Iowa approves same sex marriage

[Agnapostate]

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Um...the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" existed well before the creation of Wikipedia. It's not used in terms of reference to a single "tyrant," but to a generally authoritarian imposition. Hence, the "tyranny of the majority" is effectively as the decree of a single tyrant in that it constitutes a similarly unjust imposition with no conceivable benefit.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

It's simply a facet of representative "democracy" that tyranny of the majority will exist, which is why I favor decentralized direct democracy, wherein community assemblies can be held for the purposes of policy creation and duties of policy administration can be delegated to committees. The effects of a majority vote against gay marriage are still effectively "tyrannical" in that they constitute a warrantless imposition upon the minority, the most critical element of said imposition being the fact that the majority is not affected by their decision to the same extent that the minority is,

 

[roomy]

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Um...the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" existed well before the creation of Wikipedia. It's not used in terms of reference to a single "tyrant," but to a generally authoritarian imposition. Hence, the "tyranny of the majority" is effectively as the decree of a single tyrant in that it constitutes a similarly unjust imposition with no conceivable benefit.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

It's simply a facet of representative "democracy" that tyranny of the majority will exist, which is why I favor decentralized direct democracy, wherein community assemblies can be held for the purposes of policy creation and duties of policy administration can be delegated to committees. The effects of a majority vote against gay marriage are still effectively "tyrannical" in that they constitute a warrantless imposition upon the minority, the most critical element of said imposition being the fact that the majority is not affected by their decision to the same extent that the minority is,

Who wrote that?

 

[Gunny]

Sorry Agna ... but a majority ruling is not tyranny, it is polar to tyranny. Oppressive perhaps, but the rule of the minority over the majority is tyranny, so this angle won't win anything.

How's that, considering it's an effective authoritarian imposition against a minority?

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

In this case, what you believe to be right or wrong is no more or less imposing your morals on others as anyone else. Either way, I'm not addressing the specific topic of the rightness nor wrongness of gay marriage.

I am addressing the minority using the judiciary as a means to circumvent the legislature, and the will of the majority. On that, we agree. The tyranny of the minority presents far more threat to our freedoms and system than the imposition of the majority's will.

These verysame people sure don't have any empathy for the minority when they're willing to unfairly tax the minority at the top of the totem pole.

 

[Agnapostate]

These verysame people sure don't have any empathy for the minority when they're willing to unfairly tax the minority at the top of the totem pole.

Which form of "[unfair taxation]" are you referring to?

 

[Luissa]

Well, I'm glad you think that the society around me and the laws it passes and enforces in no way affect me. Unfortunately, you're full of shit. Completely aside from the fact that, as a citizen and voter, EVERYTHING the government does is done in my name and that certainly DOES affect me, and aside from the fact that the real agenda here is to be able to use the courts to bludgeon political opponents into silence, the STATED goal is to acquire for homosexual couples legal and financial recognition such as tax breaks, Social Security benefits, forcing companies to offer them health insurance (which affects the costs to everyone else, and what if I'M the employer in question, hmmm?), etc. So please don't piss down my leg and try to tell me it's raining, and please don't try to tell me that people living in a society together are not affected by each other's actions. And DEFINITELY don't try to tell me you have the right to circumvent, undermine, and remove MY rights to vote on what is and isn't legal on the grounds that YOU PERSONALLY don't think it's any of my business.

wouldn't they have to pay those benefits if they married a women? So with your logic companies that don't offer benefits to same sex couples are saving money if their employee is gay and social security would also be saving money. If homosexuals did as you wanted and abandoned their life style and married someone of the opposite sex than benefits would still be paid out.
And they are already living in your society has homosexuals, a piece of paper will not change your day to day life. If your neighbor gets married does that effect you? YOu might have to buy them a gift but really your life will go on as it always has.
And by the way many companies offer benefits to same sex couples, if your are city employee here you can recieve benefits for your same sex partner.

actually, SS would SAVE money with that
unmarried each person gets the bennefit, but when married you have to CHOOSE which ONE gets the bennefit
you do not get both
thats why a lot of older retired people just live together and not get married

I didn't think of that, so than besides religion what is the big deal. Many companies already give benefits to same sex partners and I might be wrong but can't you name anyone as your benefactor on your life insurance?
Gay marriage is already legal in other countries and they are not falling apart, they don't have people marrying dogs. I don't see Canada going under because they allow gay marriage.

