PDA

View Full Version : Interracial Marriage



AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 12:41 PM
If the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed, then should congress pass laws to outlaw interracial marriage?

Spartacus
March 5th, 2004, 12:44 PM
" If the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed, then should congress pass laws to outlaw interracial marriage? "

Are you too young to know there was time when such laws were on the books in most states?

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 12:48 PM
Not at all - I just read an article about it. I am just curious as to everyone's opinions on this issue. I am not asking if you are opposed to interracial marriage. I am asking if you think it should be illegal, if the majority wanted it to be illegal?

CC
March 5th, 2004, 12:52 PM
No. This country is not founded on whatever the majority wants. We are a Republic. A Republic that is founded on a constitution and bill of rights that are written especially to protect those in the minority from those in the majority.

Our rights that are not based on modern-day majority approval....thankfully...:O)

F1Fan
March 5th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Alabama recently legalized it, the end of 2000. Welcome to the 20th Century folks, by just a hair.

http://www.majorcox.com/columns/interracial_marriage.htm

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Yeah, but Cyberclown and F1Fan are godless heathens - so of course you feel that way...

What about the more religiously minded who post on this board?

Spartacus
March 5th, 2004, 01:06 PM
I prfer The Dream of a society where a person is measured by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin....I am trying to get some Democrat and liberal friends to see things that way but they refuse.

If one of my daughters were to bring home a fiance of a different color I would be more focused on his character than his skin color.

Racism is immoral.

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 01:09 PM
Racism is immoral.

But that does not answer the question...

If the majority wanted to outlaw interracial marraige - should it be outlawed?

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 01:10 PM
I'm not a relativist. I'd never support the banning of inter-racial marriages because the majority wanted to.

Spartacus
March 5th, 2004, 01:13 PM
Why don't you ask "if the majority wanted slavery, should it be legal?" That question is about as relevant as the one you ask.

The simple truth is if a majority of people in this country want a law there are ways for that law to be enacted, including changing the Constitution -- no matter what that law might happen to be.

This is not a civics class here.

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Why don't you ask "if the majority wanted slavery, should it be legal?" That question is about as relevant as the one you ask.

I have not yet attempted to establish the relevance of that question, although I would imagine it is obvious.

And you have not answered the question, Sparticus... It is a simple enough question.

F1Fan
March 5th, 2004, 01:20 PM
Spartacus, even if the majority want something that is arguably immoral, as Apok suggested? Would you support the majority in that case, or even for something simply unfair?

Spartacus
March 5th, 2004, 01:22 PM
I believe so strongly that the US Constitution outlines about as perfect a form of government as man could ever hope to attain.

I believe this so strongly I dedicated years of my life in prepartion to kill and die for this idea.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Spart is correct however. If the majority truly wanted it, laws could be changed to fit what the majority wanted. As far as this specific issue, I'd oppose the majority. As far as a system that preferred the minority over the majority voice...I'd oppose that even more.

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 01:27 PM
And that is a great thing - we applaud your efforts - and I mean that sincerely.

So... what does that mean about your response to the original question of this thread?

Iluvatar
March 5th, 2004, 01:39 PM
If the public wanted it, then congress would eventually pass it. It would still be wrong, but our system of telling what is right and wrong is based on the majority.

I wonder, though, if I would see it as immoral if I were born in a time where almost everyone else did. I would like to think that I would uphold right, but so many people didn't, back when this was illegal.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 01:40 PM
If the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed, then should congress pass laws to outlaw interracial marriage?

SHOULD they?

Legally: Yes.
Morally: No.

My sense of morality supersedes my agreement (not necessarily my compliance) with the law.

non-croyant
March 5th, 2004, 01:51 PM
Was it morally or ethically wrong for Rosa Parks to refuse to comply with the law?

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 01:52 PM
Ok, Apok - now let's up the ante...

Suppose the majority of Americans supported the violent enslavement of all black people - then, legally speaking, should the laws allow it?

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 01:57 PM
Was it morally or ethically wrong for Rosa Parks to refuse to comply with the law?
No.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 02:03 PM
Ok, Apok - now let's up the ante...

Suppose the majority of Americans supported the violent enslavement of all black people - then, legally speaking, should the laws allow it?
Fortunately, this is an impossibility as the philosophy of democracy disallows such treatment. Slavery ended as a result of the practice of democracy where men were able to stand up for their beliefs and for what was right.

I would oppose slavery of any kind (violent or not) of anyone. I'd oppose it legally (and illegally) and on moral grounds.

Should the laws allow it however? Laws were put into place to disallow it. It'd take quite a bit to remove them or amend the constitution. But if the overwhelming majority wanted it...what's to stop them but the minority? I'd be in the minority, and I'd seek change. But being IN the minority, I would not attempt to change the nation to a non-democratic state so that my will could be done as I personally see it.

non-croyant
March 5th, 2004, 02:16 PM
But being IN the minority, I would not attempt to change the nation to a non-democratic state so that my will could be done as I personally see it.


Then you would call yourself a democratic absolutist?

mrs_innocent
March 5th, 2004, 02:17 PM
If the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed, then should congress pass laws to outlaw interracial marriage?

My gut reaction would be to say no (for all intensive purpose, I am married to a man of a different race). However it is the duty of Congress to uphold Constitutional rights for all citizens of the United States. While the majority should not rule on a situation such as this, it is typically the majority's voice that is heard. I agree with Apok: Legally, they should; morally, most certainly not.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Then you would call yourself a democratic absolutist?
While I haven't given much thought about it...at first glance, I'd say yes. This does NOT mean however, that I would personally support all that the majority wished to impose, pass, or legislate. That which is opposed to my sense of morality, I would oppose in the capacity I am able to.

Furthermore, while it is a hypothetical (What if that means bringing back slavery?), it is impractical and unrealistic. Democracies END human rights violations, not create them.

Quite simply...allowing the exception become the rule, is bad practice, especially on a societal level.

3rdPersonPlural
March 5th, 2004, 02:52 PM
Somehow, I think a lot of you folks have the idea of a constitutional republic a bit confused.

The only place the will of the people matters is in electing their representatives (Except in the most recent presidential election, but that is another matter and another thread).

These representatives can legislate laws WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION which guarantees the rights of minorities as well as majorities.

Period, full stop, end of debate.

