• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DC approves same-sex marriage law

And if we had depended on backwards rednecks to decide slavery, whether blacks and whites should marry, integration and women's rights. I'd be working a cotton field and you'd be getting lynched. Tyranny of the masses isn't always that great of an idea.

Black ministers and the former Mayor of DC are the tyranny of the masses? What a trite yet uninformed comment; but typical for you to race bait the issue.

Right now the Black Ministers and citizens of DC are in an outrage and assaulting the DC City Hall over this issue.

So now we have a tiny minority who, through the use of outrageous fear tactics, convinced judges and State Legislatures that the will of the people mean nothing, that religious principle means nothing and that regardless of the voters will, they are going to shove this view down everyone's throats whether they like it or not.

Welcome to the PC Community Organization of the United States of America people; where the will of tiny pockets of minorities desires and intolerance trumps those of the majority.
 
So now we have a tiny minority who, through the use of outrageous fear tactics, convinced judges and State Legislatures that the will of the people mean nothing, that religious principle means nothing and that regardless of the voters will, they are going to shove this view down everyone's throats whether they like it or not.
.

Is any one being forced into a gay marriage or even forced to attended a gay marriage?
 
Black ministers and the former Mayor of DC are the tyranny of the masses? What a trite yet uninformed comment; but typical for you to race bait the issue.

Right now the Black Ministers and citizens of DC are in an outrage and assaulting the DC City Hall over this issue.

So now we have a tiny minority who, through the use of outrageous fear tactics, convinced judges and State Legislatures that the will of the people mean nothing, that religious principle means nothing and that regardless of the voters will, they are going to shove this view down everyone's throats whether they like it or not.

Welcome to the PC Community Organization of the United States of America people; where the will of tiny pockets of minorities desires and intolerance trumps those of the majority.
I'd like to know how much manual labor Hatuey has ever had to do. From his pic, he looks like too much of a ***** to pick cotton. He needs to stop bellyaching about things he knows nothing about. Ask him if I walked through south central LA, who would be doing the lynching. Was [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Denny_incident"]Reginald Denny [/ame]down there trying to lynch someone?
 
Last edited:
Is any one being forced into a gay marriage or even forced to attended a gay marriage?

What a trite analogy; so you think that this is about being forced into a gay marriage?

Here's a more valid question; why is it so imperative to re-define marriage for the sake of the gay community?

Why is a civil union not sufficient to satisfy the desire for two same sex people to commit themselves and their assets?

The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face; this is not about civil rights but about a tiny intolerant minority forcing its views on society for the express purpose of eroding the principles of what constitutes a family.

The FACT is that it really does not take a village or two moms or two dads to raise healthy NORMAL children, it really does take a mom and a dad and the religious principles that hold the family together and teach them right from wrong.
 
I'd like to know how much manual labor Hatuey has ever had to do. From his pic, he looks like too much of a ***** to pick cotton. He needs to stop bellyaching about things he knows nothing about. Ask him if I walked through south central LA, who would be doing the lynching. Was Reginald Denny down there trying to lynch someone?

American, although Hatuey's race baiting can be offensive and over the top, I think it is a bad idea to derail this thread further with issues that have nothing to do with the thread topic and will only lead to infractions.

Don't let Hatuey's offensive race baiting bait you into an infraction; he really is hardly worth the effort dude.
 
I wouldn't be too sure about the people of DC being opposed to gay marriage. Two of their coucelpeople are gay, and it is one of the most liberal cities in the country. Plus, their democratically elected councilpeople and mayor are almost all for gay marriage, minus one guy who happens to be a piece of scum (unrelated).

The real question is, can this get past Congress? In a country where some 60% of the popluation is against gay marriage, congresspeople might have trouble voting against the opinion of their constituents.
 
I think Scalia is the only current member of the court who is a definite "no" vote.

I don't think Thomas has ever voted differently that Scalia and Alito also seems to see how Scalia is going to vote before he decides on issues.
 
You are talking about tyranny of the minority. Last time I checked, Lincoln was elected by somewhat of a majority. So, really, according to results, the majority was right in that decision.