 

[KittenKoder]

Agna ... do more study on how our government works, and how it worked in the first few decades (which was when it worked best). By your definition then ALL laws we have are tyranny, even the separation of church and state laws that the SCs are now choosing to uphold ... slowly. So no, that is why the concept is crap, wiki-crapedia will host just about any lame idea, no matter how wrong or weak it is, and thus is why it's crap. Not saying they "started it", just that they parrot crap.

You are hurting the cause far more than helping with this particular crap, because it's such smelly crap it is almost shit. The majority rulings are the only reason we still have a few good laws protecting us, it's when the government panders to minority ideals that we get really fucked up rules (like DOMA or wiretapping) and we lose rights and privileges. Another great example of such is the ACLU (including the ADA, which I despise though it offers me more protections personally).

 

[Gunny]

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Um...the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" existed well before the creation of Wikipedia. It's not used in terms of reference to a single "tyrant," but to a generally authoritarian imposition. Hence, the "tyranny of the majority" is effectively as the decree of a single tyrant in that it constitutes a similarly unjust imposition with no conceivable benefit.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

It's simply a facet of representative "democracy" that tyranny of the majority will exist, which is why I favor decentralized direct democracy, wherein community assemblies can be held for the purposes of policy creation and duties of policy administration can be delegated to committees. The effects of a majority vote against gay marriage are still effectively "tyrannical" in that they constitute a warrantless imposition upon the minority, the most critical element of said imposition being the fact that the majority is not affected by their decision to the same extent that the minority is,

Nobody cares what you favor. Nobody asked, nor is it the topic. You just want to impose your dumbass shit on everyone else as well. Hopefully, wherever it is in Iowa you're moving won't have internet.

 

[Gunny]

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Um...the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" existed well before the creation of Wikipedia. It's not used in terms of reference to a single "tyrant," but to a generally authoritarian imposition. Hence, the "tyranny of the majority" is effectively as the decree of a single tyrant in that it constitutes a similarly unjust imposition with no conceivable benefit.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

It's simply a facet of representative "democracy" that tyranny of the majority will exist, which is why I favor decentralized direct democracy, wherein community assemblies can be held for the purposes of policy creation and duties of policy administration can be delegated to committees. The effects of a majority vote against gay marriage are still effectively "tyrannical" in that they constitute a warrantless imposition upon the minority, the most critical element of said imposition being the fact that the majority is not affected by their decision to the same extent that the minority is,

Who wrote that?

Right?

 

[Gunny]

These verysame people sure don't have any empathy for the minority when they're willing to unfairly tax the minority at the top of the totem pole.

Which form of "[unfair taxation]" are you referring to?

I'm not discussing taxation. I'm not discussing homosexuals. DO try and keep your eyes on the fucking ball if you insist on running your suck, huh?

 

[KittenKoder]

How's that, considering it's an effective authoritarian imposition against a minority?

Majority ruling is Democracy, though we are not a true Democracy here (only about 50%), calling the ruling by majority tyranny is not a valid argument. As I said, it's oppressive, but not tyranny in any way. This is a great example of why wiki-crapedia is well ... crap.

Though those who are complaining about the SCs decision are also wrong, this angle you are taking will only harm it, and has in many situations. Freedom comes from the majority more often than the minority, usually when the majority is made of of many walks of life. In this case their SC put it in the hands of the people to decide what contracts they want to make instead of ruling that any are more valid than the others. The really sad part is that this particular contract still needs a third party to initiate, thus it's still in the hands of "valid" ministers in the area (being Iowa I would not doubt that the majority there are christian wingnuts) so it would be rare that they would have to face the issue at all. However, their ruling simply makes a clear distinction between the religious portion and the legal portion of the contract, vowing to uphold the legal portion regardless of the limited ideological morals of those who oppose it. Taking all the weight off those who oppose it, in reality, so that they do not have to betray their personal "morals", since their morals are contradictory in this respect anyway.

In this case, what you believe to be right or wrong is no more or less imposing your morals on others as anyone else. Either way, I'm not addressing the specific topic of the rightness nor wrongness of gay marriage.

I am addressing the minority using the judiciary as a means to circumvent the legislature, and the will of the majority. On that, we agree. The tyranny of the minority presents far more threat to our freedoms and system than the imposition of the majority's will.

These verysame people sure don't have any empathy for the minority when they're willing to unfairly tax the minority at the top of the totem pole.

