jimbms Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 If 99% of the people vote to say that the actual act of sex between a man and a goat should be made illegal and this motion is carried through then this would not be democracy and should not happen as it is taking away the freedom of the 1% to act in a way they regard as normal. Is this correct? A simple yes or no answer please LDV, no waffle No, I think not if the decision is binding on these people. Right part 3: Swap same sex act or goat sex for necrophilia, beastiality or peadophilia, is your answer still the same that it is not democratic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 If legality is to mean endorsement then in the matter of paedophilia it would be a democratic decision to criminalise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 I did not say just one, please answer considering all, the point I am trying to make is no matter what the subject if the majority vote for something then the result is by definition democratic even if the minority do not like it or it means they are outcast it is still democratic you cannot select what is and what isn't according to your ideals, it is the ideals of the majority that count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 It does matter about the examples, that's the point, because it isn't a different term for majoritarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Exactly, it is democracy in action, rule by the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 I didn't agree with you, forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Gay couples adopting kids is wrong in my opinion. It's just isn't natural. I really feel sorry for kids who have 'two mothers'. What teasing they must go through at school. As for the catholic church, I'm surprised they would want to give up any kids. Surprised the Pope hasn't fallen on his sword. Dirty bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 What an odd debate about democracy. I tend to think there is a difference between a liberal democracy and majoritarianism or whatever the word is. Liberal democracy limits the ability of the majority to enforce its views on minorities - it uses constitutional rights, super-majority rules etc to check the power of the majority. Overall I think this is correct - it stops popularism seeking to exploit one particular segement of the population or blame it for problems. Though I also agree the "rights" culture is one of the most problematic areas in politics at the moment. On the whole I think rights and limiting the power of the majority is reasonable - but any bill of rights, or constitutional guarantees need to be carefully formulated and I do believe the EU rights culture has been enforced by an elite too quickly to be accepted, especially compared to the much less ambitious, yet far older and more accepted rights existing in the US. This goes to the heart of Evil Goblin's argument - liberal democracy does limit the freedom of action of its population to practice freedom of association etc. It argues that in order to benefit from living in the society you have to accept its rules which limits freedom of action compared to the state of nature. That attitude goes right back to Hobbes and Locke. Insisting all members of society are treated equally is a pretty fundamental part of a liberal democracy, but it does create a contradiction - a law which discriminates those who discriminate! I'm no where near as troubled by that contradiction as Evil Goblin, but then again he seems to get a lot more het up about "unnatural" homosexuals - they aren't unnatural, and I think there is alot of evidence that discriminating against them is bad for society. Over gay adoption etc - culture is massively diverse - people are raised by grannies, aunties, granddads, uncles, friends of either sex, in single parent households, multiple parent households - I've friends who's parents have separated and remarried, all while living in the same house with 4 adults all having parenting roles for multiple children from multiple marriages. Gay parents aren't particularly any less common, or unusual to various multiple other ways children are raised in society. I think the fuss being made about it is massively out of proportion and exists as Cheeseypeas admits due to predujice. The nuclear family is by no means universal and if you were to ban every other combination because it didn't fit the cultural stereotype of humanity's natural family unit then you'd have to ban an awful lot more than just gay families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 "but then again he seems to get a lot more het up about "unnatural" homosexuals - they aren't unnatural, and I think there is alot of evidence that discriminating against them is bad for society." China - you either do not read what I write, have a short memory or have decided which pigeonhole you want to put me in and jam me in there, irrespective of the facts. Where have I ever said that homosexuality is "unnatural"? How could it be? Deviant, yes, but not unnatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 In answer to your last comment, yes I would so long as the priority of the child came first. In which case...withdraw support for the agencies and if they get into financial trouble and cannot survive then have the State move in to run them. There are other options than either closure or discrimination. I always knew you liked authority and the proof of the pudding is above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 China - you either do not read what I write, have a short memory or have decided which pigeonhole you want to put me in and jam me in there, irrespective of the facts. Where have I ever said that homosexuality is "unnatural"? How could it be? Deviant, yes, but not unnatural. Short memory and pigeon holing are probably the best explanations - sloppy I realize, but I was posting late at night after having a good time with friends - apologies. I think we've said about as much as can be said about deviancy - homosexuality is as deviant as having red hair. Whether something is natural or unnatural is pretty irrelevent to the moral issue - I seem to have far fewer issues than you in providing equal rights to homosexuals and using the powers of the state to reduce the discrimination they suffer. This seems to be one of the (few) times where LDV believes the state is doing something worthwhile and whatever the symantics of the meaning of democracy I'm basically not in favour of a system which allows a majority to discriminate against a minority (certainly let those who sincerely disagree carry on, but I suspect this is really just bating LDV). When it comes to one minority's right (Christians) to discriminate against another minority (gays) I tend to look at the bigger picture. Christians are meant to work with and for the sinner and understand the importance of love; as far as I am aware when evidence is used it shows that children adopted by homosexual couples are well adjusted and not significantly different from children adopted into other families. In that case where is the harm - I do not believe in immortal souls, believe the state has no business dealing with theology and should rather concern itself with placing children who have fallen into its somewhat poor care into families who wish to love them. As far as I know the evidence shows that homosexual couples fit this role as well as anyone else - and so I disagree with the church's demand to be able to discriminate and stop this occuring, most especially when they also demand the state funds them in their efforts to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 China - you either do not read what I write, have a short memory or have decided which pigeonhole you want to put me in and jam me in there, irrespective of the facts. Where have I ever said that homosexuality is "unnatural"? How could it be? Deviant, yes, but not unnatural. I don't think you have ever adequately explained your perspective on this. On face value, it makes no sense. Ok, I'll assume what you mean natural and accept that you think homosexuality is natural. Now...deviancy. For homosexuality to be considered as such you would have to have a perspective that sees heterosexuality as the legitimate/correct/proper sexuality, because you think it deviates or is an incorrect/illegitimate/improper deviation from it.Recognising your acceptance of both being natural and your affording of heterosexuality as a correct sexuality - how do you reconcile this seeming contradiction? Manxy - I always knew you liked authority and the proof of the pudding is above Er what? I think that State can be used and should be used as much as possible to protect us from capitalist practices and in a time when people are not planning to remove yet. That makes sense. If the State disappeared tomorrow there would be massive social problems and economic collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.