Proposition 8 vote upheld. A great victory for democracy. page 4

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Originally posted by LatexDucky:

A democracy is not supposed to represent everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

From your own source:

“The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally."

To translate for you, substantively means equally among all citizens in all respects.

Our republic was supposed to protect the rights of minorities while pleasing as many as possible.

I think it should be obvious many are not pleased nor are minority rights being protected here.

I think I should be able to marry my computer… Where are my “minority rights” being respected or upheld? Stop acting like everything is black and white people…

I think I should be able to marry my computer…

Can the computer consent?

I think I should be able to marry my computer… Where are my “minority rights” being respected or upheld?

Once your computer is able to give consent to a legally binding contract I might consider it.

Why are you so homophobic? I’m really curious.

A democratic vote would affect everyone, not just a select group. The people of California could ban gay marriage democratically, as long as they banned marriage for everyone else. A democracy is supposed to represent everyone, and all this is doing is representing bigotry.

That’s the thing though. Representative democracy often fails to represent the people.

Can the computer consent?

Y/N prompt?

The ruling was a joke. The fact that they allowed existing marriages to remain says it all. If they truly thought the proposition was constitutional, they would have thrown those out, correct? It seems like the court is trying to appeal to voters rather than justice.

True and after all, if there are less gay supporters then not and they take a vote, it will be bammed but does that make it morally right? Just becuse majority say it is wrong does that make it so?

Also yea what happens then when the already married gay couples die out?
There wont be any gays married left making the 2nd part of it kind of wasted for conservation.

Also yea what happens then when the already married gay couples die out?
There wont be any gays married left making the 2nd part of it kind of wasted for conservation.

Dude, gays aren’t an endangered species… They can’t die out unless the rest of humanity does. There will always be gay men and women.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I think I should be able to marry my computer… Where are my “minority rights” being respected or upheld?

Once your computer is able to give consent to a legally binding contract I might consider it.

Why are you so homophobic? I’m really curious.

My computer has no rights, so why do I need consent?!?!?

I’m not homophobic………….. You are simply on a witch hunt, you lack reasoning and common sense.

“My dog has no rights, why do I need consent?!?!?!?”

Or, better yet:

“This slave is only 3/5 of a person! It has no rights! Why would I want the consent of an animal?!?!?!?”

Originally posted by pacaholic:

My computer has no rights, so why do I need consent?!?!?

you lack reasoning and common sense.

Hahaha!

Originally posted by FuzzyBacon:

“My dog has no rights, why do I need consent?!?!?!?”

Or, better yet:

“This slave is only 3/5 of a person! It has no rights! Why would I want the consent of an animal?!?!?!?”

Bad argument… Doesn’t address my point…

My computer neither has rights nor would a logical person believe it deserves rights. The same is not true for dogs and slaves, except the slave issue is something entirely different and it is also an issue of the past.

Another reason I lost my faith in democracy

The majority is fucking stupid

Watch a full hour of just commercials created for us and you will see the intelligence level they are appealing to (and maybe blow your brains out during a shamwow commercial)

Do what you want and don’t impede on anyones freedom

My computer has no rights, so why do I need consent?!?!?

You just contradicted yourself.

My computer has no rights, so why do I need consent?!?!?

Not you, the computer needs to consent. If consent were not an issue, rape and child molestation would be legal. No rational person wants to get rid of consent.

I’m not homophobic………….. You are simply on a witch hunt, you lack reasoning and common sense.

I’m not on a witch hunt, you are. I desire granting equal rights to another group, and you propose keeping those rights from them. Can you tell the difference?

Ok before i jump in here lemme make sure i got the facts straight

Californians pass an anti gay marriage law.
California’s supreme court declare it unconstitutional
Californians pass prop 8 to amend their constitution to ban gay marriage
California’s supreme court says there is nothing they can do to overturn this law

Am I right?

Marriage is a legal contract that requires both parties to be able to give valid consent to enter into it. Children below the age of majority, animals, and inanimate objects are not able to give valid consent, therefore they cannot get married.
An adult male or female, gay or straight, is able to give valid consent to enter into a legal contract, and marriage should be no different.

It’s common sense guys jeeze.

Am I right?

Yes.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

My computer has no rights, so why do I need consent?!?!?

