Yesterday, January 2, 2007, lawmakers in Massachusetts voted to allow a proposed amendment to the state constitiution to move forward. It will be on the ballot in 2008. This amendment would ban any further gay marriages in the state, but leave the existing ones alone.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003, after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it. Opponents of the decision have so far been foiled in their attempts to put the matter to a vote. Even this most recent decision was almost derailed, after the state legislature recessed last fall without voting, then again with a vote to push this vote back to the 2nd, the final day of the session, and again on Tuesday, with Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick urging lawmakers to skip the vote, and again with some back and forth voting on whether or not to reconsider. It finally went through with a vote of 62-134, giving it 12 more votes than the required 50. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage were both gathered outside the Statehouse, waving signs and such.
In addition to the blatant attempts to stiffle the democratic process by the left, I am also intrigued by what some of the gay rights activists outside the Statehouse told reporters. They said that the civil rights of a minority should not be put to a popular vote. What, so democracy is only a good thing if it doesn't conflict with your agenda? The reason activist judges are so popular with the left is because that's the only way they can get anything done. The people of this country don't want liberalism to rule their nation, which is why they almost always vote against it. Liberals know there aren't enough people in this country willing to vote for their warped ideals, so they use activist judges to force feed them to the people. Then, when the people finally demand a vote, the liberals do everything in their power to squash it before it ever gets to the ballots. It has happened here in California with a number of things, from illegal immigration laws to gay marriage.
Liberals don't believe in "majority rules", because they know that the majority isn't liberal. Liberals are elitist. They think that they know better, so it doesn't matter what the rest of the world wants because we're too stupid to know what's good for us. The peons shouldn't get to vote against the liberal garbage because they just simply aren't worthy enough to argue with their betters. That's the only explanation I can come up with, and their behavior to date seems to support it. Liberal politicians seem to think they can do whatever they want, and their money and status will rescue them if they get in trouble. They think they are above the law. When conservative politicians get in trouble their colleagues are often the first to turn them in. All their money and clout suddenly doesn't mean anything, and their base is no longer willing to support them. These are of course generalities, but they have been demonstrated on both sides time and time again.
This elitist mentality can be seen in their attitudes and policies toward the very minorities they claim to be protecting. They believe in things like affirmitive action, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and preferential treatment of "alternate gender lifestyles" because they honestly believe that minorities shouldn't be held to the same standards as the majority. They believe that if they were held to the same standards, they would fail to meet them. They believe that minorities aren't good enough.
Socialism is rule by the elite. Communism is rule by the elite. They placate the people while stripping them of their power. These are the two political models that modern liberalism venerates and tries to emulate. They don't care what the people want, they just want a free pass to do whatever THEY want. The democratic process be damned. And they are more than willing to step on the majority if it gets in their way.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
To vote, or not to vote: The People's Republic of Massachusetts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I don't have enough time to make a reply to our conversation yet, but:
In my opinion, there need not be a vote on whether blacks, Jews, women, Christians, or gays should be allowed to do that which the rest of the population is allowed to do unless there poses a threat to the rest of the society.
It is, as the judge said, "unconstitutional" to put it to a popular vote... it is not an attempt to bypass democracy. In my opinion, only the LGBT should be allowed to vote on this issue.
"These are of course generalities. . ."
And not all Christians are the type to partake in Crusades...
Either you truly think all Liberals are the same, or you need to reform (haha) your choice of words. It is not political correctness as it is showing people that you aren't brainwashed.
Do you agree/disagree?
God... I can feel this turning into another debate. :)
Short as possible:
I'm sorry to say that it is as absurd as it is flimsy.
I don't see how attacking the site is a good argument.
The Bible is . . . a moral commentary.
And yes, by our modern Christian standards many of the things described are disgusting.
What's changed? It seems to me that people have changed, not the Bible, and the definition of Christianity has followed suit.
It also seems that the Bible was never really a book of morals, but a book that reflected current views of the time.
One thing I am curious about is why . . . is abortion the only one you take exception with?
I am also a strong believer in gay marriage, but you didn't mention that in the article.
And if you liked the Compassion piece then you must be pretty conservative.
