User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 94

  1. #61
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Good or bad wasn't the point I was getting at, my point is would it be appropriate for the government to drop Bush saying, people we believe you made the wrong choice (for president) and we are going to choose the right one that you failed to choose. Is there any moral blips within that statement?
    We have that system already. Many states do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for the candidate who won the vote. They can elect anyone who fits the constitutional criteria.



    In a system with no bounderies, no government, (I believe in another post in another thread you mentioned it would be nice if there weren't such) its strict majority rule, or rule by strongest group. If not from a government where else do you expect intervention to majority rule?
    No, there would be no rule. No one would have the power over anyone else, and, if they tried to get it, they would be fought.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    You're not serious are you? Male-female relations is the basis for the foundation of human society. It's hardly arbitrary.
    Then why don't we pass laws against abstinence, birth control, oral sex, childless couples, singles.......

  3. #63
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    We have that system already. Many states do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for the candidate who won the vote. They can elect anyone who fits the constitutional criteria.
    Not by a long shot, the results in this was over 2 to 1 (29 to 14, to be exact); in the presidential election it was less than 5% difference. The two resulsts are not close.




    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No, there would be no rule. No one would have the power over anyone else, and, if they tried to get it, they would be fought.
    What would prevent me from getting a few guys and enforcing my rule over some small area? and if the answer is they would be fought, then this is an instable system.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's only a matter of time until gay-marriage is allowed everywhere... I think that's what God is waiting for to happen before he starts the Rapture, just so it will be easier to identify the people that won't be getting into Heaven.
    Add banning the choice of a divorce, and bring back polygamy/bigamy.

  5. #65
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Not by a long shot, the results in this was over 2 to 1 (29 to 14, to be exact); in the presidential election it was less than 5% difference. The two resulsts are not close.
    Did you understand what I wrote? There can be faithless electors in most states. They could conceivably vote for almost anyone. They almost never do (someone voted Libertarian in 1972 as a protest vote against Nixon), but there isn't anything stopping those in states that do not force their hands.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #66
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Did you understand what I wrote? There can be faithless electors in most states. They could conceivably vote for almost anyone. They almost never do (someone voted Libertarian in 1972 as a protest vote against Nixon), but there isn't anything stopping those in states that do not force their hands.
    though you said and acknowledge as well, that this rarely happens, I was trying to bring the point back to challanging majority rule, as in overturning a president to overturning a law, (with high numbers)

  7. #67
    veteran attention whore Jeffster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Then why don't we pass laws against abstinence, birth control, oral sex, childless couples, singles.......
    Jeffster Illustrates the Artisan Temperament <---- click here

    "I like the sigs with quotes in them from other forum members." -- Oberon

    The SP Spazz Youtube Channel

  8. #68
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    though you said and acknowledge as well, that this rarely happens, I was trying to bring the point back to challanging majority rule, as in overturning a president to overturning a law, (with high numbers)
    You can't recall a president. They can only be impeached/convicted. A law can be unmade by act of legislature, or presidential veto, or Supreme Court ruling. These are all things we have that help us not have straight majority rule.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #69
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You can't recall a president. They can only be impeached/convicted. A law can be unmade by act of legislature, or presidential veto, or Supreme Court ruling. These are all things we have that help us not have straight majority rule.
    Now this gets interesting, should popular rulings be overturned at 70+%?

    If yes, what % would this not be the case?

    Also legislative judges have more power and are faster than the prevous safeguards for overturing a president. Should their be better safeguards over legislative Judges?

  10. #70
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffster View Post
    My point is that marriage has never just been about being in love. There have always been restrictions on it. Currently, all states have age requirements, and I believe all don't allow blood relatives to marry (not sure about Mississippi. ) Having a requirement that one person be male and one be female doesn't seem like an unreasonable restriction to me.
    The traditional definition of marriage is actually irrelevant here because the gay marriage movement doesn't seek religious marriage ceremonies.

    "Marriage" in modern America has two clear and distinct meanings:

    1) A religious ceremony performed by a religious leader in a private religious setting in order to obtain God's blessing--not recognized by the state;

    2) A legal ceremony performed by a civil leader in a public governmental building in order to obtain the state's blessing--not recognized by God.

    Nobody is fucking with #1. Absolutely no one of any note whatsoever supports governmental intrusion into private religious ceremonies like this--obviously this would be a huge infringement upon first amendment rights. #1 is the thousands-of-years-old sacred ceremony upon which religious tradition is founded.

    #2, on the other hand, is a much more recently created legal ceremony in which two people with absolutely no religious affiliation whatsoever (though of course this is open to any two consenting adults, regardless of faith or lack thereof) can obtain a legal license for a few relatively minor government benefits that are in no way related or connected to God or any religious body.

    Most religious couples do both, as I'm sure you know if you're married (which I think I remember you saying you are/have been?)

    But the point is that since the #2 is a purely civil tradition which has been created for the purpose of giving things like tax cuts and visitation rights to two consenting adults who want to merge households, I don't see any reason for the connection to religious tradition in regards to this particular legal arrangement. It's essentially a business agreement; I think a lot of people are upset about this issue mainly because the government had to use the word "marriage" to describe it--but understand that marriage in legal terms is not the same thing as marriage in religious terms.

    Ideally, government would not have anything to do with marriage at all (that'd be up to individual churches and other religious bodies), and would provide a separate civil ceremony for any two consenting adults who wish to participate.

    Most of the problem seems to be that the government made a mistake in poking its nose into marriage in the first place, but now that it has, it's important to recognize the distinction between the two very different meanings of that word.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. India Supreme Court reopens case on decriminalising gay sex
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2016, 10:15 AM
  2. Iowa supreme court upholds woman's firing for being too attractive.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12-24-2012, 05:24 PM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. Two Countries Overturn Gay Military Ban
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 09:51 PM
  5. Gay marriage, adoption, related issues -- Take 2
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO