California bans same-sex marriage - ban overturned

[Harleyman]

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that because something wins a vote that proves that everyone supports it, so because Obama won it means that everyone in the US must suport him ?

 

Or is the case that out of the small number of people who voted, most of them suported the ban ?

 

Thats how democracy works I know, but you can't draw any conclusion as to what the millions who didn't vote thought about it.

 

It dont matter a fiddler's fart what the people who didn't vote for it thought.

In a democracy you can choose to vote or choose not to vote. If you dont exercise your right to vote then whatever you think is completely irrelevent to the issue

 

I would tell non-voters who whine about the outcome with which they are unhappy is:

 

"Next time get off your lazy a**e and vote. In the meantime live with the outcome"

 

I didn't vote for Obama but for the next four years he is our president and yes I do support him and respect the office he holds.

 

I certainly wont go around crying the blues because McCain didn't win.

 

That's just being petulant and childish

[nick2]

In a democracy we live with what the people vote for or against

 

I agree, but what I'm saying is that you can't claim that everyone agrees with the outcome.

[Harleyman]

I agree, but what I'm saying is that you can't claim that everyone agrees with the outcome.

 

Well that's the way the cookie crumbles aint it?

 

What you cant have is a minority view being forced upon millions of people without them having the right to put in their two cents worth

 

That's just filthy fascism

[nick2]

What you cant have is a minority view being forced upon millions of people

 

Isn't that what has happened though ?

 

A minority (the religious one) has forced it's view and denied another minority something ?

 

The majority of people, not being in either minority group, don't realy care ?

[Harleyman]

Isn't that what has happened though ?

 

A minority (the religious one) has forced it's view and denied another minority something ?

 

The majority of people, not being in either minority group, don't realy care ?

 

C'mon off it! Not everyone who voted for the proposition was a church goer

[plekhanov]

C'mon off it! Not everyone who voted for the proposition was a church goer

A very large proportion of those who gave money to help the Prop 8 campaign spread the lies that you fell for were.

[DeanoGV]

When did I say it wasn't? I just objected to your patently absurd declaration that 'the UK is beyond colour'.

 

 

And this means a catholic pm couldn't possibly be elected within the next 2 decades why exactly?

 

 

Strawman, I never said the UK wasn't broadly tolerant I simply objected to your absurd claim that the 'the UK is beyond colour'.

 

On what possible grounds do you claim that anti-catholicism is more prevalent in the UK than racism? How can you seriously claim that we could elect a black PM tomorrow but not a catholic?

 

Firstly, I object to your name calling " strawman"

 

Furthermore I did not suggest at any time that the UK would only elect a black PM. I used "of race or of mixed race". I really think you should be more consequential in your retorts and stick to the dialogue instead of continuously trying to corner someone. The reason I can claim that a catholic would not be elected PM is because of the fallout and restructuring it would cause and I would expect someone of your abilities to be knowledgeable of this.

[plekhanov]

Firstly, I object to your name calling " strawman"

'Strawman' isn't name calling its a name given to a kind of fallacy you attempted to use in your previous post.

 

Furthermore I did not suggest at any time that the UK would only elect a black PM. I used "of race or of mixed race". I really think you should be more consequential in your retorts and stick to the dialogue instead of continuously trying to corner someone.

I am responding directly to what you said:

 

My point is quite simple: If a candidate of race or mixed race came to the table and he/she was the best person for the job in the eyes of the electorate he/she would be voted in. I think the UK is beyond colour.

 

In terms of religion I can not see a UK P.M being anything other than protestant for at least another 20 years.

 

In a single post you said that 'the UK is beyond colour' and that 'If a candidate of race or mixed race came to the table and he/she was the best person for the job in the eyes of the electorate he/she would be voted in.'

 

You then went on to say "In terms of religion I can not see a UK P.M being anything other than protestant for at least another 20 years.".

 

The clear message there is that you thought we'd elect a non-white PM but not a Catholic one, at least not for another 20 years. Now that might not be what you meant to say but it is what you actually said.

 

The reason I can claim that a catholic would not be elected PM is because of the fallout and restructuring it would cause and I would expect someone of your abilities to be knowledgeable of this.

What 'fallout and restructuring' would this be? So far as I'm aware having a Catholic monarch could be problematic for the structure of the common wealth, I'm aware of no such problems with having a catholic PM.

[DeanoGV]

'Strawman' isn't name calling its a name given to a kind of fallacy you attempted to use in your previous post.

 

 

I am responding directly to what you said:

 

 

 

In a single post you said that 'the UK is beyond colour' and that 'If a candidate of race or mixed race came to the table and he/she was the best person for the job in the eyes of the electorate he/she would be voted in.'

 

You then went on to say "In terms of religion I can not see a UK P.M being anything other than protestant for at least another 20 years.".

 

The clear message there is that you thought we'd elect a non-white PM but not a Catholic one, at least not for another 20 years. Now that might not be what you meant to say but it is what you actually said.

 

 

What 'fallout and restructuring' would this be? So far as I'm aware having a Catholic monarch could be problematic for the structure of the common wealth, I'm aware of no such problems with having a catholic PM.

 

The 1701 Act of Settlement still prohibits British monarchs from being, or marrying, a Catholic. While there is, theoretically, no bar on the Prime Minister being a Catholic, a Catholic Prime Minister is considered to be 'constitutionally awkward' since that office is involved in appointing senior members of the Church of England.

[Antichrist]

A true gay marriage is written across the hearts and time of each partner, not on a piece of paper.. It seems that the us gay scene is only interested in financial recompense if one partner dies and as such is spreading an evil canker throughout the world gay scene, hence the marriages... Love is all that matters nothing else...