The constituion is what Spartacus defends when he battles on behalf of our nation. It's what allows the downtrodden ni**er in Alabama to vote and attend college. It's what allows Muslims to practice their faith despite 9/11. It's what keeps elected representatives from veering away from a balanced government to force the will of the majority down the throats of an outvoted minority. It's what makes America America, and, in my mind, is what makes it great.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 03:07 PM
But the Constitution can be amended. What about the possibility of it being amended so that it does not protect those freedoms and rights of minorities it once did?

3rdPersonPlural
March 5th, 2004, 04:40 PM
But the Constitution can be amended. What about the possibility of it being amended so that it does not protect those freedoms and rights of minorities it once did?


'Can be amended' and 'Can easily be amended' are sufficiently different to make dastardly changes subject to years of reflection and discussion.

It's an incomplete protection, but I can't think of a better way to do it.

Apokalupsis
March 5th, 2004, 04:56 PM
And I agree. Which is why my previously stated position still stands. ;)

3rdPersonPlural
March 5th, 2004, 05:13 PM
And I agree. Which is why my previously stated position still stands. ;)


Stands well modified on different turf, but we all find serendipity now and then, huh?

AntiMaterialist
March 5th, 2004, 06:54 PM
So...

Do we all agree that at some point, if the will of the majority is sufficiently warped, then the elected leaders should bring about changes against the will of the majority?

If someone disagrees with this - then I will keep upping the ante until you do agree. I will bring up the possibility of the majority supporting sacrificing female babies in satanic rituals.

Or the possibility of the majority supporting the deliberate extinction of all life on Earth.

Or, God forbid, the majority supporting the mandatory playing of disco in all public facilities!

At some point, it is necessary for the government to decide what is best for people, even if it is against their wills. Sometimes such changes will not last, as with prohibition. Other times, as with legalizing interracial marriage in the South, such changes will prove to be correct.

This seems to be most prevalent in situations where a minority is being denied some basic freedom that is an essential component to their capacity to pursue happiness.

Homosexual marriage is one such example. No matter how much some of you may rant about how homosexuals are just giving in to base urges - you are wrong. Love, that is, life long committed loving relationships, are an essential component of the pursuit of happiness for most people.

For a certain percentage of homosexuals, such romantic love only works for members of the same gender.

I am sorry your Bible condemns such love - it is a very sad thing that has led to an enormous amount of emotional harm for millions of homosexuals around the world. It is a sad and terrible thing, but life is that way sometimes.

The concept of protecting the rights of minorities, even when the majority hates their way of life (and hatred is what it is, at its base), is an essential guiding principle of this society.

Gays can get married now - my church (Unitarian/Universalist) performs such weddings. What they cannot have are the legal rights a marriage should normally confer. In addition, they want society to acknowledge that their love, and their committment is every bit as deep and legitimate as heterosexual romance. That is why they want legal marriage, not just legal civil unions.

The government has repeatedly forced social change upon the populace when it became apparent that it was necessary. Hell, we fought a civil war over one such change.

If governments start recognizing gay marriage, then people will learn to live with it, and realize it is a positive component of society - and then they will be in favor of it.

Hatred is an ugly thing. We should be encouraging love, as long as that love is responsible.

3rdPersonPlural
March 5th, 2004, 07:06 PM
I believe, and I believe that the majority believes, that those who drive at 55 in the left lane of a superhighway while randomly tapping their brake pedal and often indefinately signaling a lane change that never happens (except by apparent negligence) should be immediately shot by the first armed civilian or peace officer to happen by.

I also believe that this action item is unConstitutional, so I save my breath.

KevinBrowning
March 5th, 2004, 08:06 PM
If the majority of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed, then should congress pass laws to outlaw interracial marriage?
This is not a direct democracy. It is representative. So the majority of Americans, if they were this closed-minded, would elect closed-minded senators and congressmen. So, they might possibly outlaw interracial marriages. Does this make it right? No.

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Anti-Materialist...what are you driving at?

Apok and I have answered your questions. In our society there is a distinct difference between what is morally right and what is legally correct.

Abortion is immoral but it is legal because most Americans really don't care enough to act on what they know in their hearts is wrong. As a citizen who has sworn allegience to the Constitution of our Country I support our process even though I strongly oppose the outcome in some cases. I work within the process outlined in our Constitutioj to change that.

SO what are driving at Anti??????

AntiMaterialist
March 6th, 2004, 11:51 AM
I am driving at this:

1)
The same BS reasoning that applies to outlawing interracial marriage applies to not legally recognizing gay marriage. All the reasons those who hate homosexuality claim as reasons against gay marriage, are the same reasons racists used 80 years ago to speak against interracial marriage. There is little difference.

2)
Just because the majority wants something (such as outlawing gay or interracial marriage) does not mean they should get it. Sometimes, in protecting the needs of minorities, the government has to go against the will of the majority.

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 12:22 PM
[QUOTE=AntiMaterialist]I am driving at this:

1)
The same BS reasoning that applies to outlawing interracial marriage applies to not legally recognizing gay marriage. All the reasons those who hate homosexuality claim as reasons against gay marriage, are the same reasons racists used 80 years ago to speak against interracial marriage. There is little difference

1.) To equate one's skin pigment to the sexual urges one chooses to act out is preposterous.

2)
Just because the majority wants something (such as outlawing gay or interracial marriage) does not mean they should get it. Sometimes, in protecting the needs of minorities, the government has to go against the will of the majority

As Apok and I told you, in this country when it comes to law it is majority rule -- whether that law is right or wrong.

SInce you began a thread with a hidden agenda please indulge me this admonition.

The Homosexual lobby made a grave strategic error by pushing for "marriage." Marriage is the oldest institution in any human culture. It has always been an institution between men and women for the purposes of property rioghts and procreation.

What the Homosexual lobby should have done is ban together with groups such as AARP and push for legislation that would grant expanded rights to all two-person households who are not married. Rather than join with others to push for something all could benefit from -- like the adult child being able to have her parent whom she lives with on her health insurance -- the Homosexual lobby -- Rather stupidly and selfishly -- instead pushes for "marriage. This was a mistake. It is also indicative of many homosexuals who choose to act out on their homosexual urges -- people who behave in a selfish and stupid manner without concern for how their "wants" affect others.