A lot of my liberal friends would enjoy it too. I consider myself a Conservative because I believe that Stephen Harper was the lesser evil, and with the recent shuffling of the cabinet, I believe that he's also the only good, and I gave my support for him only because a Conservative friend of mine promised me that the gay marriage vote would pass, and I trust that friend.
When the Conservative party actually began fulfilling all of its promises, I began to become an even stronger proponent of the Conservative party.
Women are much more likely to take it easy on the criminal, to vote against a perfectly necessary war, etc.
Not in my experience. While women are more empathic, sure, I haven't noticed a gender difference among my friends. By your logic, though, aren't men more likely to vote for an unnecessary war, and also more likely to give too harsh of a sentence on a criminal?
If you say no, then you are also saying that men are more logical than women, and I would say, once again, not in my experience.
However, if you find a study that backs up your claims, it would add great credibility to your argument.
And don't be afraid to ask a Christian for clarification on stuff.
That's you. :)
Also, thanks for being so polite! ^_^
Ok, here goes...
Gays aren't being prevented from doing the same things everyone else is allowed to do. That's the whole point. They don't want EQUAL treatment, they already have that. They're held to the same rules of marriage as heterosexuals. They want SPECIAL treatment. They want an exception to the rule made for them. One of the many reason that conservatives don't like this is because what's next? Polygamy? Incest? Marrying children? That's exactly what is starting to happen in other countries that have allowed gay marriage. There are movements in Europe to completely remove all restrictions on who someone can marry or have sex with legally, including siblings and children as young as 5. And they're gaining ground. A woman in Israel was allowed to legally marry a dolphin, for crying out loud! Slippery slope, anyone? I don't know about you, but I definitely consider that a threat to the rest of society. Not to mention the fact that only allowing gays to vote on the issue and preventing any straight conservatives from casting their vote is no different than preventing women or blacks from voting on some particular issue.
And yes, I do believe that the vast majority of liberals are all the same, otherwise they wouldn't have enough in common to comprise a political movement known as Modern Liberalism. The same goes for any group that takes on a name for themselves.
"I don't see how attacking the site is a good argument." Um, why not? That's what critics do. They comment on the work. The site uses flimsy and flawed arguments. It is therefore a flimsy and flawed site. It uses the same arguments that have been answered and rebutted ad nauseum for the past 2000 years.
"It seems to me that people have changed, not the Bible..." Yes! That's precisely my point! The Bible chronicles the very slow, very deliberate process God used to take us from the depraved state we were in to the much less depraved state in which we currently find ourselves. And the fact that the various writers didn't try to sugar-coat any of the distasteful details is to me one of the most profound arguments for its authenticity.
I would be interested to know which conservative positions you hold, and if they are really numerous enough to make you a conservative. I would also be interested to know which liberal positions you disagree with. Take the liberal test on my links section, I think you'll find it enlightening.
Yes, when it comes to emotionally difficult situations, men are most certainly more logical than women. Women, partly by nature and partly from the way they are raised, are typically not very good at controlling their emotions. Boys, from a very young age, are strictly trained to control their more intense emotions, and by nature are more likely to put their emotions on a back burner when dealing with something. That's not to say that men are superior to women, just different. Acknowledging that difference doesn't mean you have to have any less respect for women. I have tremendous love and respect for the women in my life. Both of my sisters are brilliant and talented and wonderful, but they can both get pretty emotional and often overreact. And yes, men can often be too harsh. If women weren't there to temper the sometimes overly harsh logic of men, we'd still be drawing and quartering criminals, or more likely beating each other with clubs and howling at the moon. As my dad says, women have a civilizing effect on men. But a child who's mother doesn't allow the father to discipline the child for fear of hurting the kid's feelings quickly becomes at best a brat and at worst a criminal. God made two genders for a reason. It takes two genders to produce and raise a child for a reason. Men and women are very very different for a reason. We complement each other. People who like to cite the supposedly sexist passages in the Bible usually neglect the ones describing the important, powerful men showing tremendous respect and love to the women in their lives, sisters, mothers, daughters, wives. Look at how Moses treats his foster mother and real mother, in contrast to the way Pharaoh treats his wife. Look at how Abraham lets his wife get away with almost anything, and does just about anything she says. And the parts in the new testament telling men to heed the council of their wives, and treat them with the utmost love and gentleness. Rarely are these ever cited.
