esme Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 ... he is denied ... or she is denied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I like base denial. The Civil War was about federal power. The southern states were being dictated to by the northern ones. And a little matter of the slavery issue besides preserving the union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 And a little matter of the slavery issue besides preserving the union Indeed, but my point stands. Allowing different states to have different laws caused a lot of harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 You don't believe in the right to vote in deciding all issues. If the issue was whether you could marry a wife or not marry a wife then you'd fight against it - it is illiberal. In North Carolina a gay person has no legal right to enter a recognised partnership - he is denied something that affects nobody but himself and his partner. It's so illiberal that it'll go to the highest court in your land. No strawman argument about Britain being rubbish will change that fact. Really it matters not one iota to me if the Supreme Court ever gets to rule one way or another on the issue. It will be decided by a vote among the nine judges and I for one will respect the decison if it goes in favour of gay rights of partnership. That's what democracy is and what votes are for as I've been trying to point out all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Indeed, but my point stands. Allowing different states to have different laws caused a lot of harm. Harm to who Chris, it's been done for ever in most cases, speed limits are different, gun laws are different, jail times are different, penalties are different,even time changes are different, been no problem so far, so why all the fuss over gays ? It's not broken, leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Indeed, but my point stands. Allowing different states to have different laws caused a lot of harm. It hasnt done a damned bit of harm. There never would have been a United States in the first place if the 13 original states had not been allowed to pass certain laws that affected their own jurisdiction. It would have ended up as bits of Canada or colonies of Spain and France administered by bumpkin monarchs or clueless bureaucrats thousands of miles away. Our leaders have sometimes erred but at least they're ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 It's not broken, leave it alone. I'm not touching it. No power to touch it and no desire to touch it. I think you've got a fine system. You've got your own citizens fighting for their right to a legal family if you really want to stop it. There never would have been a United States in the first place if the 13 original states had not been allowed to pass certain laws that affected their own jurisdiction. I'd vastly dispute that it "hasn't done harm". You had a Civil War over this issue. A man was born free in the north and born a slave in the south, all because of his skin colour. That came to an end. I don't agree that the USA would've been a foreign province if it wasn't for federalism. I think in some cases it's perfectly rational; it isn't a purely centralised government. I just think on this one issue that it is inevitable that it'll rise above federal law. Why 99% of Christian Kansas want to interfere with the liberty of a Gay Kansas I have no idea. Not even on a marriage front, on complete legal recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 ... so why all the fuss over gays ? I really can't believe you've posted this ... it takes a lot to shock me, but you've managed it tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Do you really think that only gay people care enough to post about the right for two men or two women to be able to contract a legal union? Call it a civil partnership or a marriage, call it what you like, most people aren't against it in UK. I think the people who voted in America against it were just being perverse and reactionary and I'm really surprised that two ex-Sheffielders are displaying this attitude. When I was young and growing up in Sheffield people got chucked in jail for being homosexual. There was no liberal attitude back then. One of our scoutmasters got kicked out for trying to do things to one of the scouts and when the neighbourhood found out they were mad enough to want to string him up from a street light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Really it matters not one iota to me if the Supreme Court ever gets to rule one way or another on the issue. It will be decided by a vote among the nine judges and I for one will respect the decison if it goes in favour of gay rights of partnership. That's what democracy is and what votes are for as I've been trying to point out all along. It isn't about votes or voting you fool..it's about the issue you're voting for that's a crime. the actual idea that you have a right to vote for or against another person deciding on how he or she should live their lives when that issue alone has no direct or indirect effect on the outcome of your own life or the existence of a collective society. A democratic majoritive vote isn't always necessarily a right vote, let alone the fact it shouldn't be up for a vote in the first place. I guess if it was put to the vote that a father wasn't able to have any contact with his first born you'd just fall into line like the rest of the apathetic voters you defend. You may verbally disregard that reasoning as stupid, but it's no less dense as an analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.