AntiMaterialist
March 6th, 2004, 12:34 PM
1.) To equate one's skin pigment to the sexual urges one chooses to act out is preposterous.

I disagree. You do not understand the feelings of homosexuals - I wish you did.



As Apok and I told you, in this country when it comes to law it is majority rule -- whether that law is right or wrong.
- The majority in the south wanted Slavery - the government forced them out of it.
- The majority in Alabama currently want the ten commandments in the courtroom, the government has forced them out of it.

Do you really need a list? Majority rule is not the way this country works. Have you even read the rest of this thread leading up to this point?



SInce you began a thread with a hidden agenda please indulge me this admonition.

This is how I always argue - drives my wife nuts.



It is also indicative of many homosexuals who choose to act out on their homosexual urges -- people who behave in a selfish and stupid manner without concern for how their "wants" affect others.

Please explain this, because no seems to answer this question - how does gay marriage affect you? How is the lifelong committment of two people of the same gender a threat to you?

Apokalupsis
March 6th, 2004, 01:06 PM
Stands well modified on different turf, but we all find serendipity now and then, huh?
Nothing modified, nothing accidental, it stands on its own as it's the best position possible.

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 02:10 PM
I disagree. You do not understand the feelings of homosexuals - I wish you did

"feelings" are irrelevantin matters of law and debate.



- The majority in the south wanted Slavery - the government forced them out of it
- The majority in Alabama currently want the ten commandments in the courtroom, the government has forced them out of it

1.) the nation went to war over slavery there was majority support for in the North for going to War against the southern states who wanted to leave.

2.) If there was enough support to enact a constitututional Ammendment mandating display of the Ten Commandemnts -- like the display in the US Supreme Court Building of Moses bringing the tablets down -- then it would be so enacted.

Do you really need a list? Majority rule is not the way this country works. Have you even read the rest of this thread leading up to this point

I strongly suggest you study the Constitutiion paying particular attention to how the Constitutuion is ammended. Your position indicates ignorance of this process.

This is how I always argue - drives my wife nuts
That is beacuse this "style" is condescending, rude and at its core dishonest. Itis a techniques used by adults to lead children through their thinking. I susp[ect I am older than you..

Please explain this, because no seems to answer this question - how does gay marriage affect you? How is the lifelong committment of two people of the same gender a threat to you

I am not opposed to any two people who share a home being allowed to enjoy the same legal rights as a married couple -- that goes for siblings, an adult child and parent etc. I am opposed to calling this "marriage" as it connotes sexual activity and discriminates against people who share a home and live as family partners but do not engage in sexual activity. It discrimnates against asexual love by not allowing all families to enjoy these rights and beneifts.

At its center, the push for gay marriage is selfish, stupid and counterproductive to what could be changes in our laws everyone could benefit from -- regardles of what which gender makes them horny -- or if they even get horny at all.

AntiMaterialist
March 6th, 2004, 04:02 PM
That is beacuse this "style" is condescending, rude and at its core dishonest. Itis a techniques used by adults to lead children through their thinking. I susp[ect I am older than you..


Age does not denote wisdom. You are 38 right? I am 35.

You find it condescending - that is up to you. All I did was establish that there are certain situations where it is the government's function to make decisions against the will of the populace, in order to protect minorities. Your rebuttals of those situations did not really rebut them. The fact stands, the government sometimes has to impose its will upon the majority.



I strongly suggest you study the Constitutiion paying particular attention to how the Constitutuion is ammended. Your position indicates ignorance of this process.

And I feel the same towards you. Study history - you will find ample situations where the government overrules the wishes of the majority of Americans. They might eventually get voted out of office if they do that - but it sometimes must still be done.




I am opposed to calling this "marriage" as it connotes sexual activity and discriminates against people who share a home and live as family partners but do not engage in sexual activity. It discrimnates against asexual love by not allowing all families to enjoy these rights and beneifts.


So, calling heterosexual marriages "marriage" would also discriminate against asexual partnerships - right?

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Age does not denote wisdom. You are 38 right? I am 35 It is not the years but the mileage. Withjourneys come wisdom and there are many journeys.


You find it condescending - that is up to you. All I did was establish that there are certain situations where it is the government's function to make decisions against the will of the populace, in order to protect minorities. Your rebuttals of those situations did not really rebut them. The fact stands, the government sometimes has to impose its will upon the majority

If you check your history books you will find that is either the courts or the commander in chief who have acted to protect the minorities -- not legislation that is voted on in Congress. These same offices have also acted to persecute minorities such as the internment of the AMericans of Japencese and German descent during WWI and leaglization of abortion on-demand.

And I feel the same towards you. Study history - you will find ample situations where the government overrules the wishes of the majority of Americans. They might eventually get voted out of office if they do that - but it sometimes must still be done

Same as what I wrote in response to the preceeding question with an admonition to keep "feelings" out of this.

So, calling heterosexual marriages "marriage" would also discriminate against asexual partnerships - right In my book the only true marriage vows are the ones made before God and family. I would rather see the State get out of the "marriage business" entirely and issue licenses for civil unions to any two people who are not married but have a commitment to live together and enjoy the same legal headaches married people enjoy now. Again "marriage denotes sexual connotations. It is also considered a sacrement in all the major religions. I would be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely then to see the word "marriage" become confused with what it has meant for all of history until now.

AntiMaterialist
March 6th, 2004, 05:07 PM
Withjourneys come wisdom and there are many journeys.


And I daresay my journeys have forced me to learn much in terms of philosophy and spirituality. They have also left me jaded from the years of physical pain - fortunately, that is in the past now. However, feeling the divine presence is what gave me the most strength during the years when I felt like I had a scalpel being stabbed into my groin (twenty years of really bad chronic prostatitis - now gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)



I would be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely then to see the word "marriage" become confused with what it has meant for all of history until now.

We might actually have a point of agreement - I sometimes feel that the government should not be in the marriage business.

I think the word marriage is already being changed, whether or not anyone wants it to be changed. Some people have "group marriages" or marriages with many wives. My church performs homosexual weddings and recognizes gay marriages. Language changes sometimes - that is just how it works.

Heck - I have heard of people proclaiming themselves to be married to their dog! If enough people use a certain term in a certain way, then the definition will change.