And lastly, I think you, like too many people, have some incorrect beliefs regarding the Crusades. I would encourage you to read a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam". It has a very extensive section on the Crusades.
Thank you as well for being polite. Rudeness only serves to turn a perfectly constructive discussion into a swearing match. I still wish I had more readers, though. These discussions get extra interesting the more people you throw in. Bring the kids! Tell your friends! Fun for everyone!
A woman in Israel was allowed to legally marry a dolphin
Source:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
According to here, the marriage to the dolphin was not legal.
And how is a woman marrying a dolphin a threat? Are they going to kill you?
Polygamy?
Source:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
Haha, too late. These two people are introducing a third person into their marriage.
"They want to take their marriage obligations seriously: “to be honest and open with each other and not philander.”"
They don't want EQUAL treatment, they already have that.
. . .
They want SPECIAL treatment.
They are not allowed to marry the person that they love. Heterosexuals are.
That's like telling Jews that they are equal because if they want, they can become Christians, so long as they don't study Judaism.
And they don't want special treatment. After all, after the law is passed, you too will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. That is not special treatment.
Acknowledging that difference doesn't mean you have to have any less respect for women.
For the record, I do believe there are differences between people, and I believe that acknowledging differences is not a bad thing. So there is no need to be politically correct, and that way you get to do less typing. :)
Rarely are these ever cited.
Of course they're not. These passages are not bad. The passages that are bad are a completely different topic.
I acknowledge the Bible isn't all bad. But I also say the Bible is in no way a book of morality; it is a book of fiction, written for the times, and many parts of it are obsolete. Using it for justification of an argument or for the foundation of a belief is therefore an incorrect thing to do.
"I don't see how attacking the site is a good argument." Um, why not?
Attacking a person instead of their argument, for instance, is called Argumentum ad Hominem (attacking the person).
Source:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Just because a person or source may be stupid has no effect on whether their argument is stupid.
This is not a debatable point, because it is one of the de facto (generally accepted) rules of argument, and without these rules, rational debates cannot take place.
when it comes to emotionally difficult situations, men are most certainly more logical than women
Is this a fact, or a theory? I know, for instance, that my mother is much more rational than my father in emotionally difficult situations. This has everything to do with their areas of intelligence, and nothing to do with their gender.
In my life, I've seen many abusive boyfriends, which is not logical, and no abusive girlfriends. I've found that while some females aren't as afraid to show their emotion in argument, they used the same logic as males to arrive at their conclusions.
Emotions may be different. The logic is the same.
have some incorrect beliefs regarding the Crusades.
So the Christians did not kill Jews? I have no clue about the Crusades and Islam.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_the_Crusades
http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/antisemitism/crusades.cfm
Results from test you recommended:
No: 7
Strong No: 1
Yes: 0
Strong Yes: 3
Depends: 4
Neither: 1
Undecided/uninformed: 7
Stupid questions: 3
. . . only allowing gays to vote on the issue and preventing any straight conservatives from casting their vote is no different than preventing women or blacks from voting on some particular issue.
Correct. If it doesn't concern them, don't allow them to vote. No special treatment. This is my new form of Government, called Jesseism. And it rocks the people's socks.
I do believe that the vast majority of liberals are all the same, otherwise they wouldn't have enough in common to comprise a political movement known as Modern Liberalism.
So you believe the subsection (Modern Liberalism) is the same as the entire section (Liberalism)? Then how can there be a subsection? I guess there ARE different kinds of Liberals.
Ttyl! (Next post contains answers to quiz, in case you're interested)
1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.
No.
2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.
Depends.
3. Murderers should never be put to death.
No.
4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.
Undecided.
5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
No.
6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
Undecided.
7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.
Undecided.
8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.
Undecided.
9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
A strong yes.
10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.
A strong yes.
11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.
Undecided.
12. The present high tax rates are good.
Stupid question, but no.
13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.
Depends.
14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
Stupid question, but a strong no.
15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.
Depends.
16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
No.
17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.
Stupid question, but depends.
18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
Depends. Smoking should be obliterated from society.
19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.
A strong yes.
20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
Undecided.
21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
Neither; education.
