Gov. Perry of Texas to gay veterans: Don't come home.

[chequita guevara]

The Founding Fathers are dead a long time. What they thought only counts in as far as the laws and structures that are still with us today. Their concerns are not relevant. We are the ones alive today. It is our concerns that are important.

edit :spelling fix

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The white male majority over the white male minority.

You really do not know how to study history of a nation/people do you?

Within the context of what the Founding fathers thought was acceptable group of people in having equal political rights (white men with property), they were concerned for this group of people in regards to tyranny of the majority by way of factions if they were left unchecked.

Were they hypocritical in terms of concern about tyranny of majority while excluding non-whites and poor whites from political participation? Not at that time they were -- only from our own, modern perspective.

In order to understand the concerns of the Founding fathers, you need to see it from their perspective as much as you possibily can.

This is the study of history. Because if you fail to even try to see things from the perspective of whatever past people you're studying, then you're applying anachronistic ideas onto them. And by seeing things from their perspective, you can understand better how our society developed, and how we got to where we are today.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And where in that last little rant of yours do you draw the conclusion that they'd give a rat's ass about "gay rights?"

Although I admire your sudden dedication to seeing things in the light of the times. You will waiting in line to fire a cannon at Fort Sumter soon enough.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun Founding fathers blah blah blah

The Founding Fathers are irrelevant.

[MrFun]

Where did I claim the Founding fathers wanted to extend equal political rights to gays? Nowhere. And same with blacks at the time as well -- some of the Founding fathers recognized that blacks were human beings (including slaveholder Thomas Jefferson) but they did not wish to extend political rights to them, either.


EDIT: cross-posting

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The Founding Father are irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant when talking about tyranny of the majority?

[chequita guevara]

Because they're dead.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


Where did I claim the Founding fathers wanted to extend equal political rights to gays? Nowhere. And same with blacks at the time as well -- some of the Founding fathers recognized that blacks were human beings (including slaveholder Thomas Jefferson) but they did not wish to extend political rights to them, either.


EDIT: cross-posting

Well, then, boy, why in hell did you introduce them into a thread dealing with gay rights?

[MrFun]

So then to you, all history is irrelevant to today's world.


If so, that claim is completely unfounded.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Well, then, boy, why in hell did you introduce them into a thread dealing with gay rights?

Because YOU brought up the idea that the position of the Texas governor on this issue is legitimately based on the majority rule.

So, in response, I brought up the inherent danger that comes, when a majority decide to run roughshod over a minority group's rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
So then to you, all history is irrelevant to today's world.

No, I don't claim it's irrelvent, but I no more base may arguments on what Marx wanted than I do what the Founding Fathers wanted. I couldn't care less what dead people wanted. Their wishes, hopes, and dreams aren't anywhere near as important as the hopes, wishes, and dreams of the living.

The problem with the tyrrany of the majority isn't that it's against the wishes of the FF, but that it's a tyranny. You're trying to make an emotional appeal to authority. A more proper use would be to show what the FF actually wrote or said and then why it is relevant to today.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat




I'm not saying it's right or justifiable, I'm saying how it is, and it ain't gonna change.

EVER??

I have a more optimistic view on things. I look at how the rights of African-Americans have changed in the last 100 years within the USA. Most people seem to now accept legal equality even though many still have a lot of racial bigotry.

I just look at the gay right issue and I'm pretty certain things like gay marriage wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell 40 years ago. Now in Canada and some parts of the US, it is an issue that "divides the country". Thats a big change in not a long time.

My prediction is that 20 years from now, Canadians and residents of some US states will see married homosexuals among them and wonder what all the fuss was about. The US South will still be fighting the issue but opinion polls will show that every year there is a slight increase in the number of people accepting of gay marriage. I'd say 100 years from now, you will have gay marriage well entrenched in all 50 states but there will still be a vocal minority that rail against it . It might be a lot like abortion in that sense

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The problem with the tyrrany of the majority isn't that it's against the wishes of the FF, but that it's a tyranny. You're trying to make an emotional appeal to authority. A more proper use would be to show what the FF actually wrote or said and then why it is relevant to today.

You're right. I will do that later today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Because YOU brought up the idea that the position of the Texas governor on this issue is legitimately based on the majority rule.

I don't recall MtG using the words legitimate. The Texas G knows on which side his bread is buttered. He's not in a position to stand up to the majority of Texans on an unpopular issue and does better polticially by being a demagogue.

So, in response, I brought up the inherent danger that comes, when a majority decide to run roughshod over a minority group's rights.

No, you didn't. You simply said the FF were opposed to this sort of thing. Frankly, the only tyranny of the majority the FF was concerned about was leveling, i.e., proto-commies establishing a workers and peasant republic through the force of numbers. They wanted to protect their wealth, not the rights of other minorities.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem with the tyrrany of the majority isn't that it's against the wishes of the FF, but that it's a tyranny.

Yup-- majority rules needs to be balanced with the idea that there is a set of rights for everyone even those that are in small minorities.

I like democracy. But I like that people have rights that cannot be easily forgotten at the whim of amajority