If you check your history books you will find that is either the courts or the commander in chief who have acted to protect the minorities -- not legislation that is voted on in Congress.

Like the judges in Massachussetts did most recently? I don't know if they are elected judges or not - but I applaud their bravery in doing the right thing, in a situation that is likely to be a career killing move.



By the way - I agree with your earlier point. I think the gay lobbies are making a key strategic mistake right now. Public opinion is against them. If they push for civil unions, with the same legal status as marriage, they will be far more likely to win. Then, after 10 or 15 years of people being exposed to gay "unions" that are really marriages, the populace will be far more accepting of a simple change in the language of the law.

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 05:22 PM
My opinn and tone has not chaged during our discourse. I see yours has though.

As for your church that marry gay people...well perhaps you might want to look at my new "Catholic Corner" thread........

non-croyant
March 6th, 2004, 05:34 PM
I agree with Spartacus. I think the government should get out of the marriage business as well and leave it up to the churches, etc., to decide whether or not to call a union a "marriage."

Now, if the Unity Church or the Metropolitan Community Church wants to call their union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, a "marriage" then that is up to them.

mrs_innocent
March 6th, 2004, 06:00 PM
In my book the only true marriage vows are the ones made before God and family.

So how do you label a 'wedding' with a Justice of the Peace (who is also a clergyman) with absolutely no religious mention throughout the service? Should those people not actually be said to have a "marriage"?

Spartacus
March 6th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Personally,

The wedding you described is a secular or civil wedding. Legally they are "married" under our current laws and in our society today.

I think having civil authorities empowered to legally "join" two people for legal reasons would in effect actually place a higher value on traditional marriage before God. At least that is my prayer as to what good might come of the civil authorities getting out of the marriage business. This is as it was throughout the human experince until only about three hundred years ago -- before that time Marriage was strictly a Church matter...although it did have property rights implications in civil courts.

This started out as a thread about interracial marriage. It has now transgessed into a discussion of civil unions because the author of the thread used what I think was a disingenious and condescending tactic to eventually bring the discussion to this point.

I will no longer be posting to this thread beacuse the conversation is not about what the thread title describes......

AntiMaterialist
March 7th, 2004, 09:48 AM
because the author of the thread used what I think was a disingenious and condescending tactic to eventually bring the discussion to this point.

Oh, just get over it. I was making a point about the nature of the government's role. Condescending means that I was somehow putting everyone down - I wasn't. There was no insult, except that you chose to see it that way.

CC
March 8th, 2004, 11:47 AM
I also prepared and dedicated years of my life in defense of the ideas this country was founded upon.
It really doesn't make my views any more relevant on most issues, even constitutional ones, than the college protesters that avoided the service during the viet nam era...............................

*Note*....I am 50 and also have had "many" journeys............:O)

FruitandNut
March 29th, 2004, 03:08 PM
All racial issues and problems are of social construct - well entrenched irrational perspectives and prejudices in regard to inter-race marriage makes it yet another contentious issue among many others.

Speaking personally; society(cultures) will seek to undermine, therefore mixed marriages will often come under greater pressure and abuse. Any children often undergo similar social pressure and abuse.

nuenke
April 1st, 2004, 05:47 PM
I prfer The Dream of a society where a person is measured by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin....I am trying to get some Democrat and liberal friends to see things that way but they refuse.

Does that mean you are against affirmative action, set-asides, quotas, and diversity mandates? Maybe we do have some things in common!


If one of my daughters were to bring home a fiance of a different color I would be more focused on his character than his skin color.

What is character? I am familiar with intelligence, conscientiousness, agreeableness, introversion/extroversion, etc. But how would you determine character? Humans practice a great deal of deception and self-deception, what if this fine young man was a real con? How would you know? Would you give him a mandatory "character" exam?


Racism is immoral.

How do you determine what is moral? As far as I can tell, everything that someone says is immoral has been practiced by others in different places and/or in different times. That last I looked, morality had no place in nature - it is a human construct meant to manipulate the masses into following the elite leaders. That is, morality is for sheeple.

Sam
April 18th, 2004, 11:44 AM
I do not hate homosexuals. I do not judge anyone. But I do hate immoral behavior. Morality should never be determined by majority vote.

sjjs
April 18th, 2004, 11:53 AM
I do not judge anyone. But I do hate immoral behavior.

Isn't this contradictory? By looking at a the morality of a person you are judging them.

MattNuenke
April 18th, 2004, 02:10 PM
I do not hate homosexuals. I do not judge anyone. But I do hate immoral behavior. Morality should never be determined by majority vote.

There is a tribe, I can't remember their name, but it is customary for young boys to perform fellatio on older boys, in order to become men. They think the sperm makes them grow into real men. Now, is that behavior moral? Of course it is for that culture.

Morality is culturally constructed - it is meant to keep the tribe unified and increase harmony. But there are no set of moral rules for humans or any other organism. Humans, being easily indoctrinated take on the moral rules of the culture around them. Some hold fast to those rules, many abide by them for the most part, and a few violate them on a regular basis. But, morality is nothing more than following rules imposed on you by someone else.

Personally, homosexuality is the one of the least interesting things we have to deal with.

--
http://www.neoeugenics.com

Sam
April 18th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Is a person moral or immoral or is it the actions of a person that are moral or immoral? People are not born moral or immoral. I'm talking about judging a person's actions. Don't we have to for the good of society? Interesting point about culture. Is that why missionaries go overseas-to spread the good word?

AntiMaterialist
April 19th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Morality should never be determined by majority vote.
So, how should morality be determined?

Sam
April 20th, 2004, 04:37 AM
Morality is defined as conformity to the rules of right conduct. The question is how do we know what right conduct is. The answer is our conscience tells us. Conscience is the voice of truth within us. Discovering our conscience is something we are constantly doing to determine right from wrong. It has a lot to do with our "gut feeling". Inherently, we know what is the truth. It is something we are born with.Unfortunately, there are things that get in the way of us listening to our conscience. Often times it's easier not to do the right thing. Everybody "doing it" also makes it hard to do the right thing. But that doesn't change that we know down deep what the right thing is.

