NV Senator comes out as gay

clownboy said:

Because most of your fellow mob members rather like being able to submit legislation for a direct vote of the people. Sounds like you're against the initiative process. You also against citizens petitioning their government?

There's another wonderful thing about this union of states we have, there are states where the initiative process is not in place.

Click to expand...

Petitioning their government to subdue their fellow citizens who are not dangerous? Absolutely. Democracy is vile when it reaches this point. It's nothing more than mobocracy.

Fiddytree said:

Petitioning their government to subdue their fellow citizens who are not dangerous? Absolutely. Democracy is vile when it reaches this point. It's nothing more than mobocracy.

Click to expand...

Well then, as I said, it's a good thing you have plenty of states to live in where you don't have quite so much democracy. The right of citizens to petition their government was held as a base principle by all the framers.

clownboy said:

Well then, as I said, it's a goos thing you have plenty of states to live in where you don't have quite so much democracy. The right of citizens to petition their government was held as a base principle by all the framers.

Click to expand...

A large number of the framers and the subsequent generation also held the principle that one ought to distrust the desires and political impulses of the masses, and that they do not want to be swayed by them, for it is injurious to good governance. Democracy was a vile thing to many of them.

I wonder if the rest of the senate will come out as idiots?

Fiddytree said:

A large number of the framers and the subsequent generation also held the principle that one ought to distrust the desires and political impulses of the masses, and that they do not want to be swayed by them, for it is injurious to good governance.

Click to expand...

Indeed, many of those of like mind also believed the people should play no part in the election of senators or the POTUS. Their take on the matter largely failed.

For anyone confused by my earlier post, the Mob I was referring to was the Mafia, not the citizenry.

clownboy said:

Indeed, many of those of like mind also believed the people should play no part in the election of senators or the POTUS. Their take on the matter largely failed.

Click to expand...

Indeed, much of it failed, but much of it remained, thank goodness. Liberalism's worst excesses demonstrated itself in populist democracy. In this instance, it is the populist right that has been seduced by liberalism's worst excess.

shlunka said:

I wonder if the rest of the senate will come out as idiots?

Click to expand...

That has already been proven.

clownboy said:

Because most of your fellow mob members rather like being able to submit legislation for a direct vote of the people. Sounds like you're against the initiative process. You also against citizens petitioning their government?

There's another wonderful thing about this union of states we have, there are states where the initiative process is not in place.

Click to expand...

Personally, I am very much against the initiative process because I honestly believe people in large numbers are stupid. They don't understand law, or how the system works and end up screwing up that system just because they want a direct say. We were not set up as a direct democracy, but as a republic. Republics have representatives for a reason and those representatives should not be overridden by mobs who don't really know what's going on.

Fisher said:

I have never figured out why people have to have some big dramatic coming out. The same people who have to pronounce to the world they are gay are usually the same ones who say crap like "it is none of your business who I sleep with". As long as they can give legal consent and don't share your DNA, I don't care who you sit in a tree with K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Click to expand...

In this case, it was him hearing a bunch of his fellow legislators talk vile things about people like him. He was tired of it. It happens all the time. People will only take so much trash talk, then they start standing up for themselves.

It is no different than a person who holds certain beliefs, but that keeps those beliefs private and then has to listen to others talk trash about those beliefs in front of them because they don't know that the other person holds those beliefs. It is a good way to teach people a little humility and discretion.

Fisher said:

I have never figured out why people have to have some big dramatic coming out. The same people who have to pronounce to the world they are gay are usually the same ones who say crap like "it is none of your business who I sleep with". As long as they can give legal consent and don't share your DNA, I don't care who you sit in a tree with K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Click to expand...

It is a huge deal. How do you just come home to mom and dad with a same sex lover or partner? Many times LGBTQ kids are rejected. Heterosexuals don't get that part. You walk in with an opposite sex partner and no one blinks. So yeah there is a coming out because the person coming out has to deal with all the fall out.

Fisher said:

I have never figured out why people have to have some big dramatic coming out. The same people who have to pronounce to the world they are gay are usually the same ones who say crap like "it is none of your business who I sleep with". As long as they can give legal consent and don't share your DNA, I don't care who you sit in a tree with K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

Click to expand...

I tend to view homosexuality a fad, much for this reason.

It seems less about genuine affection for same sex then being caught up in an ultra liberal brand of politics.

I'm not saying all gays are doing it because it's currently the cool thing to do in liberal circles but I think most do.

roguenuke said:

Personally, I am very much against the initiative process because I honestly believe people in large numbers are stupid. They don't understand law, or how the system works and end up screwing up that system just because they want a direct say. We were not set up as a direct democracy, but as a republic. Republics have representatives for a reason and those representatives should not be overridden by mobs who don't really know what's going on.

