[De Maria]

Hello again, De Maria:

If we lived in a democracy, it WOULDN'T be wrong. But we live in a republic. In a republic, the majority DOESN'T rule. Therefore, you are wrong. I'm sorry to pop your balloon. I guess you were absent for civics 101.

Not quite. In a republic, the majority rules through representatives. In a democracy, the majority rules directly.

After all, it was the will of the people to keep black children out of college in the south. But, it turns out, that even if one little black kid was discriminated against, HIS right NOT to have that happen, EVEN if he's the ONLY one being discriminated against, WILL PREVAIL - NOT "the will of the majority".

You're kind of bypassing a great deal of history aren't you?

For many years, abolitionists suffered ignonimity and violence because they believed that slavery was an evil institution. But, during those years, which I think I could characterize as centuries, the will of the majority was that slavery was necessary.

Only after centuries of protest did was the majority finally swayed to do the right thing and it took a Civil War to put the nail on the coffin of that institution.

I know you either don't understand that, or you don't like that. I don't know which. But, that's the way it is here.

I beg to differ. You either don't know American history or have donned some rather pink shaded eyewear since you have painted our history a rather rosy color.

Therefore, if ONE person, in this great country of ours, is being denied rights that EVERYBODY else has, it doesn't matter that the majority like it that way. What matters is that HIS rights are being violated, this fellow who is a minority of one, and he WILL PREVAIL.

Considering what you've been talking about before, you seem to have shifted context or you didn't communicate what you meant.

If any persons rights are being violated in this country, he has a right to sue for damages.

However, if the majority has not deemed that any particular group has a right, as for instance, the majority in most states have not deemed that homosexuals have a right to marry, then no rights are being violated since no such right yet exists.

Not only is that the way it is. It's the way it should be.

No. And I thank God that the Founders of our nation were as smart as they were to establish a Republic based on representation through democratic principles rather than that strange procedure you've just described.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Choux]

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!

[Fr_Chuck]

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!!

Now is this a same sex cat/person or opposite sex cat/person, that will make a difference

[N0help4u]

Nick or Nicole?
Hmmm I always assumed Nick was a male.

[Credendovidis]

I'm thinking of marrying my cat. Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?

Cat or tomcat ? LOL

:D

[Choux]

A big ole 23 pound Tom-Cat. LOL!

So, I guess it's OK, guys? :D

[N0help4u]

Nah Choux Nick is your son that would be incest
Then again NAMBLA and others say that should be legal too!

[excon]

And I thank God that the Founders of our nation were as smart as they were to establish a Republic based on representation through democratic principles rather than that strange procedure you've just described.

Hello again, De Maria:

That strange procedure is the Bill of Rights. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.

excon

[De Maria]

Hello again, De Maria:

That strange procedure is the Bill of Rights.

By strange procedure I meant your idea that each individual can decide what are his rights all by himself.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.

Excon

I've heard of it. The Bill of Rights contains amendments to the Constitution. You might want to read how our representatives voted for these amendments.

Article. V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The reason they added these amendments, which we call the Bill of Rights, is because otherwise, it would be deemed that we didn't have these rights.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[excon]

Hello again:

You're trying to slipppp around again. I did NOT say that he can decide for himself. I just didn't. I didn't say anything even REMOTELY like that..

But, as it turns out, I'm tired of such silly games. I love a good intellectual discussion. However, continually correcting you about what I said, isn't stimulating at all. You aren't capable of laying out competing ideas. You don't want to argue the merits of your case (because you have none), so instead you just misquote what was said, thereby trying to change the subject and slip away unscathed...

So, if you can't understand what I say, and I am VERY articulate and I write the kings English EXTREMELY well, then we don't have anything to talk about any more. After all, I have no trouble being understood by even the dullest reader. If you can step up to the intellectual plate, we can continue. But, I don't play in the bush league.

excon

[Credendovidis]

But, I don't play in the bush league.

Heeeeh : what has George W to do with this all ?
But you got me thinking : there are indeed similarities between his level of thinking/argumentation and that by SasT and DeM...

:D

·

[Synnen]

I view marriage as a religious institution, sponsored by the states.

I have no objection to same sex partners having the same rights regarding property, insurance, or things like being "next of kin" or "family" when it comes to things like hospital visitations and in allowing them to inherit estates just as a normal spouse would.

I just don't think it is proper to call it a marriage, I think that is reserved for a man and a woman, to be united in the eyes of God. Call it a Civil Union if you like, I have no problem with that.

Hey Ex, nice civics lesson, well stated, and totally accurate!

What would you call it then? And how would you differentiate?

So... ONLY marriages sanctioned by the church would be called "marriage", and the rest "civil unions"?

How about the fact that my religion has no problem with same sex marriage, and would "marry" homosexuals... would they then have the right to call it "marriage", since it was performed by a church? And then--would those couples who got married in the courthouse, in a civil ceremony--would they be called "civil unions" with "partners" instead of "husbands" and "wives", regardless of the genders of those involved in the civil union?

In other words--if the only difference is whether it's done in a church, then it should be the SAME for all "church marriages" and all "civil unions". Anything else would be discrimination.

[Synnen]

Btw, my wife and I could not get married in a Baptist church because we both have been divorced. Church / biblical rule. We respect that, we did not get a state supreme court to make the church marry us. ;)

But I bet you found a church that would do it, right? Either that, or you had a courthouse wedding---a "civil union". How would you like it if you couldn't get all the rights and privileges you GET for being married--including other people respecting that institution (how many married men/women have been able to tell someone hitting on them to buzz off because they were married, and therefore not interested?)--were denied to you simply because you had to get married in a courthouse, and therefore couldn't call it marriage?

It just seems like a double standard for me. I have no problem with respecting the church's right not to recognize those marriages, or perform the marriage ceremony for anyone at all they don't feel should be "blessed" with the sanctity of marriage. What I have a problem with is that there ARE religions willing to perform and recognize those ceremonies, but are not allowed to because of civil laws.

If the state said that NO divorced person could get married because there were a lot of churches out there that don't believe that divorced people can get married--how would you feel about that?

I'm not belittling your marriage at all--please understand that I'm just pointing out that your marriage is a perfect example of why the church definition of marriage and the state definition--at least as far as who is allowed to be married--differ.

[Synnen]

I'm thinking of marrying my cat.

[Oh, where will it all end, Billy Bob?]

LOL!!

Your cat can not give consent.

Homosexual couples ARE able to give consent to each other. Same with polygamous marriages.

"Consenting Adults" is a pretty important phrase to keep in mind here.