How is the SC saying they will uphold a contract regardless of gender or personal lifestyle wrong in any way? They are not the ones who sign them, nor are they the ones who validate them, they only uphold said contracts. This is no changing laws but merely accepting their part of the responsibility. The majority can still opt to not validate these contracts, which require other parties to sign into not just the two consenting adults. So what is wrong with them simply stating that they will uphold any valid contract?

 

[Gunny]

wouldn't they have to pay those benefits if they married a women? So with your logic companies that don't offer benefits to same sex couples are saving money if their employee is gay and social security would also be saving money. If homosexuals did as you wanted and abandoned their life style and married someone of the opposite sex than benefits would still be paid out.
And they are already living in your society has homosexuals, a piece of paper will not change your day to day life. If your neighbor gets married does that effect you? YOu might have to buy them a gift but really your life will go on as it always has.
And by the way many companies offer benefits to same sex couples, if your are city employee here you can recieve benefits for your same sex partner.

actually, SS would SAVE money with that
unmarried each person gets the bennefit, but when married you have to CHOOSE which ONE gets the bennefit
you do not get both
thats why a lot of older retired people just live together and not get married

I didn't think of that, so than besides religion what is the big deal. Many companies already give benefits to same sex partners and I might be wrong but can't you name anyone as your benefactor on your life insurance?
Gay marriage is already legal in other countries and they are not falling apart, they don't have people marrying dogs. I don't see Canada going under because they allow gay marriage.

The "big deal" is using the judiciary to usurp the legislature/will of the people.

 

[Agnapostate]

Agna ... do more study on how our government works, and how it worked in the first few decades (which was when it worked best). By your definition then ALL laws we have are tyranny, even the separation of church and state laws that the SCs are now choosing to uphold ... slowly. So no, that is why the concept is crap, wiki-crapedia will host just about any lame idea, no matter how wrong or weak it is, and thus is why it's crap. Not saying they "started it", just that they parrot crap.

Uh...the manner in which the government "worked" in the "first few decades" may be useful for examination of appropriate policies in a heavily agrarian society (since politics is necessarily combined with economics, after all), but it becomes increasingly irrelevant in an industrialized society, which is what rendered Adam Smith obsolete (he would have been far more egalitarian in this day and age, incidentally). Wikipedia was referenced because of its easy accessibility, but the concept of a tyranny of a majority is a rather common one in political philosophy. The church and state comparison isn't a sound one because no unjust imposition is forced on any particular minority group, as with this case.

You are hurting the cause far more than helping with this particular crap, because it's such smelly crap it is almost shit. The majority rulings are the only reason we still have a few good laws protecting us, it's when the government panders to minority ideals that we get really fucked up rules (like DOMA or wiretapping) and we lose rights and privileges. Another great example of such is the ACLU (including the ADA, which I despise though it offers me more protections personally).

You're confusing ends and means. The wiretapping issue, conducted in opposition to a democratic majority, remains an unjust imposition in a manner that can't be paralleled by the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[Agnapostate]

Nobody cares what you favor. Nobody asked, nor is it the topic. You just want to impose your dumbass shit on everyone else as well. Hopefully, wherever it is in Iowa you're moving won't have internet.

You had a bad coming-out experience in the Corps, didn't you, Bunny? I'm guessing your C.O. wasn't a big fan of your nighttime gallivanting in the barracks.

Stop projecting.

Right?

It must be unpleasant to know that not everyone's as dimwitted as you two maricones, eh?

I'm not discussing taxation. I'm not discussing homosexuals. DO try and keep your eyes on the fucking ball if you insist on running your suck, huh?

You mentioned taxation. I saw another opportunity to expose your ignorance, namely, your ignorance of the diminishing rate of marginal utility...because advocates of capitalism generally know little about economics.

 

[KittenKoder]

actually, SS would SAVE money with that
unmarried each person gets the bennefit, but when married you have to CHOOSE which ONE gets the bennefit
you do not get both
thats why a lot of older retired people just live together and not get married

I didn't think of that, so than besides religion what is the big deal. Many companies already give benefits to same sex partners and I might be wrong but can't you name anyone as your benefactor on your life insurance?
Gay marriage is already legal in other countries and they are not falling apart, they don't have people marrying dogs. I don't see Canada going under because they allow gay marriage.

The "big deal" is using the judiciary to usurp the legislature/will of the people.