An interesting point was brought up concerning other cultures. Something that may be considered moral(right) in one culture may be considered immoral in another culture. I do agree with this . My husband and I were in the Peace Corps and did live in another culture. Does this mean I am contradicting myself because of what I just said about knowing inherently right from wrong. I don't think so because things get in the way of knowing and culture might be one of those things. If we believe that all men(and women) are equal and God gave each of us what it takes to do the right thing, we have to believe that we know right from wrong but sometimes choose wrong for whatever reasons.

The next question is which culture is right and which one is wrong. I believe we need to turn to our consciences. Our conscience will tell us right from wrong.

This really gets messy though because some people truly believe they are right. Does that make them right? By my defination Yes but I don't believe it.(If I'm confusing you, I've got to tell you that I am confusing myself a little as I try to make a point).

Maybe the answer is to look at the effects on certain decisions. For example, Abortion. Abortion is legal so a woman has the "right" to choose. I have worked with many women who have chosen abortion. When they made their decision, some did truly believe they made the right choice at the time. However with time their conscience told them they were wrong. Many women are now dealing with physical and emotional consequences of an abortion they can't take back.

To me, this means that the law made to legalize abortion was not a moral law and should be changed. I don't believe the majority of people really believe down deep that abortion is a good choice. They are not listening to their conscience because it's easier not to.

So, Morality is not determined by majority vote. It's determined by our consciences. Our ability to know the truth. A true gift from God.

Where I run into a little trouble is when someone tells me that they don't believe in God. I don't understand someone not at all believing in God. Maybe you might question or doubt God exists from time to time. Everyone does. But to never, ever, not even occasionally believe in God is something I can't understand.

Sam
April 20th, 2004, 01:43 PM
How does gay marriage affect me? It affects me because I teach my children that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and then they see two homosexuals getting married. It's confusing to our children. Many who are just discovering their own sexuality are confused that maybe they too are gay. My older daughter knew someone in high school who one year said she was gay and the next was not. It may not affect me directly because I am grown and have my morals that I live by but my children are still growing and discovering morals. If homosexuals could go somewhere and live without influencing anyone else's morals than I would still feel they were wrong but it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't influence society. But homosexuals are members of society just like the rest of us. We live together on this planet and what we do influences others.

CC
April 21st, 2004, 12:36 PM
I teach my children that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and then they see two homosexuals getting married. It's confusing to our children.

If you teach them it is wrong then you must be teaching them WHY it is wrong. having done so, where is the confusion? If they see it they should (if you have taught them as you say) see it as two people doing something wrong and not get involved. Do you teach them that drug use is wrong? If so and they see someone doing drugs then they know it is wrong. No confusion.

The confusion comes when your reasons for it being wrong are not logical or reasonable. If they are your children should not be confused, only amused when they do encounter the sort of immoral follies that you warn them about.


It may not affect me directly because I am grown and have my morals that I live by but my children are still growing and discovering morals.

Obviously it does affect you. However, aside from that didn't you learn your morals while you were young? That's how we all do it. We take our parent's morals out into the world with us and until those morals conflict with what actually is, they use them. It is only natural for teens to discover for themselves what is moral and what is not. That includes sex. i'm sure there are many teens who have experimented with opposite sex intamacy, out of curiosity, and then discoved for themselves that it wasn't for them.

You can't put your kids in a place where what they do is not affected by what others do, and you can't do that with homosexuals either. As you said, we all influence each other. Teach them to think for themselves, rather than adopting the morals that were in place when you were their age. Times change and people must change with it or be left in a world where no one likes anyone different from themselves......:O)

AntiMaterialist
April 21st, 2004, 01:49 PM
How does gay marriage affect me? It affects me because I teach my children that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong and then they see two homosexuals getting married. It's confusing to our children.
I find this so disturbing, in so many ways, I hardly know where to start. So - I will just ask a few more questions instead.

You obviously are Christian, and thus feel that Islam is wrong. Do you feel it is wrong for two Muslims to get married in a Muslim ceremony - especially one your children somehow witnessed?

nuenke
April 21st, 2004, 03:58 PM
I agree with Spartacus. I think the government should get out of the marriage business as well and leave it up to the churches, etc., to decide whether or not to call a union a "marriage."

Marriage is pretty much dead. But children from unions of any sort need to be defined. Maybe we need to refocus on what unions mean in terms of children as far as the state is concerned.

KevinBrowning
October 3rd, 2004, 03:16 PM
With all the gay marriage threads around, I thought this old one would interest some of the newer people.

Fyshhed
October 3rd, 2004, 07:44 PM
With all the gay marriage threads around, I thought this old one would interest some of the newer people.
I'm with the late AM on this one. Religion is tolerable until it produces bigotry of that magnitude.

HermanPetri
October 4th, 2004, 12:09 AM
Personally, I believe I addressed most of these issues on the "What Is Marriage" thread, which for some reason suddenly and inexplicably lost steam, and on the "Demonic, Crazed" thread which got very interesting if a little bogged down in tangents.

To me the parallels between interracial marriage and gay marriage are quite obvious. And the reason it is used so often are many-fold.

1) Many of the same individuals of the generation which supported racial segregation are still alive and actively operating today in resistance to gay marriage.
2) The "seperate but equal" nature of the suggested civil unions.
3) The argument = "You have the same right we do; to marry someone of your own race (of the opposite gender)"
4) A person's gender is every bit as much a fixed component of a person's identity as his/her race.
5) The arguments used in favor of racial segregation then (specifically those which appeal to some superiority complex) are so eerily similar to those arguments against gay marriage, including but not limited to: appeals to tradition, appeals to state's rights, appeals to morality, religious subtexts, majority opinion, fear of the unknown, assumed superiority, social stigma, disasterous predictions, guilt by association, fear of losing priviledged status, etc...
6) The legal battle to end discrimination against interracial couples shares more things in common with the battle to end discrimination against gay couples than any other legal challenge in U.S. history.

Some of the specific details which both struggles share in common are: The widespread majority of negative opinion towards groups involved; the widespread majority of resistance to such marriages; the many state laws banning such marriages; they were both challenged in spite of historical precedent against the couples; they were both challenged on the basis of the same constitutional guidelines; they were both challenged in face of the same systematic legalised bias; both challenges were more immediately successful in the courts rather than in the congressional system; both challenges appealed to individual liberties; both groups of detractors appealed to general uncertainty and traditional favoritism; both challenges involve the rights of two consenting adult humans; both groups of detractors appealed to the fear of relationships beyond two consenting adult humans; both challenging groups were slandered as being damaging to children and/or the family; both challenges rejected the unequal application of laws for different groups without due process; both groups of detractors insisted that the laws were equally fair to everyone since the restricted persons were being denied marriage based upon their choice of partner and they had the same right to adhere to the accepted structure as anyone else...

