Conquer Club

As a youth attending Georgia public schools I was an outcast at an early age. I found comfort in the idea of individual rights. That has always been the part of Democracy that appeals to me the most. Every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today many Americans seem to think of Democracy as mob rule. Everyone has the right to express their opinions but the majority should never be allowed to restrict the rights of the minority.

On the subject of gay marriage, opponents say that America has spoken and they don't want gay marriage. That's nice but your opinion doesn't matter. As long as the government issues marriage licenses marriage is a civil right. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in this country. The church doesn't have to recognize gay marriage but the government shouldn't deny it's gay citizens the right to marry.

On the subject of the legalization of marijuana, opponents say it is a step back and it sends the wrong message to children. That's nice but, once again, your opinion doesn't matter. An adult should have the right to decide if they want to use marijuana or not. It's ridiculous that citizens are jailed for using such a mild drug.

I feel that in the near future decisions will be made that will affect the path the U.S. will take for decades. I hope we choose to grant the basic rights that all citizens deserve. I fear a future where the rights of individuals are denied by the tyranny of the majority.

.

Quirk wrote:As a youth attending Georgia public schools I was an outcast at an early age. I found comfort in the idea of individual rights. That has always been the part of Democracy that appeals to me the most. Every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today many Americans seem to think of Democracy as mob rule. Everyone has the right to express their opinions but the majority should never be allowed to restrict the rights of the minority.

On the subject of gay marriage, opponents say that America has spoken and they don't want gay marriage. That's nice but your opinion doesn't matter. As long as the government issues marriage licenses marriage is a civil right. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in this country. The church doesn't have to recognize gay marriage but the government shouldn't deny it's gay citizens the right to marry.

On the subject of the legalization of marijuana, opponents say it is a step back and it sends the wrong message to children. That's nice but, once again, your opinion doesn't matter. An adult should have the right to decide if they want to use marijuana or not. It's ridiculous that citizens are jailed for using such a mild drug.

I feel that in the near future decisions will be made that will affect the path the U.S. will take for decades. I hope we choose to grant the basic rights that all citizens deserve. I fear a future where the rights of individuals are denied by the tyranny of the majority.

marriage is a religeous institution. gov't only sanctions it, like it does almost every thing else they can make a dollar on. and sometimes in some ways incentivizes it. I do note that you ask what happened to democracy, and then follow it up repeatedly with "your opinion doesn't matter" Looks to me like you answered you own question. thanks for trashing our system in the title tho ??? However, you fear correctly. Harvard education system is dominated with "social" strategies and "green hoax" models. No room for individuality there

Quirk wrote:As a youth attending Georgia public schools I was an outcast at an early age. I found comfort in the idea of individual rights. That has always been the part of Democracy that appeals to me the most. Every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today many Americans seem to think of Democracy as mob rule. Everyone has the right to express their opinions but the majority should never be allowed to restrict the rights of the minority.

On the subject of gay marriage, opponents say that America has spoken and they don't want gay marriage. That's nice but your opinion doesn't matter. As long as the government issues marriage licenses marriage is a civil right. Homosexuals are treated like second class citizens in this country. The church doesn't have to recognize gay marriage but the government shouldn't deny it's gay citizens the right to marry.

On the subject of the legalization of marijuana, opponents say it is a step back and it sends the wrong message to children. That's nice but, once again, your opinion doesn't matter. An adult should have the right to decide if they want to use marijuana or not. It's ridiculous that citizens are jailed for using such a mild drug.

I feel that in the near future decisions will be made that will affect the path the U.S. will take for decades. I hope we choose to grant the basic rights that all citizens deserve. I fear a future where the rights of individuals are denied by the tyranny of the majority.

democracy will always favour the majority, thats why you have the freedom to express yourself. if the majority had to live under the rules of the minority, then that would be tyranny!

on the dope issue, i do believe that some agreement should be met. something like in holland where its not legal, but decriminalized. if it was legal then people could walk around smoking in public. that would send out the wrong messages to the kids.

on gay marriage, well i don't really have an opinion on that. i did read during the week however that toys containing certain plastic are feminizing young boys. did you suck your actionman as a child?

Phatscotty,
What I mean when I say your opinion doesn't matter is that not everything is up for a vote in a Democracy. The majority doesn't have the right to vote on restricting the rights of the minority just because they don't like the way they live. Personal decisions should be left up to the individual and others' opinions don't matter.

As for trashing Democracy, an individual's right to live their life freely is fundamental to Democracy. I am concerned that people seem to have forgotten about individual rights and see Democracy as mob rule.

