I liked her and i was happily married so there was nothing between us other than a friendship, but we were mutually attracted to each other, she was not really all gay.
I left VA which is preety conservative to live in SoCali and while ther was accused by a person who was co-worker/co-student (gradsschool you work) of being homophobic because i amnot intersted int e subject at all. i have no gay tendencies. This woman ranted on me. In fact several gays ranted at me in Socali because they assumed that i was a redneck (mostly cuz i am) but not the kind of redneck that ever cares one bit about who you boink with. heck i don't even care if it's scrumping sheep like they do in Texas... my point? it depends on where you are when you try to detremine what is normal... In the DC beltway before AIDS? Everybody was sleeping with everybody.I had to hitch rides on many occasions before i got old enough tor drive and was accosted many times by gays and i never hasd a problem with any of them they took no for an answer, and i didn;t get angry so they gave m the ride i needed. Most often they actually whined some when i refused.... and i was under 17... jailbait these were most all men in business suits adn ties with wedding rings.. i coulda owne dtheir azzes if iwas so inclined... not my game. The amrried swinging sceen in the area was active and divorce was common...
it's no big deal if they want to boink each otreh to me as long as it's all consenting adults, which i truly beleive is the Libertarian Viewpoint. In Nebraska? i lived ther for 4 years in '00's. never met an openly gay person direclty but the bar scen there is huge (Lincoln is a college city and Omaha has a n active night life.. there were alot of gay bars and i could figure that out pretty quick and find aplace more suited to my tastes. the swingers in nebraska? they were a'swangin" with abandon...
wehn i am in the north? i'm a rebel, when i'm in the South? I'm a yankee, when i'm in Cali? i'm a redneck or hillbilly... i guess i need to go home to the backwater and the mountain areas of VA where the Libertarain attiude is more accepted than the DC area where it is NOT, back to the blackwater swamps and the mountains of VA where i am just one of the guys...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The older I get, the more libertarian I lean. I think that in an ideal world/society people should be able to believe and act however they wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That being said, I don't believe that a truly libertarian society can EVER exist. Because of this, laws have to be made by the majority to define what constitutes acceptable behavior in their group.
The Civil Rights movement was a change in attitude by the majority of people. They had determined that segregation, in particular, and racism, in general, was unacceptable. Laws were passed to force those who did not hold such views to behave in a manner that the majority held as acceptable. Laws did not make people more tolerant or less racist. They simply forced civil BEHAVIOR on the MINORITY who held the belief that racism and segreation were ok. If the majority were of the opinion that racism was ok (as was the situation previously) then the laws would never have been passed and the status quo would have continued until that changed.
This is how political movements make long-term changes. They CONVINCE enough people that their ideas have merit and thus become the majority. This is why Obamacare cost many Democrat representatives their jobs in Congress. Their stance on it was contrary to the will of the majority and the Independants rebelled.
Convince first...then legislate...
Any other path is doomed to failure."
--------------------
This isn't the 50's or 60's.
What kinda laws?
There is so many laws on the books now, what kinda protecton do groups need that there isn't a law for now?
The 'mob' is where the power lies, Glass. They are the ones you have to appease if you wish to retain your power. If you CONVINCE them that you 'get them' and that you are the 'best choice' then you get to maintain power. If someone else does a better job at CONVINCING them you lose it. This is why Jefferson was such a proponent of an educated electorate:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)
Our current generation (or at least the bulk imo) has CHOSEN to bury their heads in the sand and hope that their leaders do what is 'right' without actually defining what that means. Until we (as a collective whole) define what 'right' means we will constantly be swayed by whichever orator strikes our current fancy or holds out the bigger carrot to exchange for our votes.
It doesn't matter whether it's through action or abdication...the MAJORITY gets what it thinks it wants in the end.
interesting that you quote Jefferson about the electorate, i'm going to tell you again thathte letorate is not the masses in a republic, never has been.
i offer you an early qutoation attrinuted to one of th men who authored the Republican form of government we now enjoy. It was in reference to slavery, which he partook of finacially and yet:
"1770 April. "Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."
i would suggest o you that this is not only evidence for his Deist beleifs but the notion that Freedom really does mean to be liberated form ridiculous laws- in other words times do change by thought, and the thought is changing to accpet being gay as not insanity as it was just 50 yrs ago... i am not aware how gayness was looked at int he 1700's but it was with US even then and nothing seems to have been spoken much about it at all...
even an educaed IQ of 100 is still an IQ of 100 SF, that is not how IQ is measured, IQ measures the ability not to memorise, but to recognise the realtionships between ideas that are not obvious...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off seek, oppression does not require a majority or a minority. It only requires exercise of authority in an unjust and inequitable manner.
Secondly, you use the word preferred erroneously. Your majority can have any preference they want without redefining and restricting marriage. You are not defending your preference, you are attacking legal recognition of an alternative.
Thirdly you are hiding in my opinion. Using majority rules as an answer to a debate means you aren't interested and/or are afraid of the merits of the individual facets of the topic. A broad brush that covers all and allows one to ignore the inconsistencies of ones own argument. Majority rules is a path, not a position. It isn't the only path either.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's not really possible to overturn SCOTUS tex.
even SCOTUS recognises that. the process takes decades and requires someone that has been harmed by the ruling or law to have what they call "standing" to bring it back.
once you have standing you then have to have deep friggin pockets to go thru the whole process of the courts just to get back to SCOTUS.
when Roberts expanded the Citizens united case? he dun a really really bad thang.
the original case was simply about a movie soembody made about Hillary that inever watched nor cared to. I think it may have notbeen honest, but htere's no real law against being a liar in this coutnry cuz of hte 1st amnemdet....
Roberts took th ecase and asked the argumetns to be expanded to cover the Camapign finace laws, which neither side had ever asked for.
this was was Juduical Activisms peak moment in over 100 years... the nightmare began, and the genie is out of the bottle.
the only way to fight it? get rid of tax free staus of ALL corporations for starters. not one single non-profit ever again. that would take some ofthe pain out of this, but hten you will have charities losing the staus too.. and maybe that would be good and get rid of some ofthe bad ones...
i personally have never like the tax deductions involed in charities nayway, cuz that is Govt subsidization, and when you donate to charity? it's supposed to be for th eright reasons,not for a tax break....
but realisticaly? there's noting we can do about Ctizens Untied without a cosntitutianl amendment, or a law that says Corproatios are not people, like the law that say gays are not people. (defenseof marriage act)... then that law would have to be tested by soeone with standing at SCTUS andbe upheld...
that is decades away... just like abortion law have been decades awya from being overturned...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