How? Point to how they are forcing churches and people to sign or validate these contracts please.

 

[KittenKoder]

Nobody cares what you favor. Nobody asked, nor is it the topic. You just want to impose your dumbass shit on everyone else as well. Hopefully, wherever it is in Iowa you're moving won't have internet.

You had a bad coming-out experience in the Corps, didn't you, Bunny? I'm guessing your C.O. wasn't a big fan of your nighttime gallivanting in the barracks.

Stop projecting.

Right?

It must be unpleasant to know that not everyone's as dimwitted as you two maricones, eh?

I'm not discussing taxation. I'm not discussing homosexuals. DO try and keep your eyes on the fucking ball if you insist on running your suck, huh?

You mentioned taxation. I saw another opportunity to expose your ignorance, namely, your ignorance of the diminishing rate of marginal utility...because advocates of capitalism generally know little about economics.

Agna ... that was fucking low.

 

[Gunny]

Agna ... do more study on how our government works, and how it worked in the first few decades (which was when it worked best). By your definition then ALL laws we have are tyranny, even the separation of church and state laws that the SCs are now choosing to uphold ... slowly. So no, that is why the concept is crap, wiki-crapedia will host just about any lame idea, no matter how wrong or weak it is, and thus is why it's crap. Not saying they "started it", just that they parrot crap.

Uh...the manner in which the government "worked" in the "first few decades" may be useful for examination of appropriate policies in a heavily agrarian society (since politics is necessarily combined with economics, after all), but it becomes increasingly irrelevant in an industrialized society, which is what rendered Adam Smith obsolete (he would have been far more egalitarian in this day and age, incidentally). Wikipedia was referenced because of its easy accessibility, but the concept of a tyranny of a majority is a rather common one in political philosophy. The church and state comparison isn't a sound one because no unjust imposition is forced on any particular minority group, as with this case.

You are hurting the cause far more than helping with this particular crap, because it's such smelly crap it is almost shit. The majority rulings are the only reason we still have a few good laws protecting us, it's when the government panders to minority ideals that we get really fucked up rules (like DOMA or wiretapping) and we lose rights and privileges. Another great example of such is the ACLU (including the ADA, which I despise though it offers me more protections personally).

You're confusing ends and means. The wiretapping issue, conducted in opposition to a democratic majority, remains an unjust imposition in a manner that can't be paralleled by the legalization of gay marriage.

Dude, it's your ass and her hand so far. You might want to slink away.

 

[Agnapostate]

Agna ... that was fucking low.

Guppy's just learning to take what he tries to dish out to others.

Dude, it's your ass and her hand so far. You might want to slink away.

Leave your BDSM fantasies in your other Internet tabs...that all right with you, Bunny?

 

[Gunny]

Nobody cares what you favor. Nobody asked, nor is it the topic. You just want to impose your dumbass shit on everyone else as well. Hopefully, wherever it is in Iowa you're moving won't have internet.

You had a bad coming-out experience in the Corps, didn't you, Bunny? I'm guessing your C.O. wasn't a big fan of your nighttime gallivanting in the barracks.

Stop projecting.

Right?

It must be unpleasant to know that not everyone's as dimwitted as you two maricones, eh?

I'm not discussing taxation. I'm not discussing homosexuals. DO try and keep your eyes on the fucking ball if you insist on running your suck, huh?

You mentioned taxation. I saw another opportunity to expose your ignorance, namely, your ignorance of the diminishing rate of marginal utility...because advocates of capitalism generally know little about economics.

*yawn* That's all you got?

You saw an opportunity to spin some more of your bullshit, and that's about it. Advocates of any of that swill you preach generally know little about reality.

 

[Agnapostate]

*yawn* That's all you got?

You saw an opportunity to spin some more of your bullshit, and that's about it. Advocates of any of that swill you preach generally know little about reality.

...In case you haven't noticed, we're still waiting for your, uh...argument.
Some of us pointy-headed intellectuals are actually into that kind of thing, ya know?

 

[Gunny]

Agna ... that was fucking low.

Guppy's just learning to take what he tries to dish out to others.

Dude, it's your ass and her hand so far. You might want to slink away.

Leave your BDSM fantasies in your other Internet tabs...that all right with you, Bunny?

You getting your ass spanked might be BDSM from YOUR point of view, but it surely isn't from mine.

Any more deflections you want to try since you obviously are incapable of addressing the topic?