Guess what the majority wants now? :roll:

This is childish reasoning. By your logic it was perfectly fine and morally correct to own a slave BEFORE Lincoln was elected. After all, the majority wanted to have them before he showed up. Blacks must not have evolved enough before Lincoln, huh? You can't have it both ways, either we protect the rights for all and truly share liberty and freedom or we just admit that American morals are based not on spiritual or inner guidance but by mob rule.
 
This is childish reasoning. By your logic it was perfectly fine and morally correct to own a slave BEFORE Lincoln was elected. After all, the majority wanted to have them before he showed up. Blacks must not have evolved enough before Lincoln, huh? You can't have it both ways, either we protect the rights for all and truly share liberty and freedom or we just admit that American morals are based not on spiritual or inner guidance but by mob rule.
If you have such a narrow-minded view, of that logic, of course it doesn't work.
Historically, the majority just didn't care enough prior to Lincoln. If you look at the culture of the time period, slavery was just an issue that just wasn't talked about on casual terms, like today. Therfore, "majority opinion" was not applicable, because the majority didn't have an opinion. It wasn't untill Lincoln(actually, Webster first, but I won't get started with him) made it an issue that people took sides and, based on results, we got the desireable outcome.

So yea, you would be right if you looked at it with such a narrow view and disregarded the big picture.
 
I thought you didn't care? A tad disingenuous, I would say. :roll:

If you have such a narrow-minded view, of that logic, of course it doesn't work.
Historically, the majority just didn't care enough prior to Lincoln. If you look at the culture of the time period, slavery was just an issue that just wasn't talked about on casual terms, like today. Therfore, "majority opinion" was not applicable, because the majority didn't have an opinion. It wasn't untill Lincoln(actually, Webster first, but I won't get started with him) made it an issue that people took sides and, based on results, we got the desireable outcome.

So yea, you would be right if you looked at it with such a narrow view and disregarded the big picture.


:roll:

Fine, I suppose I'm going to have to simplify this for you since you are CLEARLY trying to dodge the point of my post:

When the US was founded slavery was popular and legal. Therefore Black's must not have been evolved enough to be considered human when our country was founded BUT later they evolved and the majority started to detest it. Don't want to ruffle your precious feathers though so BEFORE they voted on it, and BEFORE the majority decided to change their opinions on the matter, THEN blacks weren't the same as whites. Does that follow your backwards logic close enough?

Admit it, your original reasoning was flawed. Trying to defend flawed logic isn't admirable, its asinine.
 
:roll:

Fine, I suppose I'm going to have to simplify this for you since you are CLEARLY trying to dodge the point of my post:

When the US was founded slavery was popular and legal. Therefore Black's must not have been evolved enough to be considered human when our country was founded BUT later they evolved and the majority started to detest it. Don't want to ruffle your precious feathers though so BEFORE they voted on it, and BEFORE the majority decided to change their opinions on the matter, THEN blacks weren't the same as whites. Does that follow your backwards logic close enough?

Admit it, your original reasoning was flawed. Trying to defend flawed logic isn't admirable, its asinine.
prove that. And, no, don't just say "in the south". Nationwide, prove that it was popular, at least more popular than the abolition movements.
 
:roll:

Fine, I suppose I'm going to have to simplify this for you since you are CLEARLY trying to dodge the point of my post:

When the US was founded slavery was popular and legal. Therefore Black's must not have been evolved enough to be considered human when our country was founded BUT later they evolved and the majority started to detest it. Don't want to ruffle your precious feathers though so BEFORE they voted on it, and BEFORE the majority decided to change their opinions on the matter, THEN blacks weren't the same as whites. Does that follow your backwards logic close enough?

Admit it, your original reasoning was flawed. Trying to defend flawed logic isn't admirable, its asinine.

Mind telling me what my quote was doing in that diatribe of yours? Do you even know the context of it?

By the by, what ARE you trying to say in that mess above. :roll:
 
Mind telling me what my quote was doing in that diatribe of yours? Do you even know the context of it?