Click to expand...

If you think the masses are too stupid then why settle for a republic? A benevolent dictatorship is what you desire with you being just another of the stupid masses.

I suspect you're only against the initiative process because the voting majority usually decides against what you want personally. And why would you trust your own opinion, being part of the stupid masses and all?

roguenuke said:

In this case, it was him hearing a bunch of his fellow legislators talk vile things about people like him. He was tired of it. It happens all the time. People will only take so much trash talk, then they start standing up for themselves.

It is no different than a person who holds certain beliefs, but that keeps those beliefs private and then has to listen to others talk trash about those beliefs in front of them because they don't know that the other person holds those beliefs. It is a good way to teach people a little humility and discretion.

Click to expand...

Meh, he's a politician and was running for office the same election where the public voted this into the state's constitution. There's a few possible reasons why he wouldn't have spoken out at the time, the most obvious of which (Occam's Razor) is that it wasn't to his political advantage to do so. Now he feels it is. We'll see if he was right come the next election.

clownboy said:

If you think the masses are too stupid then why settle for a republic? A benevolent dictatorship is what you desire with you being just another of the stupid masses.

I suspect you're only against the initiative process because the voting majority usually decides against what you want personally. And why would you trust your own opinion, being part of the stupid masses and all?

Click to expand...

You would be wrong. I am against the initiative process because there a many times when it causes huge budgeting problems within states, especially California. For example, many things will get put on the ballot in CA for the government to pay for, but then the legislature is stuck deciding how it gets paid for because the only reason it got approved was because of stupid people who can't budget their own finances let alone an entire state's. (And I don't even vote or pay taxes here in CA, despite living here.)

clownboy said:

Meh, he's a politician and was running for office the same election where the public voted this into the state's constitution. There's a few possible reasons why he wouldn't have spoken out at the time, the most obvious of which (Occam's Razor) is that it wasn't to his political advantage to do so. Now he feels it is. We'll see if he was right come the next election.

Click to expand...

We'll see, but I'm betting that it won't matter since it has been 10 years since that ban was voted into office. Logic tells us that public opinion has very likely moved in that state, as it has across the country, to being much more accepting of same sex marriage and homosexuality.

roguenuke said:

You would be wrong. I am against the initiative process because there a many times when it causes huge budgeting problems within states, especially California. For example, many things will get put on the ballot in CA for the government to pay for, but then the legislature is stuck deciding how it gets paid for because the only reason it got approved was because of stupid people who can't budget their own finances let alone an entire state's. (And I don't even vote or pay taxes here in CA, despite living here.)

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that, if the masses are too stupid to participate in governing themselves that means YOU, being one of said masses, are in the same boat. So, how can you rely upon your own opinions regarding governance?

clownboy said:

Doesn't change the fact that, if the masses are too stupid to participate in governing themselves that means YOU, being one of said masses, are in the same boat. So, how can you rely upon your own opinions regarding governance?

Click to expand...

It is a matter of large groups of people being stupid, not individuals. Individuals can be smart, but a group is limited by its dumbest members.

An ideal setup would include a group who was highly intelligent leading the masses, but ideals are never reality. One of the next best things is to elect people to represent your ideas to the best extent possible and put precautions in place, such as the Constitution and a system of checks and balances, to try to ensure that they do what is best for the people as much as possible and limit how much power they are able to actually have. It isn't perfect and obviously has flaws, but there are so many more flaws in allowing people to vote directly for laws and bills that they have no idea about or how they work. At least elected officials have some clue, or they gain a little, about how laws and our government works. Many voters don't.

The thing is, if you are in a minority and you let those uninformed and without any impact on their lives, decide what happens to you, it frequently turns out that they would rapidly override anything resembling Constitutional or legislative interpretation as it exists, or more specifically, would engage in activities to further restrict those minorities. Ever since I was a kid I was under pressure by my peers and the adults around me, to justify legal rights granted to me by Federal Law and the Supreme Court. It was damn near the presumption that my, or my family's civil rights, should not exist. Even on an individual level here, it is amazing how often I get into conversations with average Joe about my rights, that apparently don't exist. Their platitudes about "taxpayer's money" and "the people" purposefully rhetorically undermine damn near most of the established civil rights I gained in the late 20th century. I am very much glad that my minority group is subject to less democratic measures than homosexuals are. I couldn't imagine having the ADA if "the people" had control over it. That was why the organizations purposefully did not seek popular approval: it wasn't worth it at the time and it would only undermine the success of the bill. It is damn unfortunate that homosexuals have to deal with this democratic impulse of the masses holding them back from legal protections and equality. Although the converse has also been true, a great ally for minorities over the past couple of generations has been the Supreme Court: the oligarchic branch.