The above qualifications describe both struggles in quite the same regard. Indeed, those are only the legalistic examples. The emotional component - from biblical assertions to slipery-slope moralism, prejudicial claptrap to hypocritical appologetics - shows just as similar a parallel.

Ibelsd
October 4th, 2004, 11:52 AM
Interesting that in this discussion, no one has asked the simple question, "Why?" Why did the hypothetical majority suddenly overturn 100 years of civil rights progress to undo the Constitutional rights of black and white people to marry each other? Before we can answer the moral correctness of this decision, the people's intent should be examined.

Zhavric
October 4th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Interesting that in this discussion, no one has asked the simple question, "Why?" Why did the hypothetical majority suddenly overturn 100 years of civil rights progress to undo the Constitutional rights of black and white people to marry each other? Before we can answer the moral correctness of this decision, the people's intent should be examined.

I believe the Supreme court said it best.

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Ibelsd
October 4th, 2004, 02:49 PM
I believe the Supreme court said it best.

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

Maybe I misstated my intention. In our hypothetical discussion, in which we presume a contemporary majority would vote to ban interacial marriage, should not there also be a hypothetical reason for their vote? If, the reason is simply a return to pre Loving vs. Virginia statuets, then clearly the majority has no moral nor legal right. What if it was found, through science, that children of interracial couples had a 20% higher incidence of birth defect than chidlren of single race couples? Would the majority then be right to act against interracial marriage. After all, isn't this the legal reason why incest is outlawed?

P.S. This is all hypothetical, so please refrain from deducing that I am looking for some sort of excuse to go back to seperate but equal, racial separation, etc.

HermanPetri
October 5th, 2004, 06:32 PM
That isn't a legitimate comparison to the current issue. A more appropriate situation would be:

"Why did the society suddenly decide to overturn the then long accepted majority opinion that different races shouldn't intermarry?"

The answer: They didn't. The courts overturned it based upon the principles of equality under the law already present in the consitution. It took a very long time for society to come around to the understanding that that was indeed the appropriate decision based upon the underlying principles which the majority already had agreed with for a very long time. It just took acceptance of that.

Zhavric
October 6th, 2004, 04:30 AM
Maybe I misstated my intention. In our hypothetical discussion, in which we presume a contemporary majority would vote to ban interacial marriage, should not there also be a hypothetical reason for their vote? If, the reason is simply a return to pre Loving vs. Virginia statuets, then clearly the majority has no moral nor legal right. What if it was found, through science, that children of interracial couples had a 20% higher incidence of birth defect than chidlren of single race couples? Would the majority then be right to act against interracial marriage. After all, isn't this the legal reason why incest is outlawed?

This is what's called a "loaded question".

"If a brick fell off a building and landed on your bare foot, wouldn't it hurt?" The answer is that of course it would hurt. Anyone who says otherwise has the burden of explaining why their foot is superman-like in its resiliancy to survive the impact of a dense, fast moving object.

But the point is that bricks don't fall on people's exposed feet.

There ISN'T a 20% higher chance of birth defect in interracial couples. It's a poor hypothetical because it does not reflect reality. In fact, it's the opposite of reality. Consider Cycle Cell Anemia (CCA).

CCA is more common in blacks than it is in whites.
Individuals who are descended from African and European parents are more likely to be carriers for CCA.
Carriers for CCA are COMPLETELY immune to the disease Milaria (the bacteria cannot bond to their blood cells).

So, I'm not going to indulge in your hypothetical because it's a loaded question and does not mirror reality.

Ibelsd
October 7th, 2004, 12:32 PM
This is what's called a "loaded question".

"If a brick fell off a building and landed on your bare foot, wouldn't it hurt?" The answer is that of course it would hurt. Anyone who says otherwise has the burden of explaining why their foot is superman-like in its resiliancy to survive the impact of a dense, fast moving object.

But the point is that bricks don't fall on people's exposed feet.

There ISN'T a 20% higher chance of birth defect in interracial couples. It's a poor hypothetical because it does not reflect reality. In fact, it's the opposite of reality. Consider Cycle Cell Anemia (CCA).

CCA is more common in blacks than it is in whites.
Individuals who are descended from African and European parents are more likely to be carriers for CCA.
Carriers for CCA are COMPLETELY immune to the disease Milaria (the bacteria cannot bond to their blood cells).

So, I'm not going to indulge in your hypothetical because it's a loaded question and does not mirror reality.


I didn't say that HAD to be the hypothetical reason. I merely noted that the question posed did so without setting up any type of condition. Of course my hypothetical example doesn't reflect reaity. That is why it is hypothetical (and just an example at that). As though a majority of Americans would suddenly change their mind and vote to ban interracial marriage is based in reality. By your logic, you refuse to indulge in any hypothetical that doesn't mirror reality. Yet, I think I read one of your indulgences in another thread as it related to comic book characters. Hey, I guess your reality is a far cry from my own.

P.S. Are you suggesting no one has had a brick land on their foot while they weren't wearing a shoe? I am thinking it is time for a reality check.

Zhavric
October 8th, 2004, 04:46 AM
Ibelsd, please.

There's a world of difference between:

"What would our policy towards terrorists be if John Kerry were elected president."

and

"Wouldn't terrorists come and kill us all if Jessica Simpson were elected president."

Not all hypotheticals are created equal. Your hypothetical already ASSUMED the answer, thus it is a loaded question.

Ibelsd
October 8th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Ibelsd, please.

There's a world of difference between:

"What would our policy towards terrorists be if John Kerry were elected president."

and

"Wouldn't terrorists come and kill us all if Jessica Simpson were elected president."

Not all hypotheticals are created equal. Your hypothetical already ASSUMED the answer, thus it is a loaded question.

First you gave two examples that aren't equivalent. A better example may have been, "What would our policy towards terrorists be if Jessica Simpson were elected president." In either case, the hypothetical question could be debated. Come up with a better hypothetical reason why a majority of Americans suddenly attempted to reverse the decision of Loving v. Virginia. I threw something out there. I could care less. I was simply pointing out that trying to debate an action without understanding the basis for that action is futile. On the other hand, I am unsure what your point is.