By the by, what ARE you trying to say in that mess above. :roll:

What I'm saying is that MUST have been the argument for not allowing them the same rights as everyone else. (No that is not MY belief, its freaking ludicrous, but that was the thinking back then) You get my point. Basically the majority didn't want to give blacks the same rights so we said screw it. That doesn't make it right, nor does the fact that the majority MAY be against gay marriage, it doesn't make it right. Human rights are human rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm not sure if that made any more sense. :)
 
prove that. And, no, don't just say "in the south". Nationwide, prove that it was popular, at least more popular than the abolition movements.

So you are proposing that people were forced to own slaves? If they believed that it was wrong then why did they do it? Obviously they didn't believe it really if they did it.
 
So you are proposing that people were forced to own slaves? If they believed that it was wrong then why did they do it? Obviously they didn't believe it really if they did it.
WRONG


Please, please, please, read my post again. Obviously you didn't read. My idea of "majority opinion" does not apply because the majority of people had NO OPINION on slavery at the time. prior to the 1800's, the only people that cared about slavery were the slaver owners; therefore, they had their way untill someone in the north actually thought about slavery as an issue.

Gay marriage is different, most people have an opiniion, and lo and behold, it's against gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
:roll:

Fine, I suppose I'm going to have to simplify this for you since you are CLEARLY trying to dodge the point of my post:

When the US was founded slavery was popular and legal. Therefore Black's must not have been evolved enough to be considered human when our country was founded BUT later they evolved and the majority started to detest it. Don't want to ruffle your precious feathers though so BEFORE they voted on it, and BEFORE the majority decided to change their opinions on the matter, THEN blacks weren't the same as whites. Does that follow your backwards logic close enough?

Admit it, your original reasoning was flawed. Trying to defend flawed logic isn't admirable, its asinine.

Why are so many people so ignorant of the fact that the Founding Fathers KNEW that the Union was imperfect when they created it and HAD to make many concessions just to get this damn place started?

It's funny: Slavery didn't start in America, but it sure ENDED in America.
 
Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the others that have been tried.
(Churchill if I'm not mistaken.)

Good thing we're a Republic then...:doh
 
Gay marriage is different, most people have an opiniion, and lo and behold, it's against gay marriage.

Majority opinion is a funny thing, isn't it?

In 1968 only 20 percent of Americans polled were accepting of marriage between couples of different races, but a June 2004 Gallup survey revealed that 73 percent of Americans approved of marriages between whites and African-Americans.
Interracial Marriage

Opposition to interracial marriage was stronger in the 1960s than opposition to gay marriage is today.

I think most of us would say we've made progress.

;)
 
Majority opinion is a funny thing, isn't it?

Interracial Marriage

Opposition to interracial marriage was stronger in the 1960s than opposition to gay marriage is today.

I think most of us would say we've made progress.

;)
So your saying majority opinion changes? No argument there.

Although, I would like the actual poll, rather than just a cop-out. Like, how many people disapproved of it at the time?
 
So your saying majority opinion changes? No argument there.

Although, I would like the actual poll, rather than just a cop-out. Like, how many people disapproved of it at the time?

Here's the polling data from Gallup.

Do you believe the majority of Americans were correct in 1958 in their opinion on interracial marriage? Or was it possible they were misguided?

pr070816i.gif
Polling data.

:doh
 
Here's the polling data from Gallup.

Do you believe the majority of Americans were correct in 1958 in their opinion on interracial marriage? Or was it possible they were misguided?

pr070816i.gif
Polling data.

:doh

Huh. Interesting poll.

I guess that's just one flaw of democracy that nobody's been able to fix though. It wouldn't be any better if there were some sort of elite class looking over the population, since pretty much everyone has an equal capacity to be misguided, even if it's on different issues with different people.

It's also interesting to note that, as far as I can tell, there's less people in 1958 who support interracial marriage than the black population- which means both races must have been equally opposed to it.
 
Last edited:
It's funny: Slavery didn't start in America, but it sure ENDED in America.

Abolition:
England 1833
America 1863

Technically I suppose you are correct that slavery IN AMERICA ended, but if you were implying that somehow America ended or even was a major factor in the beginning of the abolitionist movement is just wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom