Minoritarian politics gone too far?

[Al B. Sure!]

Chegitz:

Exactly but how the law is today, abortions are allowed on a demand basis... this does not change anything. a significant majority are against this yet it still is allowed.

I understand the whole issue of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority but i think we're taking minority rights a little too far here... there is no reason why the law should be opposite of the beliefs of some 70% of the population at least in the case of abortion on demand


thanks

[Skanky Burns]

There is no reason why your beliefs should affect how someone else behaves, particularly when their actions have no effect on you whatsoever, regardless of what they choose to do.

[Cyclotron]

That's true. I can't understand why you would want to impose your will on things that don't even have anything to do with you, i.e. gay marriage... Unless you happen to be gay, I don't see why you care.

[King of Rasslin]

100% of Americans want no taxes! I can't believe we aren't living in a democracy where the people would rule.

[Jon Miller]

I want taxes

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Jon -

so the state has no right to protect peoples' lives?

Speer cited federal issues that shouldn't be federal issues. Under the Constitution, these should be state issues.

[Getao321]

*yawn*

Yet another Speer thread comes around!

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I want taxes

Jon Miller

You should have a happy life then.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MRT144
jesus would have been aborted...

would or should

[Ben Kenobi]

red_jon

"So you're comparing homosexuality to incest?"

Nope. Just asking why should the state restrict incest?

Now I ask, why should the state fear mutations or inbreeding to the extent that it restricts marriage?

[Sava]

You forget, America is controlled by a bunch of self-righteous puds that like to exert their selfish, immoral wills on people. Anyways, incest is bad... wtf... I think I just argued for it? okay... I'm dumb...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by red_jon
We live in Liberal Democratic societies, which means we do not have tyranny of the majority.

Most people in America in the 30s were for scapegoating and executing black people. Is that right?

People do not have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do (I'm mainly reffering to gay marraiges here).

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1) Just because our societies value minority rights officially doesn't mean that we do not at times have a tyranny of the majority. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, there will be people who claim that they are being crushed by the majority opinion. Even if you don't agree with that or believe it to be true, it only takes a modicum of hindsight to see that your own society in the not so distant past the majority did do something pretty rotten to a minority. Here in the U.S., we put Japanese citizens in concentration camps during WW2 for instance.

2) Most people in America in the 30s were scapegoating and executing black people? You don't know much about this country, and apparantly what you think you know must have come from the BBC, because it is crap. Most white and black people in the U.S. in the 30s had very little contact with people of the other race. Segregation was a fact of life both north and south of the Mason Dixon line. Furthermore there were whole huge swaths of the country where there were effectively no blacks at all. My mother's family in Arkansas never had any dealings with blacks during that era, whether good, bad or indifferent, and my father's family in Oregon was the same way. This was the norm for most of the people in the U.S.

3) I don't know what the law is like over in the UK, but here in the U.S. people do have a right to tell you what to do, and you have every right to ignore them. In the realm of gay marriage people can tell you not to do it, and you can go ahead and do it anyway. But when you tell those same people that they have to accept your wedding, good luck. IIRC only a couple of states will enforce your vows by law.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MRT144
jesus would have been aborted...

That's a ridiculous thing to say. And just why exactly?

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why have rules against incest, no marriages between couples of second cousins?

Because they run the risk of having their children suffer from health problems caused by genetic abnormalities?

[Solly]

So you are in favour of eugenics?