Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights? (reject, paradise)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Wow, that quote is becoming worse than that Newton quote "If I have seen farther it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants" or whatever. Not everybody has to use that same quote over and over.

.... Once again, you have me confused with someone else. Why can't you just admit it? You're wrong about who and what I speak for. You keep saying it in thread after thread after thread that I am speaking out against "equal rights" for homosesxuals. You obviously know nothing.[/color]

Niemoeller's quote should be used in context every time someone thinks their freedoms are safe. You don't address the truths found in the quote but critize its frequent usage. A pathetic avoidance of responing to it.

I have yet hear to say in this thread and none other that I remember that you would vote for gay marriage. I have heard selected negativity on the periphery of the issue that would indicate you enjoy throwing roadblocks in the discussion. That is one way to derail the issue and is highly indicative that you do not support gay marriage. A simple "I support and will vote for gay marriage" will do.

[Aqualung]

But if marriage is a government-made institution, shouldn't the government have the right to decide who marriage applies to, and what the word marriage means? And in a representative government like this one, shouldn't it then be the people who are deciding what marriage means?

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Pah

Niemoeller's quote should be used in context every time someone thinks their freedoms are safe. You don't address the truths found in the quote but critize its frequent usage. A pathetic avoidance of responing to it.

I wasn't avoiding responding to it. I was just commenting on the fact that the quote has been so overused it's practically meaningless.

I have yet hear to say in this thread and none other that I remember that you would vote for gay marriage.

I think I've said it about 5 billion times in this forum alone. In fact, I said it in that thread about the speaker that you mysteriously stopped replying to.

A simple "I support and will vote for gay marriage" will do.

I don't support gay marriage. But I certainly won't vote to make it illegal.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

But if marriage is a government-made institution, shouldn't the government have the right to decide who marriage applies to, and what the word marriage means? And in a representative government like this one, shouldn't it then be the people who are deciding what marriage means?

In theory yes. The trouble is that the public can't be trusted to know what is best for them (in most financial matters, anyway), and will vote for what suits them in the short term.

I hate to say it, but I believe that half the population isn't fit to make an informed decision.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by michel

In theory yes. The trouble is that the public can't be trusted to know what is best for them (in most financial matters, anyway), and will vote for what suits them in the short term.

I hate to say it, but I believe that half the population isn't fit to make an informed decision.

That's true, but the government shouldn't get so big that it has to tell us what descisions we should make. That would be waaay too socialist.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I wasn't avoiding responding to it. I was just commenting on the fact that the quote has been so overused it's practically meaningless.


I think I've said it about 5 billion times in this forum alone. In fact, I said it in that thread about the speaker that you mysteriously stopped replying to.


I don't support gay marriage. But I certainly won't vote to make it illegal.

From another thread

Originally Posted by Aqualung

If you're not for me you're against me. If you get pressured by society to
vote to legalise something that you know is wrong, the guilt will be upon
your head. If you fear man more than god, the guilt will be upon your
head.

It really is as close to black and white as you can get. You are not, it seems, supportive of "Do unto Ceasar" and "love thy neighbor". I'm afraid the rights of others, as Niemoeller spoke of them, are as meaningless as you think the quote is.

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by michel

In theory yes. The trouble is that the public can't be trusted to know what is best for them (in most financial matters, anyway), and will vote for what suits them in the short term.

I hate to say it, but I believe that half the population isn't fit to make an informed decision.

You are correct. This Government was set up as representitive government for that reason, along with the electoral college.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

That's true, but the government shouldn't get so big that it has to tell us what descisions we should make. That would be waaay too socialist.

It's our Constitution that says what decisions are permitted which is why there are so many efforts underway to change the Constituions both Federal and State. When you absent yourself from the process of altering the Constitutions, it can and will be taken as giving consent to the initiative.