22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.
Undecided.
23. No culture is morally superior to any other.
No.
---
No's: 7
Strong No's: 1
Yes's: 0
Strong Yes's: 3
Depends: 4
Neither: 1
Undecided's: 7
Stupid questions: 3
I'm just going to assume that you just left without saying so. That is impolite of you. It's all right to stop the conversation, but the least you could do is give me a heads up.
Anywho, if someone died or something like that (or something beyond your control), I would definitely take back what I just said, of course.
Have a nice day! :)
Once again, you're assuming things, and I'm growing tired of it. I could have sworn that I already warned you about this... What you could have said was, "Hey, I'm interested in continuing our conversation, could you give me a heads up?" In case you're interested, I've been working very long hours for the past several weeks. And judging from your last few responses, it appears that you aren't actually READING anything I've said. You're just reacting, with the same canned and homogenized liberal responses that I'm growing weary of responding to. And yes, your consistent impatience and childish reaction to such has confirmed in my mind that you are indeed a liberal. You seem to be reading the first sentence of each paragraph and then jumping to conclusions. I suggest you read the posts that interest you again, and you'll find that at least a third of your questions or arguments are already answered there. I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect you to absorb.
Despite my busy schedule I will attempt to make a new post sometime this week. However, I am no longer interested in your comments. What little spare energy I have will not be wasted on an unproductive debate. I don't argue with children.
Have a nice day.
I see where you're coming from.
What I've done wrong (I don't believe this is an exhaustive list):
I've been impatient.
I've assumed that you keep leaving the conversation.
What else have I done? As you might know, it's hard to figure out what we've done wrong without being someone else, which is usually very hard for the average human to pull off.
What you've done wrong (Don't think this is an exhaustive list):
You've insulted me many times (the word "childish" is unnecessary, and you think I don't believe your answers are homogenized and canned?).
You've wrongly assumed that I haven't been reading your responses. I read every word.
Sorry for causing any upset. I figured half a month would be more than enough time, and I do think that even if you're busy, you could tell me so (as you've told me in this last post). Blogger doesn't have a "keep me posted" option (that I know of, I've been known to miss things), so I usually end up checking your blog every day to see if you've said anything. I figured that somehow you magically knew this and would save me the trouble of continually checking for a response by telling me when a response could be expected. That is how magic works, right?
Also, I'd like to point out that being a liberal doesn't make a person evil. Being a conservative doesn't make a person evil.
Being a liberal doesn't make a person childish and impatient. Being a conservative doesn't make a person childish and impatient.
If you truly believe that all people who oppose your views are childish and impatient, I'm going to tell you that you are simply wrong, and that there are people exactly like you who believe in exactly the opposite that you do, simple because they grew up in exactly any other place.
It's kinda like saying Jews or Muslims are childish for not believing in Jesus, to draw an arbitrary analogy. You would be a devout Jew right now had you grown up in Israel with Jewish parents. It's time and place, my friend.
But here's the fun part: You might (italicized to show you I'm aware of the assumption) think at the moment that somewhere in this reply, I've included a huge assumption. You'll think how idiotic I am for even considering this. You'll tell me about this horrendous assumption. And you're going to convince me that this is an assumption, though of course I don't believe that at the moment. But I'm not going to call you childish just because at the moment I believe in the previous argument. I realize that you live in a different paradigm than I. It doesn't make you (or me) childish. I give you full permission to stop using that word now, mon ami.
So yeah. That feeling you have that I'm not reading all of your responses is the natural product of me not agreeing with you. I feel the same way. You'll feel that way in every single argument you'll ever have, and so will your vis-à-vis. C'est la vie. You must assume the best in people, and while I say that, I also say that I haven't either.
All that said, you're right. Let's end this conversation. Either we do this by instant messaging, or not at all (apparently this comment thing doesn't transfer enough emotions for meaningful discussion to take place, nor is it convenient for me). I for one am very stubborn, and wouldn't mind continuing this conversation (you're surpised, I can tell), but I also have this spidey-sense that's telling me that you're done with me. Hey, if that's the case, I hope you lead a wonderfully happy life full of people who are exactly like anything unlike me. I'm absolutely serious about the happy life part.
Post a Comment