This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Should people be able to vote away civil rights for minorities?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Laihendi
America is a country where everyone votes, and while that sounds like a great way to make sure everything is fair, in reality it isn't, because it leaves minorities powerless.
Think about California. Gay marriage gets legalized. Yay for civil rights! Then a couple months later in the November election, proposition 8 was passed, and that right was taken away. Before you get any ideas, this isn't just a gay thread, it's a thread about any minority group... racial, or whatever.
So, how is it fair for it to be possible to vote away marriage rights for homosexuals? They only make up an estimated 5-10% of the population (or that's what Laihendi has heard), so obviously in any situation involving majority rule, they're at a disadvantage. Does this mean it's possible to vote away marriage rights because of their race? What about religion? Shouldn't the government take an active role in protecting groups that are facing discrimination?
It doesn't really seem to make sense that democracy should be allowed to be used to take away equal rights from minorities, but that seems inevitable when popular opinion is law . Anyways, what do you think? (And remember, this doesn't have to just be about gay people).
Post by
Sagramor
The people should be able to vote for almost anything.
There should be no difference in someone's rights because of their race/looks/sexual opinion.
Now we just have to make those two work together.
Post by
Laihendi
The people should be able to vote for almost anything.
There should be no difference in someone's rights because of their race/looks/sexual opinion.
Now we just have to make those two work together.
That's the problem.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
IFking
Sagramor, I love your sig.
Post by
Sagramor
Not really. We just need to make it so the people can't vote for things that would make minorities loose a common privilege. We need a law, or a set of laws that say; if one part of the population has the right to something, all other parts should have,
Post by
ASHelmy
America is a country where everyone votes, and while that sounds like a great way to make sure everything is fair, in reality it isn't, because it leaves minorities powerless.
Think about California. Gay marriage gets legalized. Yay for civil rights! Then a couple months later in the November election, proposition 8 was passed, and that right was taken away. Before you get any ideas, this isn't just a gay thread, it's a thread about any minority group... racial, or whatever.
So, how is it fair for it to be possible to vote away marriage rights for homosexuals? They only make up an estimated 5-10% of the population (or that's what Laihendi has heard), so obviously in any situation involving majority rule, they're at a disadvantage. Does this mean it's possible to vote away marriage rights because of their race? What about religion? Shouldn't the government take an active role in protecting groups that are facing discrimination?
It doesn't really seem to make sense that democracy should be allowed to be used to take away equal rights from minorities, but that seems inevitable when popular opinion is law . Anyways, what do you think? (And remember, this doesn't have to just be about gay people).
Simple answer: If, for example, a minority makes up 10% of the population, we could make their vote worth 10 votes :D (stupid solution with loads of problems, I know, but i just came up with it).
Actually, make that 9 votes :D.
Post by
MyTie
So, how is it fair for it to be possible to vote away marriage rights for homosexuals?
Gays have no legal right to get married.
Neither do heterosexuals.
Marriage is a religious tradition. Any attempts to say 'yes' or 'no' by government is a regulation of religion.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
So, how is it fair for it to be possible to vote away marriage rights for homosexuals?
Gays have no legal right to get married.
Neither do heterosexuals.
Marriage is a religious tradition. Any attempts to say 'yes' or 'no' by government is a regulation of religion.
This has been done and done many times. It's been a legal institution for at least as long as recorded history. That why atheists get married, and agnostics.
Laihendi pretty much agrees with dragon.
Post by
TheMediator
America is a country where everyone votes, and while that sounds like a great way to make sure everything is fair, in reality it isn't, because it leaves minorities powerless.
Think about California. Gay marriage gets legalized. Yay for civil rights! Then a couple months later in the November election, proposition 8 was passed, and that right was taken away. Before you get any ideas, this isn't just a gay thread, it's a thread about any minority group... racial, or whatever.
So, how is it fair for it to be possible to vote away marriage rights for homosexuals? They only make up an estimated 5-10% of the population (or that's what Laihendi has heard), so obviously in any situation involving majority rule, they're at a disadvantage. Does this mean it's possible to vote away marriage rights because of their race? What about religion? Shouldn't the government take an active role in protecting groups that are facing discrimination?
It doesn't really seem to make sense that democracy should be allowed to be used to take away equal rights from minorities, but that seems inevitable when popular opinion is law . Anyways, what do you think? (And remember, this doesn't have to just be about gay people).
Simple answer: If, for example, a minority makes up 10% of the population, we could make their vote worth 10 votes :D (stupid solution with loads of problems, I know, but i just came up with it).
Actually, make that 9 votes :D.
Oh god no. This sort of logic is why blacks were only counted at 3/5s of a person way back when.
Also at the marriage thing, said twice, doesn't need to be repeated a third.
Post by
MyTie
Even if we want to call marriage a 'social' thing, I still don't see why government needs to regulate it.
Post by
TheMediator
Even if we want to call marriage a 'social' thing, I still don't see why government needs to regulate it.
Because it has legal implications.
No one but the government should be regulating it.
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
Even if we want to call marriage a 'social' thing, I still don't see why government needs to regulate it.
If there are going to be legal benefits recognized by the government that come with marriage, then it
has
to be run by the government.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Even if we want to call marriage a 'social' thing, I still don't see why government needs to regulate it.
If there are going to be legal benefits recognized by the government that come with marriage, then it
has
to be run by the government.
Why are there legal benefits for being married?
Post by
Laihendi
Why are there legal benefits for being married?
Because some people want the following:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Post by
MyTie
Why are there legal benefits for being married?
Because some people want the following:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Why should any of those things require you to be married to the other person?
Post by
TheMediator
Even if we want to call marriage a 'social' thing, I still don't see why government needs to regulate it.
If there are going to be legal benefits recognized by the government that come with marriage, then it
has
to be run by the government.
Why are there legal benefits for being married?
Because it makes things better for society as a whole if two people join their resources together legally. Now two people who could only afford some range of things can share some things and afford to get bigger things, etc.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.