Rupert_Baehr Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Obama only expressed his opinion as an ordinary citizen. Some will agree, some will not. Do you think everybody in England would agree if same sex marriage (which Obama goes a point further than just partnerships) becomes a right under the law. Not on your life. The Archbishop of Canterbury would not agree and Her Majesty would "not be amused" although she is not allowed to comment publicly on matter of that sort anyway. The adulterer Charles Windsor might just go for it though Come on, Harleyman - be realistic! Obama is the president of the Untied States - Nobody is going to think that anything he says in public (or in private either for that matter - if they can hear it) is 'the opinion of an ordinary citizen.' Obama is no fool. I've no doubt that he thinks (or his advisors think) that the votes he may lose from the Southern Baptists will be far outweighed by the money he will receive from the 'Lavender league' (notably in California.) Many Southern voters are (apparently) disenchanted with him. They've got votes, but they don't have a lot of cash. I read that his election budget is likely to be in excess of One Billion dollars. Somebody is going to have to put up the money and his comments may loosen a few purse strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 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. But the vote wasn't a reflection of the views of 'the people in America' (Well, yes, the people who voted were in America. they were also in 'the World'. Is this a global opinion then?) Let's keep it in perspective. This was a vote in ONE state in the US. Somebody else (in a much earlier post) commented to the effect that 'the further South you go, the greater the antipathy towards gays. Yeah, Right! A real expert! What's the Southernmost point in the Continental United States? What's the name of that town which has a 'Gay and Lesbian Tourist Information office' but no 'Straight' Tourist Information Office? Which State in the US has the town with the largest percentage of declared Gay residents? The answer to the first 2 is 'Key West' (3.1%)(Comes in at #7) The answer to the 3rd question is 'Florida' (White Manors, 5.4% - Top of the list.) Of course (as everybody on this forum knows) the Southern States in the US are outrageously homophobic.:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Do you think everybody in England would agree if same sex marriage (which Obama goes a point further than just partnerships) becomes a right under the law. Could you name an issue that every citizen of the USA agrees on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfieldz Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 because it's the logical end of the chain you say a state can define it's own laws but who says how big a state can be, who sets the boundaries, why can't it just be one person ? I was showing how silly it was to have a nation comprised of individual states that make their own laws which are different from state to state by taking it to an absurd level Why not create one set of rules for the entire continent of America, or the world to adhere to? Thats the logical end of your chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 But the vote wasn't a reflection of the views of 'the people in America' ... Let's keep it in perspective. This was a vote in ONE state in the US.. Where did I say it was? And I deliberately constructed my sentence to limit it to 'the people in America who voted against it', ie, the people in NC. In the end, this isn't like voting for a town mayor or even a chief of police. It's a vote on something that's deeply personal and that shouldn't even be up for debate in this day and age. You've done a lot of commenting at length, maybe you should take more time on the reading part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Where did I say it was? And I deliberately constructed my sentence to limit it to 'the people in America who voted against it', ie, the people in NC. In the end, this isn't like voting for a town mayor or even a chief of police. It's a vote on something that's deeply personal and that shouldn't even be up for debate in this day and age. You've done a lot of commenting at length, maybe you should take more time on the reading part? There's always a sting in the tail from Ruby.... But if the majority of people want the ban, is it right to let the minority rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 There's always a sting in the tail from Ruby.... But if the majority of people want the ban, is it right to let the minority rule? Yes, in this case it absolutely is. Democracy is not 'lets make every single law that can get a majority vote', the founding fathers of the US spoke out explicitly against that kind of system, John Adams spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' as being something that needed to be guarded against. This not about minorities ruling, this is about not letting the majority deny the rights of the minority. It's exactly the kind of problem the US was set up to avoid. The US was first colonised by people who no longer wanted to be persecuted for belonging to religious minorites. If the majority of people voted that black people shouldn't be allowed to get jobs, then should the minority rule on that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 There's always a sting in the tail from Ruby....I only posts it like I sees it, Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindfieldz Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Yes, in this case it absolutely is. Democracy is not 'lets make every single law that can get a majority vote', the founding fathers of the US spoke out explicitly against that kind of system, John Adams spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' as being something that needed to be guarded against. This not about minorities ruling, this is about not letting the majority deny the rights of the minority. It's exactly the kind of problem the US was set up to avoid. The US was first colonised by people who no longer wanted to be persecuted for belonging to religious minorites. If the majority of people voted that black people shouldn't be allowed to get jobs, then should the minority rule on that one? I'm in agreement with you here, the majority in north Carolina may be against same sex unions but the existence of same sex unions has no effect on this disaproving majority at all, so the concept of majority rule isn't needed here; if however there was a minority issue that would indeed have a detrimental effect on the majority then the majority must get their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 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. What the hell does that have to do with; A) Same sex marriage ? B) Gay people in general ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.