Nationwide protest against Proposition 8 tomorrow.

[MrFun]

Nah Kid - I believe Drake and Imran are right. Technically, anytime a measure passes by a majority vote in a free nation - no matter how deplorable or barbaric a measure is - it's a democratic process.

I just want to know what kind of barbarities or to what extreme Drake will go to foster democracy for democracy's sake.

[Dinner]

This just goes back to the old majority rule vs minority rights values debate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Nah Kid - I believe Drake and Imran are right. Technically, anytime a measure passes by a majority vote in a free nation - no matter how deplorable or barbaric a measure is - it's a democratic process.

No.

Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy',[4] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[5][6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

[Imran Siddiqui]

Democracy is rule of the people. Makes no sense to say that the people deciding something violates democracy.

[Dis]

I may have an unpopular opinion on this. And haven't had time to look into it much. But I say the voters have decided case close.

I know, I know the majority isn't always right. If there was a vote on slavery back in the 1850's or 1860's they probably would have supported it. But I just don't think this is comparable to slavery in any way, shape, or form.

Marriage is still a religious ceremony and should be treated as such. Let them have their civil unions for legal reasons so they can gain the same benefits as married people (equal rights laws should ensure this regardless of what the hick voters say). I can't see why a compromise can't be made here. It's alot of fuss over nothing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Democracy is rule of the people. Makes no sense to say that the people deciding something violates democracy.

Yes it does.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dis

Marriage is still a religious ceremony and should be treated as such.

Uh, no marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony.

Try again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

There is a reason the Founders of the American Republic spoke of 'democracy' and 'mob rule' as the same thing and stressed they were creating a 'republic'.

[MrFun]

Not only were patriots worried about "mob rule" but so were the loyalists.

Loyalist governor of Massachusetts: "They call me a brainless tory. But tell me, which is better, to be ruled by one tyrant about 3,000 miles away or to be ruled by 3,000 tyrants about a mile away?"

[SlowwHand]

Hard to burn down your barn from 3000 miles away.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No it doesn't.

There is a reason the Founders of the American Republic spoke of 'democracy' and 'mob rule' as the same thing and stressed they were creating a 'republic'.

Please provide evidence that the founding fathers intended to not create a democracy as per wikipedia definition.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hard to burn down your barn from 3000 miles away.

You are getting smarter everday.

[MrFun]

EDIT: Damn you Slowwy for making me dp.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Founding Fathers did not believe that the "wikipedia definition" is the definition of the term 'democracy'.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

James Madison - Federalist #10

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Not only were patriots worried about "mob rule" but so were the loyalists.

Loyalist governor of Massachusetts: "They call me a brainless tory. But tell me, which is better, to be ruled by one tyrant about 3,000 miles away or to be ruled by 3,000 tyrants about a mile away?"

The rich were worried about mob rule because they weren't the mob. Protecting the rights of minorities is something different entirely, unless you want to consider the rich a minority, and in that case the minority rules.