Zhavric
October 8th, 2004, 09:52 AM
First you gave two examples that aren't equivalent. A better example may have been, "What would our policy towards terrorists be if Jessica Simpson were elected president." In either case, the hypothetical question could be debated. Come up with a better hypothetical reason why a majority of Americans suddenly attempted to reverse the decision of Loving v. Virginia. I threw something out there. I could care less. I was simply pointing out that trying to debate an action without understanding the basis for that action is futile. On the other hand, I am unsure what your point is.

That was intentional. I was illustrating the difference between a true hypothetical and a loaded question. I'm not concered with the subject matter of your "hypothetical". What concerns me is that you assumed the answer in the question.

Effectively, "If 1 plus 1 is the case, then wouldn't we have 2?" You have to answer 2 otherwise you're stuck with the burden of proving 1+1 equals not-2. If people found out that there is a 20% higher rate of birth defect in ANYTHING, they'd shun / ban / be against it, whatever it is. Sure you can call it a hypothetical but it's meaningless in a debate because you've asked it in such a way that there is only one logical answer. It's like asking "If we found out that terrorists won't attack America while Bush is president then wouldn't you vote for him?" The answer is YES of course but not because of any real mmerit, but because you have set up the question so that the ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER is yes. So it's a LOADED question.

Loaded question. L- O - A - D - E - D. Get it?

Ibelsd
October 8th, 2004, 10:02 AM
That was intentional. I was illustrating the difference between a true hypothetical and a loaded question. I'm not concered with the subject matter of your "hypothetical". What concerns me is that you assumed the answer in the question.

Effectively, "If 1 plus 1 is the case, then wouldn't we have 2?" You have to answer 2 otherwise you're stuck with the burden of proving 1+1 equals not-2. If people found out that there is a 20% higher rate of birth defect in ANYTHING, they'd shun / ban / be against it, whatever it is. Sure you can call it a hypothetical but it's meaningless in a debate because you've asked it in such a way that there is only one logical answer. It's like asking "If we found out that terrorists won't attack America while Bush is president then wouldn't you vote for him?" The answer is YES of course but not because of any real mmerit, but because you have set up the question so that the ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER is yes. So it's a LOADED question.

Loaded question. L- O - A - D - E - D. Get it?

Oh. You are upset that I used an exaggerated example as a means of making a point. I was merely demonstrating that the cause is something to be taken into account. Apparently, you agree.

Zhavric
October 8th, 2004, 10:13 AM
Oh. You are upset that I used an exaggerated example as a means of making a point. I was merely demonstrating that the cause is something to be taken into account. Apparently, you agree.

What CAUSE? What the hell are you talking about? You stated...


What if it was found, through science, that children of interracial couples had a 20% higher incidence of birth defect than chidlren of single race couples? Would the majority then be right to act against interracial marriage.

Which is a loaded question that has nothing to do with gay marriage or interracial marriage. Sure, it's hypothetical, but so is my Bush/terrorist question above which is every bit as loaded and off-topic as this.

You may as well ask, "Well if black people and white people EXPLODED when they had sex, then wouldn't it be right to be against inter-racial marriage." Of course it would, but it's irrelevant to even ask because the answer is implied in the question and is the ONLY logical answer.

Loaded question. Accept this and move on.

Ibelsd
October 8th, 2004, 01:53 PM
What CAUSE? What the hell are you talking about? You stated...



Which is a loaded question that has nothing to do with gay marriage or interracial marriage. Sure, it's hypothetical, but so is my Bush/terrorist question above which is every bit as loaded and off-topic as this.

You may as well ask, "Well if black people and white people EXPLODED when they had sex, then wouldn't it be right to be against inter-racial marriage." Of course it would, but it's irrelevant to even ask because the answer is implied in the question and is the ONLY logical answer.

Loaded question. Accept this and move on.

Aye carumba. First, I did not intend to create the premise for which this debate was created. This is someone else's thread. What I did suggest was that his premise, in which interracial marriage is banned, was not debatable unless he provided a reason that this decision was hypothetically made. You, for some reason, are stuck on judging the validity of my example. I do agree, move on.

HermanPetri
October 9th, 2004, 12:15 AM
Ahh, I see now...

First, I did not intend to create the premise for which this debate was created. This is someone else's thread. What I did suggest was that his premise, in which interracial marriage is banned, was not debatable unless he provided a reason that this decision was hypothetically made.

I just went back and reread the opening of this thread and I see now how your question relates, Ibelsd. I hope you understand that this topic has wandered far and wide from the conversation of those many months ago. From this vantage point your proposal seemed to come outta left field. I agree, the original post doesn't carry much relevance unless qualified with some objective reasoning.

If it were assumed that interracial marriage as it exists today should suddenly be banned upon no rational basis other than popular opinion - no, it should not be legally banned. Society should be held to the standards of constitutional equality regardless of mob mentality.

Apokalupsis
October 9th, 2004, 12:44 AM
The first post, the first question asked, was very good, and all should think about it carefully. AM was merely using inter-racial marriage as an example of the concept of: "Should there be absolute majority rule?" When this specific example was answered, he then used the same form, but something a little more severe...slavery. But the answer to his question, never changed.

It all comes down to: Should what is law, be made law, due to majority decision?

Sounds simple enough, but it does pose many problems. That is what AM wanted to focus on. He always had a way of getting to his intended topic through a "backdoor"...it's a shame he's gone, our newer members would have enjoyed the discussions with him.

FruitandNut
October 10th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Marriage is pretty much dead. But children from unions of any sort need to be defined. Maybe we need to refocus on what unions mean in terms of children as far as the state is concerned.

Maybe we adults have lost the plot on marriage. Instead of navel gazing - what is the best environment for children to grow up in is overdue for serious attention. It is the social morass of prejudice and the contradictions of religious perspectives, that can make mixed race marriages a problem, not the concept itself.

In a democracy, majority sentiment should hold sway, but only after a thorough and open debate on the issue. It is to be hoped that something akin to old apartheid and southern states ruling on mixed marriage will never rear its ugly head again.

Ibelsd
October 11th, 2004, 09:10 AM
Ahh, I see now...