Not you, the computer needs to consent. If consent were not an issue, rape and child molestation would be legal. No rational person wants to get rid of consent.

I’m not homophobic………….. You are simply on a witch hunt, you lack reasoning and common sense.

I’m not on a witch hunt, you are. I desire granting equal rights to another group, and you propose keeping those rights from them. Can you tell the difference?

You deceive and misinterpret in many of your points. Here you do both.

Lets take a look at what you said: “If consent were not an issue” When did I EVER FREAKING SAY THAT? caps lock stuck sorry… You lack too many valid argument skills to produce a valid argument. FYI, I said why does consent matter on an object that has no rights; children do FREAKING HAVE RIGHTS… stuck again, but seriously, you bring up NO point yet you try to pass it off as one…

I think that Vanguarde has a point, the fact that the people had enough say in the government to cause prop 8 to be upheld is a good thing. I don’t see prop 8 as a good law, but I when I see the government do what the people want, that’s okay, no matter how evil the law is.. I think that is the point of this thread, more than “prop 8 discussion”

I said why does consent matter on an object that has no rights;

Because a legal contract is not legal or binding unless both parties consent to it. I just explained that.

It looks to me like the right call. The court is there to interpret how constitutional a law is and seeing as it is now written in to their constitution I see no way they could have declared it wrong.

However California may want to look into why it takes only a 52%(or what ever the vote won by) majority to amend their constitution. They kinda dropped the ball there.

You have yet to say one thing verging on the ilk of making sense, pacaholic. Everything you just said applies to your own points, not SaintAjora’s. It’s hard to even figure out what you’re arguing, much less that you’re forming coherent statements.

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

I think that Vanguarde has a point, the fact that the people had enough say in the government to cause prop 8 to be upheld is a good thing. I don’t see prop 8 as a good law, but I when I see the government do what the people want, that’s okay, no matter how evil the law is.. I think that is the point of this thread, more than “prop 8 discussion”

Quick question, did you pass US government in High School?

They are there to interpret how constitutional a law is and seeing as it is now written in to their constitution I see no way the could have declared it wrong.

Circular logic!

You deceive and misinterpret in many of your points.

No, you just don’t understand the words coming out of my mouth.

Lets take a look at what you said: “If consent were not an issue” When did I EVER FREAKING SAY THAT?

At the top of the page. You seem to think things that cannot give consent can be directly compared to things that don’t (i.e. inanimate objects). This is false, and I explained why.

You lack too many valid argument skills to produce a valid argument.

Just because you can’t understand simple concepts does not mean my arguments are not valid. Don’t blame your shortcomings on me.

FYI, I said why does consent matter on an object that has no rights

Consent matters because a legally binding contract requires both parties to give consent. This isn’t rocket science dude.

children do FREAKING HAVE RIGHTS…

But not the right to give consent. See what I mean about you not understanding?

the fact that the people had enough say in the government to cause prop 8 to be upheld is a good thing.

Was it also good when the people had enough say in the government to keep blacks segregated or enslaved?

when I see the government do what the people want, that’s okay, no matter how evil the law is.

So if the people want to kill/enslave/stigmatize/torture all the Jews (or any other group), you are totally cool with that?

They are there to interpret how constitutional a law is and seeing as it is now written in to their constitution I see no way the could have declared it wrong.

You might want to learn what the Supreme Court does, something I explained in the last few pages. Until then please don’t repeat nonsense we have already addressed.

Originally posted by unproductive:

I said why does consent matter on an object that has no rights;

Because a legal contract is not legal or binding unless both parties consent to it. I just explained that.

Let me just remind you people of what my point is… my point has nothing to do with marriage or who should be allowed to marry to whom… My point is that the minority opinion IS NOT ALWAYS REPRESENTED…

With that being said, what if I believe that legal contracts only need consent from the objects/persons capable of consenting???

Once again, my whole point is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everybody’s opinions, views, and perceived rights… Some minority opinions, views, or perceived rights will be opposed on by the majorities…

EDIT: I do not plan on responding to your post saint as one of the reasons you are so difficult to argue with is that youre stubborn and you go off on tangents to confuse the argument, your opponent, and readers. I would rather argue with a wall all night as the wall at least is not purposefully acting stubborn.