See Namdnal Siroj Post #508 "Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example."
This is why America is a democratic republic dummy. The people are in-charge of the officials. the Officials civic duty is to support the interests of the society.
See Namdnal Siroj Post #508 "Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example."
Ok, that's one definition. And that's fine but that's not the only definition. And actually, if you're electing people to vote for you it's called a representative democracy not a democracy. So, no, the US doesn't have a "true" democracy but it's still very much a majority rules society and that is what democracy is about.
"1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority"
Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I assumed as you said that you were voting in Arizona, you would not also be allowed to do so in California. And you did say that this debate should be restricted to registered Californian voters, did you not?
As I say I am not an expert in the US political process, merely a keen and interested observer, as are many European Socialists.
What ridiculous nonsense.
Gay marriage has been allowed in many countries for many years and there has never been any question of extending it in the way that you suggest. That this is the level of debate to which you are prepared to stoop, just proves how irrational your objections are.
I have been, and will again be a registered voter in California, or Arizona, depending on my residence at any given time. You, OTOH, will never be either.
What frosts you is that European socialism has no say in this matter. I really could not care less about how you treat gay marriage, my only concern is how we treat it. You secularists are pretty much all alike, wrong!
You do realize that's not the only time the winner wasn't the true democratic winner right? I mean, Bill Clinton never got 50%...
Oh I do. The same is true here in the UK. The winning party rarely gets close to 50%, the current government received only 35% of votes cast (22% of the electorate) in 2005.
I was simply pointing out that 'Democracy' does not necessarily mean 'Majority'
Solopism, you're showing your ignorance of the modern Morman's postion on polygamy
That may be the church's "modern day" stance, but it wasn't that long ago that the Church felt differently about the subject, and it's because the US Gov't opened up a can of whoop ass on the church that the official practice stopped. But one of the main reasons for the Western Migration to Utah was based on polygamy, so forgive me if I don't feel that a 20th century abolition of a religious practice because of a government's strong arm means that the fundamentals of the church have actually changed even if they do publicly excommunicate members for the practice.
Fairness should rule. Their are a lot of members of this minority.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
That may be the church's "modern day" stance, but it wasn't that long ago that the Church felt differently about the subject, and it's because the US Gov't opened up a can of whoop ass on the church that the official practice stopped. But one of the main reasons for the Western Migration to Utah was based on polygamy, so forgive me if I don't feel that a 20th century abolition of a religious practice because of a government's strong arm means that the fundamentals of the church have actually changed.
We used to have slavery here too, but it's also been abolished, and plays no role in modern society.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
No, you will not have to marry someone of the same gender.
Comments
I must be missing your point because that's the basis of Democracy, majority rules...
Try telling that to Al Gore and the Americans who voted for him
See Namdnal Siroj Post #508 "Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example."
This is why America is a democratic republic dummy. The people are in-charge of the officials. the Officials civic duty is to support the interests of the society.
See Namdnal Siroj Post #508 "Democracy in practice and concept is not about doing what the majority thinks should be done.
It's about how to delegate power. About the people voting for representatives to rule them. About mediating different views.
For these and other reasons, democracy has safeguards built in so that minorities are not "enslaved" as in the example."
Ok, that's one definition. And that's fine but that's not the only definition. And actually, if you're electing people to vote for you it's called a representative democracy not a democracy. So, no, the US doesn't have a "true" democracy but it's still very much a majority rules society and that is what democracy is about.
"1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Try telling that to Al Gore and the Americans who voted for him
You do realize that's not the only time the winner wasn't the true democratic winner right? I mean, Bill Clinton never got 50%...
I meant that the minority, gays in this case, are trying to force their views on the majority. Sorry if I was too cryptic.
Just like those uppity Negroes did back in the 50's and 60's
Try telling that to Al Gore and the Americans who voted for him
Evidently you're unaware that there were SEVERAL recounts of the 2000 Florida vote since that election, and Gore lost every one of them!
Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I assumed as you said that you were voting in Arizona, you would not also be allowed to do so in California. And you did say that this debate should be restricted to registered Californian voters, did you not?
As I say I am not an expert in the US political process, merely a keen and interested observer, as are many European Socialists.
What ridiculous nonsense.
Gay marriage has been allowed in many countries for many years and there has never been any question of extending it in the way that you suggest. That this is the level of debate to which you are prepared to stoop, just proves how irrational your objections are.
I have been, and will again be a registered voter in California, or Arizona, depending on my residence at any given time. You, OTOH, will never be either.
What frosts you is that European socialism has no say in this matter. I really could not care less about how you treat gay marriage, my only concern is how we treat it. You secularists are pretty much all alike, wrong!
I meant that the minority, gays in this case, are trying to force their views on the majority. Sorry if I was too cryptic.
Fairness should rule. There are a lot of members of this minority.
You do realize that's not the only time the winner wasn't the true democratic winner right? I mean, Bill Clinton never got 50%...
Oh I do. The same is true here in the UK. The winning party rarely gets close to 50%, the current government received only 35% of votes cast (22% of the electorate) in 2005.
I was simply pointing out that 'Democracy' does not necessarily mean 'Majority'
Just like those uppity Negroes did back in the 50's and 60's
I see, you aren't able to see a difference between racism and gay marriage. That means that I've been having a conversation with a fool. Adios.
Solopism, you're showing your ignorance of the modern Morman's postion on polygamy
That may be the church's "modern day" stance, but it wasn't that long ago that the Church felt differently about the subject, and it's because the US Gov't opened up a can of whoop ass on the church that the official practice stopped. But one of the main reasons for the Western Migration to Utah was based on polygamy, so forgive me if I don't feel that a 20th century abolition of a religious practice because of a government's strong arm means that the fundamentals of the church have actually changed even if they do publicly excommunicate members for the practice.
Fairness should rule. Their are a lot of members of this minority.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
Evidently you're unaware that there were SEVERAL recounts of the 2000 Florida vote since that election, and Gore lost every one of them!
Who mentioned Florida?
I was referring to the fact that in terms of the popular vote, Al Gore received half a million more votes than George Bush.
That may be the church's "modern day" stance, but it wasn't that long ago that the Church felt differently about the subject, and it's because the US Gov't opened up a can of whoop ass on the church that the official practice stopped. But one of the main reasons for the Western Migration to Utah was based on polygamy, so forgive me if I don't feel that a 20th century abolition of a religious practice because of a government's strong arm means that the fundamentals of the church have actually changed.
We used to have slavery here too, but it's also been abolished, and plays no role in modern society.
A lot? How about 5%? That doesn't qualify as a lot in my dictionary. It's a very small minority. Your idea of fairness is that the 5% should holds sway over the 95%. Brilliant..................not!
No, you will not have to marry someone of the same gender.
No, you will not have to marry someone of the same gender.
Here, there will be no marriages between the same gender, period.
I see, you aren't able to see a difference between racism and gay marriage. That means that I've been having a conversation with a fool. Adios.
My response was a retort to the point that minorities shouldn't influence majorities.
And if you didn't get that, then more fool you.
Here, there will be no marriages between the same gender, period.
"And this too shall pass"
" How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!"
Abraham Lincoln 1859
I applaud Apple and Google for their public opposition to California's Prop 8.
I object to the use of shareholder's money for this purpose. Next!