U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Pretty simply on this...
Yes 3 50.00%
No 3 50.00%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-11-2012, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, Ga
1,886 posts, read 1,897,099 times
Reputation: 1385

Advertisements

I respect everyone's right to vote...but at the same time, I feel there are things that should never go on a ballot. Anything that affects what people can or can't do is one of those things. Here's why.

1-Not being a member of the group the vote is on essentially disqualifies you from identifying with why they feel the way they feel. Just like I couldn't imagine how slaves might have felt or low wage workers in china, people who are not gay simply can't step up and say they know how they feel and what is right for them.

2- Continuing on from the end of point one, it is not morally correct to determine what any group of people can or can not do regardless of your religion, personal feelings, experiences, emotions, etc. Just as easily as you could say god says marriage is between man and woman, I could say god demands woman who have sex before marriage be killed, but how do you think they would feel about that?

3- If you are not a part of that group, then the purpose of the vote is basically mote because it does not affect you. Yes, I already understand 'you' may not like that, but clearly people don't see to understand this isn't China or Iran or wherever...we have the freedom to the pursuit of happiness...without being told what happiness for us is supposed to be.

4-This is the most obvious one, and should make my point pretty clear. When you pit majority against minority...who usually wins? People say "You can't compare todays gay movement to the civil rights movement"...and yet if you allowed the majority (which would have been white people) to vote on interracial marriage, I bet my life that it would have blown out the polls negatively. You still have people today who don't approve of 'race mixing', nut does that mean that mean what extremists say should apply for all of us? China would probably say yes, Iran certainly says yes, and the USA?...Well, looks like they're taking footsteps back into the backwater ways each day...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2012, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Miami, Florida
613 posts, read 649,272 times
Reputation: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattee01 View Post
I respect everyone's right to vote...but at the same time, I feel there are things that should never go on a ballot. Anything that affects what people can or can't do is one of those things. Here's why.

1-Not being a member of the group the vote is on essentially disqualifies you from identifying with why they feel the way they feel. Just like I couldn't imagine how slaves might have felt or low wage workers in china, people who are not gay simply can't step up and say they know how they feel and what is right for them.

2- Continuing on from the end of point one, it is not morally correct to determine what any group of people can or can not do regardless of your religion, personal feelings, experiences, emotions, etc. Just as easily as you could say god says marriage is between man and woman, I could say god demands woman who have sex before marriage be killed, but how do you think they would feel about that?

3- If you are not a part of that group, then the purpose of the vote is basically mote because it does not affect you. Yes, I already understand 'you' may not like that, but clearly people don't see to understand this isn't China or Iran or wherever...we have the freedom to the pursuit of happiness...without being told what happiness for us is supposed to be.

4-This is the most obvious one, and should make my point pretty clear. When you pit majority against minority...who usually wins? People say "You can't compare todays gay movement to the civil rights movement"...and yet if you allowed the majority (which would have been white people) to vote on interracial marriage, I bet my life that it would have blown out the polls negatively. You still have people today who don't approve of 'race mixing', nut does that mean that mean what extremists say should apply for all of us? China would probably say yes, Iran certainly says yes, and the USA?...Well, looks like they're taking footsteps back into the backwater ways each day...
To be clear, in your poll, what are we saying if we voted yes or no?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, Ga
1,886 posts, read 1,897,099 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by theredsnowman View Post
To be clear, in your poll, what are we saying if we voted yes or no?
Yes means you agree we should vote on social issues.

No means the opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,653 posts, read 15,288,848 times
Reputation: 6669
There are some who believe that all morals are relative, and would agree with your statement.

There are others, however, who believe that morality is absolute and unchangeable, and that immoral actions contribute to the decay of society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 09:58 PM
 
3,203 posts, read 3,338,900 times
Reputation: 1024
I need to hear the candidates views on anal sex, Cialis, Latin in the Catholic Church, and second skins before deciding the who represents my views the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 10:00 PM
 
16,568 posts, read 14,013,609 times
Reputation: 20518
There is not hard and fast rule here. Example, carried to its extreme only the rich would vote on what taxes to pay.

Also, how do you determine who is or is not eligible to vote as a member of a group? Seems a little black armband to me.

That being said, I think the fact that people as a group cannot be counted on to vote for was is fair and constitutional for minorities is why the SCOTUS exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Inwood
552 posts, read 629,715 times
Reputation: 253
This is a bad argument and a very unclear poll. I'm pretty much for gay marriage, although I could care less either way, but not voting on something negates democracy. Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean that it should be taken off the ballot. If Gay marriage was legal with no vote their would be major backlash, if it is voted the opposition can't say or do much other then move. Majority wins, thats democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2012, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, Ga
1,886 posts, read 1,897,099 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by boycewv View Post
This is a bad argument and a very unclear poll. I'm pretty much for gay marriage, although I could care less either way, but not voting on something negates democracy. Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean that it should be taken off the ballot. If Gay marriage was legal with no vote their would be major backlash, if it is voted the opposition can't say or do much other then move. Majority wins, thats democracy.
What's wrong about it exactly? Also yes we are a democracy, this is true, but we're also a constitutional republic...a form of government designed to reduce majoritarianism and protect minorities from what was called the tyrany of the majority.

With that being said, it may make certain people feel good to be able to vote on it, but in our government it's simply not right to vote on something that has the potential to single out a minorities rights. Waiting for a majority to be accepting is impractical and is possible to never happen in certain circumstances. By the logic of putting it to a vote, a majority race in the US could vote on a minorities ability to vote in the first place, and would likely win due to holding more voting power than the minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top