skinz Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 How could you possibly have misunderstood me? how can I be more explicit than "No, that's not at all what I'm saying." ? Or are you just trolling me now? How could legal recognition of same sex partnerships (be it marriage or something else) possibly be tyranny of the minority? It changes absolutely nothing for the majority, they would be completely unaffected, the only people who it would affect would be the minority. I think they would..they would never be able to logically defend that belief..but none the less they would. Fire, brimstone and all that codswallop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 How could you possibly have misunderstood me? how can I be more explicit than "No, that's not at all what I'm saying." ? Or are you just trolling me now? How could legal recognition of same sex partnerships (be it marriage or something else) possibly be tyranny of the minority? It changes absolutely nothing for the majority, they would be completely unaffected, the only people who it would affect would be the minority. It is by definition tyranny of the minority you are advocating the arbitrary negation of the democratic majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 How could you possibly have misunderstood me? how can I be more explicit than "No, that's not at all what I'm saying." ? Or are you just trolling me now? How could legal recognition of same sex partnerships (be it marriage or something else) possibly be tyranny of the minority? It changes absolutely nothing for the majority, they would be completely unaffected, the only people who it would affect would be the minority. You have the same problem as skinz. You dont have a clue on how state's rights and laws work within the federal system of government. Half the time I think you people equate a US state as being something similar to an English county Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 While were at it let's screw a few other sections of society through the back door via the amendment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-passes-amendment-1 "Legal experts have warned that the broad wording of the amendment could cause a host of problems for unmarried couples. Several North Carolina municipalities provide benefits to unmarried couples in domestic partnerships and lawyers have told the Guardian those rights could be lost if the amendment is passed. They say it could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples and impact victims of domestic violence. The term "domestic legal union" is not defined by North Carolina law. Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, who has written extensively on the implications of Amendment 1, said: "The language is very broad compared to other states. It is a common misconception that it would only affect same-sex marriage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 It is by definition tyranny of the minorityNo it isn't, at all. You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care what the minority who are being denied their rights by this law voted, they don't get to decide anything, they are not making any laws or doing anything at all, they do not have control over the majority and could not possibly be described as being tyrannical. you are advocating the arbitrary negation of the democratic majority.No I'm not, do you even know what arbitrary means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 While were at it let's screw a few other sections of society through the back door via the amendment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-passes-amendment-1 "Legal experts have warned that the broad wording of the amendment could cause a host of problems for unmarried couples. Several North Carolina municipalities provide benefits to unmarried couples in domestic partnerships and lawyers have told the Guardian those rights could be lost if the amendment is passed. They say it could disrupt protection orders for unmarried couples and impact victims of domestic violence. The term "domestic legal union" is not defined by North Carolina law. Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina, who has written extensively on the implications of Amendment 1, said: "The language is very broad compared to other states. It is a common misconception that it would only affect same-sex marriage." If there are enough legal arguments to support a reversal of the vote it could go for debate in the State Supreme Court and that's where the lawyers and judges get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 They dont believe in the right to vote simply put.?!? Who doesn't? No-one on this thread has expressed that sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I always know when I've made a post that completely stumps you, because that's when you evade and move on to the next topic, usually picking up on some single sentence someone within one of my posts, this time you appear to have chosen to extrapolate based entirely on your imagination, kudos. Yeah like I know nothing of how the law works here. I may not be a walking bloody encyclopedia on the subject,,, far from it but what you think you know about how states rights relate to federal government i've forgotten' You see everything in black and white and that is always your problem whether it be religion or politics. What I explained to you in my last post has everything to do with what happened in North Carolina. I have no more patience to explain any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 ?!? Who doesn't? No-one on this thread has expressed that sentiment. Only the sentiment that voters are idiots because they didnt vote exactly how you would have wanted them to and are therefore a bunch of ignorant rednecks. What a snotty, superior attitude. People like you would make good Emperors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Yeah like I know nothing of how the law works here..Not What I said, just that you're assumptions about me are incorrect and that you completely ignored all of my substantive points, which remains true. You see everything in black and white and that is always your problem whether it be religion or politics.Are you kidding me? That is hilarious! Is this really coming from the guy who about 10 minutes ago assumed that I'm against the right to vote altogether after voicing my opinions on the problems of direct democracy (which incidentally were shared by the founding fathers of the USA)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.