I just went back and reread the opening of this thread and I see now how your question relates, Ibelsd. I hope you understand that this topic has wandered far and wide from the conversation of those many months ago. From this vantage point your proposal seemed to come outta left field. I agree, the original post doesn't carry much relevance unless qualified with some objective reasoning.

If it were assumed that interracial marriage as it exists today should suddenly be banned upon no rational basis other than popular opinion - no, it should not be legally banned. Society should be held to the standards of constitutional equality regardless of mob mentality.

That's cool. I guess the topic has morphed over time. I am just so retro sometimes.

Zhavric
October 11th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Maybe we adults have lost the plot on marriage. Instead of navel gazing - what is the best environment for children to grow up in is overdue for serious attention. It is the social morass of prejudice and the contradictions of religious perspectives, that can make mixed race marriages a problem, not the concept itself.

In a democracy, majority sentiment should hold sway, but only after a thorough and open debate on the issue. It is to be hoped that something akin to old apartheid and southern states ruling on mixed marriage will never rear its ugly head again.

America is not a Democracy. America is a Republic. Subtle, but important differences.

The founding fathers never wanted true Democracy which they saw as "the mob". This is evidenced by the system of Checks and Balances they wrote into the Constitution and by the original Electoral College which was used to decide who would be president.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed to protect the rights of individuals / minorities against the majority. We see this in many of the amendments.

Even if the majority don't want blacks to vote, they are still able to.

If the majority of America became fundamentalist Christian, the minority would still be allowed to practice whatever religion they chose.

The government (read big powerful federal government) cannot quarter soldiers in your house because it feels like it, and authorities have to produce warrants to legally search your house.

So, Constitutionally speaking, it doesn't matter if the majority of individuals of the country think that interracial marriage is right or wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that banning interracial marriage was wrong, thus, in the eyes of the law, it became "wrong".

The legislature proposes laws, the executive enforces them, and the judicial makes sure they are just. Checks and balance. Not mob rules.

FruitandNut
October 11th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Ah, but if the executive and the legislature and the High Court are ever monopolised by either the Republicans or the Democrats, then America could end up in deep brown and smelly stuff. All checks and no balance.

Zhavric
October 11th, 2004, 09:48 AM
Ah, but if the executive and the legislature and the High Court are ever monopolised by either the Republicans or the Democrats, then America could end up in deep brown and smelly stuff. All checks and no balance.

Irrelevant / off-topic.

The question isn't "what if?" The question is "what is the intent" specifically of the Constitution. It the Constitution we must examine as this is a legal issue and all laws are subject to the Constitution.

FruitandNut
October 11th, 2004, 01:58 PM
So does or does not the Constitution bar interracial marriages? If this is the case, is the 'wisdom' of the late Eighteenth century neonate Republic an appropriate wisdom for the twentyfirst century, or the thirtieth century for that matter? If it is not the case then it is up to the Judicary to reflect popular concensus whether good, bad or ugly.

ps. I was no more off topic than some of the stuff posted.

KevinBrowning
October 11th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Ah, but if the executive and the legislature and the High Court are ever monopolised by either the Republicans or the Democrats, then America could end up in deep brown and smelly stuff. All checks and no balance.

I do not think a high proportion of Republicans or Democrats in all three branches will have disastrous consequences. I am sure it has been that way many times in the past, and our system has survived it.

HermanPetri
October 11th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Disasterous for whom, Kevin? When a certain viewpoint holds a monopoly over the legal system minorities often suffer. This has been quite evident in the history of our nation.

Not even an entire generation has passed since the last social injustice of segregation. At that time not even a generation had passed since women were previously denied the vote. Before that it was injustice towards Native Americans and before that slavery.

It seems that each new generation is responsible for redefining what is tolerated in the name of the traditions of their ancestors. They are given that power and there will come a time when none of us will be actively capable of influencing that power. But while I'm here, I'm going to use the tools legally available to me in order to see that society considers my interests as well as anyone's.

KevinBrowning
October 11th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Disasterous for whom, Kevin? When a certain viewpoint holds a monopoly over the legal system minorities often suffer. This has been quite evident in the history of our nation.

Not even an entire generation has passed since the last social injustice of segregation. At that time not even a generation had passed since women were previously denied the vote. Before that it was injustice towards Native Americans and before that slavery.

It seems that each new generation is responsible for redefining what is tolerated in the name of the traditions of their ancestors. They are given that power and there will come a time when none of us will be actively capable of influencing that power. But while I'm here, I'm going to use the tools legally available to me in order to see that society considers my interests as well as anyone's.

Fruit implied that our nation might suffer disastrous consequences if there comes to be an overwhelming majority of members of either political party in all three branches of government. I think this is overstating the case. The structure of our federal government is extraordinarily well-balanced. Each branch exercises limits and restraints upon the other branches, and it would be highly improbable for either party to come to inhabit, say, 90% of the three branches. One explanation of this is the rotational structure of Congress. The Senate puts a third of its membership up for re-election every two years. The party of the new president is often different than the previous one. And since judicial appointments in the Supreme Court are for life, the Supreme Court does not usually have an overly one-sided partisan make-up. I am not an advocate of the strict bipartisan system in the U.S., but I think as far as historical governments go, ours is the most stable and successful in the history of man.

FruitandNut
October 12th, 2004, 06:26 AM
Kev: From over the Pond sometimes that 'stability' seems like stasis. Ideas and mindsets that are unprepared or fearful to move forward.

Fyshhed
October 12th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Kev: From over the Pond sometimes that 'stability' seems like stasis. Ideas and mindsets that are unprepared or fearful to move forward.
Like gay or interracial marriage!
And stem cells.
:)

HermanPetri
October 16th, 2004, 06:19 PM
ATTN: Someone sent me a private email from ODN recently and I was dumb enough to accidentally delete it before recognizing who it was from before reading it. I appologise, but at first I just thought it was just an automated message informing me about a new post on a random thread. Once it was too late I realised that it had been a communication from a member.

If you sent me that email I am always interested in feedback and I hope that you get this message and my appology for not having read it. Feel free to email me again or send me a PM. I will be more careful in the future.

I'll be repeating this notice in the recent threads I've been participating in just to be on the safe side. To everyone else, I'm sorry for the redundancy of this notice.