Quirk wrote:As for trashing Democracy, an individual's right to live their life freely is fundamental to Democracy. I am concerned that people seem to have forgotten about individual rights and see Democracy as mob rule.

Sorta. But you can't really say "American Democracy" has ever been perfect.

I fully agree with Quirk, democracy means more than simply a majority decision on what goes, especially when it comes to restrictive legislation. Tyranny can go both ways, the majority oppressing the minority or vice versa. That's why I consider a formalized decision-making process that encourages participants to set aside ideology and consider facts an important, possibly essential, part of democracy. I admit that instituting this would probably be difficult and it is possible that it can only be stated in the form of a non-binding ideal that should be aspired to. But even that would be a step forward compared to the current situation in many countries that call themselves democracies.


Phat, if marriage really is a purely religious institution, the state should not recognize ANY marriage. Factually this isn't the case, as the incentives you mentioned show.
If the state does recognize marriage there is no reason for the state to restrict who may marry whom except in order to prevent harm to individuals. For example: a 9 year old marrying an adult is highly likely to lead to the child being harmed in some way, so limits on the age of persons who marry can be defended. A restriction on the genders of the persons marrying can not be defended in this way.

thats how it has always been for the most part i dont thing the democracy in the United State has changed much

You guys are actually arguing against democracy, as in a true democracy the majority could absolutely oppress the minority by means of a voting. Luckily for you, we don't live in a democracy! Rather we live in a democratic republic..close, but not the same thing.

As for the gay marriage issue..
All people have the same rights in our society, but if a person chooses to live an alternative lifestyle, they may not be accommodated for it. I don't see how people are being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex. A person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex and all people are given the same rights in this regard. What many people want is for there to be a redefinition of what marriage is. While this may be achieved eventually, it is not a civil rights issue as all people have the same rights regarding marriage in our society. A thing is not a right simply because some people really really want it to be one.

On the other hand, the right to bear arms is constantly under attack. It is outlined specifically in our constitution as a right. Often the same people who champion things like homosexual marriage as a 'civil right' will come out against the right to bear arms. The hypocrisy is rather striking..

I agree that democracy should not just be what the majority wants. A key part in ensuring personal freedoms and civil rights is the judiciary which unfortunately has been heavily politicised in the US, and also become something it shouldn't with the election of judges (which is an absolutely awful idea). I wouldn't say that most W.European countries have the mob rule form of democracy as the winning parties don't just pursue their agenda and ignore everyone else.

However, with the US as a 2 party system, it has to be said that the opposition parties a lot of the time are also to blame. The word "compromise" seems to make congressman feel weak and pathetic when it should actually be a word to indicate a strong and intelligent politician. I think the public have just followed in the footsteps of the parties and tried to make all issues a partisan issue and support one side over the other no matter what the actual effects of the policy may be.

Gabon, the right to bear arms is not a civil right in the normal sense. Civil rights is generally freedom, equality, liberty etc... The right to bear arms is just a law which means that you have the right to do it, it is not something which discriminates or represses people if it is repealed.

Any society that allows political factions to organize armed bodies of men but does not allow the common man to arm himself is oppressive in the most basic sense.

When exactly did we decide that liberty translated to being able to f*ck whoever you want without consequence while forcing the public to witness and accept this behavior?

GabonX, just because US Americans in general have been geared to associate "democracy" with "mob rule by majority" does not mean the term is used in such an imprecise way in the rest of the world.
So much for you trying to be a smartass.



Furthermore, and of more interest, what exactly constitutes an "alternative lifestyle", pray? I certainly hope it is not "anything other than the lifestyle of the majority", because that would bring you right back to mob rule by majority vote. While I agree that it is not imperative for the state to actively accomodate every lifestyle, it is imperative for the state not to impede any lifestyle as long as said lifestyle does not pose a threat to others.

Allowing any two persons of age to be married and have it recognized by the state is hardly onerous on anyone. In fact, I don't see how it places a burden on anyone at all. On the other hand, restricting marriage to persons of different genders greatly impedes certain lifestyles. This makes it a civil rights issue. Some people are actively prevented from leading their lives the way they want while others aren't, even though there is no objective reason for it.

GabonX wrote:
On the other hand, the right to bear arms is constantly under attack. It is outlined specifically in our constitution as a right. Often the same people who champion things like homosexual marriage as a 'civil right' will come out against the right to bear arms. The hypocrisy is rather striking..

You know, things change in 300 years.. maybe there is a possibiity that the 'right' to bear arms is outdated... But you guys love killing living things so much..

GabonX wrote:Any society that allows political factions to organize armed bodies of men but does not allow the common man to arm himself is oppressive in the most basic sense.

When exactly did we decide that liberty translated to being able to f*ck whoever you want without consequence while forcing the public to witness and accept this behavior?

Oppressive? So every western government in the world (minus a couple) are oppressive? UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Japan, New Zealand etc are all oppressive governemnts? You know absolutely nothing about politics, and just throw around any kind of crap you can think of and throw in some sound bites. Maybe you should apply for a job at Fox?

When exactly did I describe liberty as that? Also, what is your definition of liberty?

Quirk wrote:Phatscotty,
What I mean when I say your opinion doesn't matter is that not everything is up for a vote in a Democracy. The majority doesn't have the right to vote on restricting the rights of the minority just because they don't like the way they live. Personal decisions should be left up to the individual and others' opinions don't matter.

As for trashing Democracy, an individual's right to live their life freely is fundamental to Democracy. I am concerned that people seem to have forgotten about individual rights and see Democracy as mob rule.

you are right. kind of....but I think everything is up for free speech, which translates, through a few other steps, directly into votes for the next election. I hear you 100% the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. it works both ways. What I dont get, is that, again IMO, homesexuality is the #1 frontier where individuality can and is super expressed to the Nth currently. Homo - sexuals have it made in America. While the overwhelming majority of Americans are not homo-sexual, IMO most Americans just dont give a shit what people do in their own homes and who they choose to love, IE freedom is respected. And about marijuana, you can find that anyplace anytime and it isn't a big deal. I just dont get the 2 issues you brought to the forefront.

Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Phatscotty wrote:Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

You're joking, surely....

You're joking, surely....[/quote]
not at all, you make a strong statement yourelf. I will reconsider based on your smilies

Phatscotty wrote:Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Statements like this are the reason people who know what words mean don't take you seriously.

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Statements like this are the reason people who know what words mean don't take you seriously.

well, then I guess we disagree. why can't you be ok with that? i mean, lets take the statement. executive branch should lead from the center....ok timminz, where should it lead from? congress is very far left....ok timminz, where is congress? president achievements from the left.....cap n trade,healthcare takeoever, and stimulus plans.....if those arent the radical left, which end of the spectrum do those items belong? I'm sorry man, but I can lay out a case. Dont know why you take the time

Phatscotty wrote:Major kudos, as I also see the "majority" trying to superimpose on the minorities rights. exectutive branch really should lead from the center, however congress is very far left and they dont care about these thing. and all the president seems to be achieving is what the radical left wants.

Sorry for not being more focused, with the quote. The bolded part is what I was talking about.

GabonX wrote:On the other hand, the right to bear arms is constantly under attack.

So? Who cares? Noone is going to take your guns away.

Phatscotty wrote:well, then I guess we disagree. why can't you be ok with that?

Because agreeing to disagree about fucking facts is retarded.

I agree with Quirk, although I'm not sure about whether marriage or pot smoking are rights in the strict sense of term. I guess I wouldn't call them rights, although I think gay people should be permitted to marry and that adults should be permitted to do drugs (any drugs, not just pot) in the privacy of their own homes without fear of arrest.

In any event, the majority almost always oppresses the minority, even in a representative democracy. It happens on all issues and in all walks of life. GabonX could complain about the right to bear arms (an actual right, I might add), while I could complain about laws restricting gay marriage. What should happen is enough people in the majority care enough to change the law (or the Constitution, if we want to make these things rights protected by the Constitution).

thegreekdog wrote:I agree with Quirk, although I'm not sure about whether marriage or pot smoking are rights in the strict sense of term. I guess I wouldn't call them rights, although I think gay people should be permitted to marry and that adults should be permitted to do drugs (any drugs, not just pot) in the privacy of their own homes without fear of arrest.

Yeah they're not exactly rights. However it's certainly possible to argue that gay people have the right to gay-marriage if heterosexual marriage is allowed. Marriage is not a right, but people do have the right not to be discriminated against.

The thing is it isn't necessarily discrimination.

Being gay isn't akin to being member of a minority race. There is no legal distinction between a heterosexual and homosexual. The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is behavioral.The two groups have an identical set of rights.

All people have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. If a person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex that's fine, but the idea that they are being discriminated against because they cannot marry someone of the same sex is false. They are not being denied any right which the general public does not have.

Frankly gay people getting married wouldn't bother me, but I find the arguments they use to defend their movement to be reprehensible and fallacious. Honestly, I wish the government wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. I'm sick of the debate, and it's not going to end unless bureaucracy is scaled back.