- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 1,960
- Location
- at the computer
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
That is not a majority of the people and is not considered majority rule. It is possible that the president elected may have less than a majority of the peoples votes. That is not majority. You're playing with words and it's not working.Hmm... The President and Vice President are elected by a majority vote of the electoral college.
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
s in there. Hint: look for where I discuss what type issue it is.
Which is in point of fact not majority rule. The majority of people can vote for a person and they still lose. It has in fact happened.
That is not a majority of the people and is not considered majority rule. It is possible that the president elected may have less than a majority of the peoples votes. That is not majority. You're playing with words and it's not working.
You are wrong that is not majority rule three people have stated the same as I have. You are playing with words. You're back to the school yard games you were playing earlier and derailing the thread as you do so.The quote quite specifically says the "majority vote of the electoral college" which is majority rule. Could it be you don't know what the definition of "majority" is?
As has been said, the majority does not rule on everything else, so you're still not making any sense.As much sense as having majority rule for everything else... except this... just as nonsensical.
And bans on gay adoption and housing discrimination and workplace discrimination ...Other than SSM they are not oppressed...
You are wrong that is not majority rule three people have stated the same as I have. You are playing with words. You're back to the school yard games you were playing earlier and derailing the thread as you do so.
Omg, you are failing with words and backtracking as far as you can go. This is embarrassing.I never said majority of "people"... nor did you. Fact is, majority rule of electoral college votes elects the President and Vice President.
As has been said, the majority does not rule on everything else, so you're still not making any sense.
Omg, you are failing with words and backtracking as far as you can go. This is embarrassing.
I'm not behind on anything. This conversation started with my post and in my post, I was talking about the majority of American citizens voting on the rights of a minority. It shouldn't happen and the majority does not rule on "everything else" no matter how you swing it. That's all you need to know. Your word games and backtracking are irrelevant to the discussion.You're a few posts behind... have to catch up!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/120976-homosexuals-oppressed-5.html#post1060284913
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/120976-homosexuals-oppressed-5.html#post1060284951
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/120976-homosexuals-oppressed-5.html#post1060285018
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/120976-homosexuals-oppressed-5.html#post1060285030
I'm not behind on anything. This conversation started with my post and in my post, I was talking about the majority of American citizens voting on the rights of a minority. That's all you need to know. Your word games and backtracking are irrelevant to the discussion.
Can you write in complete coherent sentences?So maybe you can answer where Redress failed...
And this is different because ... ????
Can you write in complete coherent sentences?
And bans on gay adoption and housing discrimination and workplace discrimination ...
I love it when society deems and decides except when society shouldn't...
There's a difference between a heterosexual couple being denied by the adoption service and state bans on gay adoption. The former happens on an individual basis. The latter is institutional discrimination whereby one class of people is made subservient to another - the definition of oppression in the OP.Gay adoption happens. I understand your point but I had heterosexual friends get denied while homosexual ones were accepted.
I'm not sure what you mean by "workplace discrimination happens to everybody" since I'm pretty sure that's not true on its face.Workplace discrimination happens to everybody
HUD Addresses LGBT Housing Discrimination | The White Houseand I have never know anybody that was denied buying a house when they had the money to pay for it.
It's impossible to "catch up" to someone who's backtracking.So you haven't been following the thread then... tell me when you catch up. I'm interested in the answer!
Before a SCOTUS gets involved, the process must be worked through. That requires votes usually by states assembly's or if Federal, via the Congress. In my state for example, the assembly passed a gay marriage bill but the Governor decided to veto it and put the issue up for referendum. That's what we're talking about here. If put up for a referendum, the people have a majority rule vote on the subject. If that majority rule vote passes or does not pass, only then can the issue be challenged.Society is determining it either way. Just like Brown vs. Board, gay marriage will probably be an issue resolved by the Supreme Court first. The civil rights of the minority are protected under the Constitution (supposedly), but sometimes society itself takes awhile to recognize those rights. Under these situations sometimes the court system will more progressively than the general population.
One always comes before the other, especially when there is a disagreement. But even within letting the people decide or letting the courts decide - in the case of the SCOTUS it's a majority vote, just like it's a majority vote with society and the people.So bottom line, there's a distinct difference between "let the people decide," and "let the courts decide."
Society does determine it ultimately - we agree. But I disagree in this case (not all cases) and society must be a willing partner in such a decision as this one.But either way, society is determining it. I just don't believe that something that I view as a fundamental right should be put up to a majority vote.
It's impossible to "catch up" to someone who's backtracking.
:shock:Read SB's post. This is how an honest person who isn't into playing forum games addresses an issue.
Gay adoption happens. I understand your point but I had heterosexual friends get denied while homosexual ones were accepted. Workplace discrimination happens to everybody and I have never know anybody that was denied buying a house when they had the money to pay for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/americas/08iht-congress.4.8252596.htmlHouse approves bill outlawing workplace discrimination against gays
By David M. Herszenhorn
Published: Thursday, November 8, 2007
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.
Gay and Transgender Discrimination Outside the WorkplaceGay and transgender Americans may be discriminated against in renting or buying housing due to antigay or transphobic landlords and property managers. Health care providers, too, may harbor animus toward gay and transgender individuals and consequently deliver suboptimal care or even refuse to see patients who identify as such. And gay and transgender individuals may experience an outright refusal of services when attempting to access a host of public accommodations including restaurants, parks, hotels, libraries, buses, museums, and elsewhere simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Unfortunately, no federal law currently exists to shield gay and transgender individuals from this type of discrimination. A patchwork of state and local laws offers some of these protections to gay and transgender Americans. But the lack of a comprehensive federal law means that a restaurant owner in El Paso, Texas can kick a gay couple out of his establishment simply because the couple shared a kiss with one another. A landlord in West Virginia can decline to show a property to a lesbian couple. And a doctor in Indiana can deny service to a patient based on her gender identity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?