Minoritarian politics gone too far?

Al B. Sure! · January 15, 2003, 23:13

Statistics indicate that the vast majority of Americans are against abortion on demand (even 66% of registered democrats are against abortion on demand), against homosexual marriages, and lesserly against affirmitive action.

America is obviously not a democracy and gov't policies should not be completely based on the beliefs of the 51% (though one could argue that a significant majority approaching 70% should decide gov't policies as so rarely is such a consensus achieved), but minority rights can only be so rigid and so strong or else you are creating a society where the electorate has no voice over gov't and some elite decides what is good for the people... so is issues like abortion on demand which is clearly condemned by the majority of americans simply minority rights or minoritarian politics that could explain the low voter turn-out among disillusioned americans?

thanks

Nubclear · January 15, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
thanks

Your welcome. Bye!

Berzerker · January 16, 2003, 00:14

If that large of a majority likes a policy, let them amend the Constitution. Until then, the Congress has no power to get involved in marriage, abortion, or "affirmative action".

Jon Miller · January 16, 2003, 00:35

so the state has no right to protect peoples' lives?

Jon Miller

Seeker · January 16, 2003, 07:35

A fetus is not a human person with rights, so states have no obligation to protect something that doesn't exist. It's not a person even if the majority of American's believe otherwise.

Is it the legal systems problem if many American's have an incoherent idea of what constitutes a person?

Shouldn't they do the right thing, the moral thing, not just cave in to a lot of Bible-wavers who want to put women back in their place, or teary-eyed boobs who think that any blob of goo with a drop of human DNA is fully fledged person?

Heck, a majority of Americans probably believe the government 'knows something' about UFOs.

MRT144 · January 16, 2003, 07:39

jesus would have been aborted...

Az · January 16, 2003, 09:31

too bad he wasn't

aaglo · January 16, 2003, 09:37

Speer.

If you're not happy with the current situation, start a revolution.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · January 16, 2003, 15:49

Was the question attached to one of those Geography quiz things that are given to random US knuckledraggers in order to cause general hilarity across the rest of the world?

red_jon · January 16, 2003, 18:25

We live in Liberal Democratic societies, which means we do not have tyranny of the majority.

Most people in America in the 30s were for scapegoating and executing black people. Is that right?

People do not have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do (I'm mainly reffering to gay marraiges here).

Ben Kenobi · January 16, 2003, 18:34

(I'm mainly reffering to gay marraiges here)

red_jon:

Does not the state have some interest in marriage registration? Why have rules against incest, no marriages between couples of second cousins?

The state has no right to regulate relationships, but the state does have a right to regulate marriage.

Else why bother to get a marriage certificate?

red_jon · January 16, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18

(I'm mainly reffering to gay marraiges here)

red_jon:

Does not the state have some interest in marriage registration? Why have rules against incest, no marriages between couples of second cousins?

The state has no right to regulate relationships, but the state does have a right to regulate marriage.

Else why bother to get a marriage certificate?

So you're comparing homosexuality to incest?

People who are dating a relative can date other people - they are not exclusively attracted to family member, meaning they have an alternative. Gay people (such as myself) are not attracted to the opposite sex, so have no alternative.

Children born out of incest can also have mutations.

The state does not have the right to deny same-sex couples the same opportunities as opposite sex couples.

Solly · January 16, 2003, 19:34

Are you a Christian Red Jon?

If so, why are you a homo?

If not, why do you want to get married?

chequita guevara · January 16, 2003, 19:35

Being opposed to abortion on demand isn't the same thing as opposing abortion. An overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to abortion to varying degrees.

Solly · January 16, 2003, 19:37

There is no right to abortion.

Al B. Sure! · January 16, 2003, 20:47

Chegitz:

Exactly but how the law is today, abortions are allowed on a demand basis... this does not change anything. a significant majority are against this yet it still is allowed.

I understand the whole issue of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority but i think we're taking minority rights a little too far here... there is no reason why the law should be opposite of the beliefs of some 70% of the population at least in the case of abortion on demand

thanks

Skanky Burns · January 16, 2003, 21:32

There is no reason why your beliefs should affect how someone else behaves, particularly when their actions have no effect on you whatsoever, regardless of what they choose to do.

Cyclotron · January 16, 2003, 21:55

That's true. I can't understand why you would want to impose your will on things that don't even have anything to do with you, i.e. gay marriage... Unless you happen to be gay, I don't see why you care.

King of Rasslin · January 16, 2003, 22:23

100% of Americans want no taxes! I can't believe we aren't living in a democracy where the people would rule.

Jon Miller · January 16, 2003, 22:25

I want taxes

Jon Miller

Berzerker · January 16, 2003, 22:37

Jon -

Quote:

so the state has no right to protect peoples' lives?

Speer cited federal issues that shouldn't be federal issues. Under the Constitution, these should be state issues.

Getao321 · January 17, 2003, 00:34

*yawn*

Yet another Speer thread comes around!

Skanky Burns · January 17, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I want taxes

Jon Miller

You should have a happy life then.

Sava · January 17, 2003, 02:24

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
jesus would have been aborted...

would or should

Ben Kenobi · January 17, 2003, 02:37

red_jon

"So you're comparing homosexuality to incest?"

Nope. Just asking why should the state restrict incest?

Now I ask, why should the state fear mutations or inbreeding to the extent that it restricts marriage?

Sava · January 17, 2003, 03:36

You forget, America is controlled by a bunch of self-righteous puds that like to exert their selfish, immoral wills on people. Anyways, incest is bad... wtf... I think I just argued for it? okay... I'm dumb...

Sikander · January 17, 2003, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
We live in Liberal Democratic societies, which means we do not have tyranny of the majority.

Most people in America in the 30s were for scapegoating and executing black people. Is that right?

People do not have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do (I'm mainly reffering to gay marraiges here).

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1) Just because our societies value minority rights officially doesn't mean that we do not at times have a tyranny of the majority. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, there will be people who claim that they are being crushed by the majority opinion. Even if you don't agree with that or believe it to be true, it only takes a modicum of hindsight to see that your own society in the not so distant past the majority did do something pretty rotten to a minority. Here in the U.S., we put Japanese citizens in concentration camps during WW2 for instance.

2) Most people in America in the 30s were scapegoating and executing black people? You don't know much about this country, and apparantly what you think you know must have come from the BBC, because it is crap. Most white and black people in the U.S. in the 30s had very little contact with people of the other race. Segregation was a fact of life both north and south of the Mason Dixon line. Furthermore there were whole huge swaths of the country where there were effectively no blacks at all. My mother's family in Arkansas never had any dealings with blacks during that era, whether good, bad or indifferent, and my father's family in Oregon was the same way. This was the norm for most of the people in the U.S.

3) I don't know what the law is like over in the UK, but here in the U.S. people do have a right to tell you what to do, and you have every right to ignore them. In the realm of gay marriage people can tell you not to do it, and you can go ahead and do it anyway. But when you tell those same people that they have to accept your wedding, good luck. IIRC only a couple of states will enforce your vows by law.

Willem · January 17, 2003, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
jesus would have been aborted...

That's a ridiculous thing to say. And just why exactly?

Willem · January 17, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why have rules against incest, no marriages between couples of second cousins?

Because they run the risk of having their children suffer from health problems caused by genetic abnormalities?

Solly · January 17, 2003, 10:38

So you are in favour of eugenics?