This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Should people be able to vote away civil rights for minorities?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
"Stop government in its tracks." We're all little people here, so that's not going to happen.
Maybe you are just a 'little person'. Don't speak for me please.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
166613
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
"Stop government in its tracks." We're all little people here, so that's not going to happen.
Maybe you are just a 'little person'. Don't speak for me please.
Okay. Do you sit on the boards of several major corporations? Could you not go to work for the rest of your life and still see your wealth increase? Have you contributed $10000 or more to multiple candidates in several elections? Do you have the direct phone number to your US Representative or Senator?
If the answers to the above are yes, then you are correct; you are no longer a 'little person'. But I suspect the majority of posters on Wowhead do not fit in the above category.
you can make a difference without filling the above requirements, noob
Post by
342791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Malgayne
While this thread wasn't specifically about the court decision in California, I thought it might be interesting to mention:
In California there are two different forms of what is usually called "marriage". One is called Marriage. The other is called Domestic Partnership.
The two relationships are entered into slightly differently, but here is an important fact:
both partnerships confer exactly the same rights
in California.
A lot of people are up in arms about the decision that was recently made in California, but I fund it hard to get too worked up about it. Here's why:
Gays have always been able to enter into domestic partnerships in California. It's a purely secular contract with no religious connections. Until prop 8 was introduced, the California constitution made no mention of sexual orientation. Prop 8 passed and the constitution was amended to state that the "marriage" contract was only available to heterosexual couples. Domestic partnerships are still available to gays. The only difference made here is one of names.
Don't get me wrong. I strongly feel that prop 8 was wrong, and should not have passed. I voted no. But this is not an issue of civil rights. It's only an issue of the dignity conveyed by the
name
"marriage". It's still important, but not the same.
Post by
ASHelmy
We should stop government in its tracks and take back control, instead of handing them more power by argueing for the legalization of gay marriage.
Uh, how? A people's revolt? Because as much as I feel the USA needs a change in the way it's run, I can't see it happening any time soon.
Tax benefits to getting married should go to everyone or no one, agreed.
Aye.
Incredibly, you are the first person to actually GET my view. Everyone else gets stuck on the 'gay' thing.
To answer your question about revolting... you're really at the same step in thought that I am. I really don't have any idea how to fix it. I'm hopeing for a small internal collapse of the party system, or a really rough economic downturn, so that people start dieing. One of those two should wake people up.
Edit: Really, it will never happen because society is full of idiots. For instance, this thread is full of people who are willing to crucify thier innate rights to allow government the power to grant them thier rights. If people would take a step back and look at the big picture...
I get your point, it's not whether you are with or against gay marriage, you just don't think government should have the right to give you things that you already have, like marriage, because them giving you the right also means they can take it away. And you want to stop the government before gays have to fight to do basic stuff, anything I miss?
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
SignupSucks
I'm probably doing a disservice for not having read this thread in its entirety. Nonetheless, insert foot into mouth.
My first instinct, per the OP's title, is '@#$% no.' That's the whole point of civil rights - the inalienable rights of an individual cannot and should not be subverted in any circumstances.
Then I see what he's really talking about is gay marriage. On the surface the answer is still no, but there is a corollary: if the argument is that marriage is defined by as the union under God of a man and a woman, then really the government itself should have no business with marriage in the first place. Separation of church and state sort of thing. The government should only be in the business of handling civil unions for taxation and dependents (e.g. children, for whom an individual or civil union would be responsible). There might also be other benefits, such as recognition for insurance purposes.
The government may recognize religious marriages as civil unions, but only as civil unions - the church performs the ceremony, but the government stamps the license for legal purposes. Certain (rather preposterous) unions would still not be recognized - such as that between an individual and an animal - I'm sure there would still be many secular churches willing to perform ceremonies for individuals who are not members of a religious congregation, even as there is today.
The problem is the word, people get so hung up about it. So eliminate the debate by changing the use of the word. If you can't play nice (e.g. argue reasonably and come to a reasonable conclusion), you get your toys taken away.
If you want to go deeper into the debate, the inalienable human rights aren't really inalienable at all. But I don't think people want to hear that the tyranny of the majority (or the tyranny of those with power, which is synonymous in this case).
Post by
211590
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Mytie, Im curious. Your overtly distrustful of governents. Why is that?
In theory they are
supposed
to represnt the people and do what the people tell them to, so technically any law or regulation they impose is by the popular consent of the society (the reality is slightly different of course, and much more beaurocratic)
Does your dislike of governments end with the governments themselves or does it extend to any similar large-scale social structures i.e. Multi-national Corporations, Religous Heirarchy, Media Empires?
If so would that not abolish the idea of marraige altogether? as mariage is a legal union between 2 people, it makes no difference if its a civil union or a religious one as both require validation from their respective dogma.
In essence it requires someone, be it governmental or religous, to validate it and without that validation it doesnt exist.
I distrust all man-made institutions.
Post by
161088
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
There ya go.
Correlation does not prove causation.
There are statistically more churches where there are more liquor stores. I would say, that without a doubt, liquor stores spawn churches.
I'm not saying that the study is wrong. I am just saying that it is flawed.
There ya go.
Post by
161088
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
161088
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
I'm probably doing a disservice for not having read this thread in its entirety. Nonetheless, insert foot into mouth.
My first instinct, per the OP's title, is '@#$% no.' That's the whole point of civil rights - the inalienable rights of an individual cannot and should not be subverted in any circumstances.
Then I see what he's really talking about is gay marriage.
No, that was just an example.
Post by
166613
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.