The debate "We need to be accepting of those who choose to marry animals and children and who are gay" was started by
October 21, 2015, 9:06 pm.
9 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Sumerian posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Hitmenjr posted 2 arguments, historybuff posted 15 arguments, PsychDave posted 8 arguments, bigB posted 2 arguments, windu2420 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
stevenchen, Sumerian, WaspToxin, thecries and 5 visitors agree.
wmd, Hitmenjr, bigB, historybuff, Anas, PsychDave, KicknRush, windu2420, AstroSpace, Yuki_Amayane, TheChosenProphecy, franciscotrejo, NaggingNut and 15 visitors disagree.
he is trying to link accepted behaviors with criminal ones. it isn't a valid debate.
I disagree with all but the gay part
the people elected a group of people to pass laws. they passed laws. that is democracy. and finally a republic is a democracy. please stop just repeating incorrect things after we have explained them. You don't seem to understand what democracy means.
the people had no idea what was going on in the constitutional congress. they thought they were amending the articles of confederation. the founding fathers, in that Congress decided people are too stupid for a democracy to work, so they created a rebublic.
Just because you disagree doesn't mean it is not democratic. The Constitution was written by elected officials, making it democratic. This was the grounds for the ruling. This means that the ruling itself was democratic and your opinion, if enforced on the nation, would be unconstitutional and undemocratic.
wiping out a law that "restricts rights" such as marraige is not in the people today, therefore not a democracy.
if that one guys was the only person for writing laws then yes it would be. because the power to create law would still reside with elected officials. it would be a very inefficient system. but still democratic.
if there was a country where the people elect 1 guy and he appoints the others. would that be a democracy.
a democracy isn't a specific form of government. a republic is a democracy. a Constitutional monarchy (like the UK or Canada) are democracies. any form of government where you elect the law makers is a democracy.
the us has parts of a democracy, it also has parts of marxism that doesn't mean it is those things. for marxism you say it needs all those things that Marxism needs, but a democracy only needs a few traits off democracy?
Look at the pledge of allegiance. "and to the rebublic" not "and to the democracy"
Please end this and actually look into what a democracy is. You are wrong, and since no amount of logic seems to be working, look into it yourself. Google search the subject. Yes, the USA is a republic, not a pure democracy (also called a direct democracy). That does not mean that it is not a democracy at all. It means we elect representatives to pass laws rather than relying on referendums for everything.
but on a democracy the people are the ones who strike down nlaws, or their elected officials.
The Supreme Court doesn't pass laws. They can interpret them if there is ambiguity, and they can strike them down if they are unconstitutional. The laws themselves are written by elected officials.
If the president wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college it is still democratic. The electors are themselves voted for (how depends on the state).
When the Supreme Court pass laws that doesn't necessarily make it "law of the land", it still has to go through individual states rights
wait hold on, I know I'm getting on the tail end of this. Many presidents have won in the popular vote but lost the electoral college. How do you explain that?
Who is your head of state, and are they elected?
but the court is still the goverment.
all power to make laws rests in the hands of elected officials. the judiciary cannot make laws. they only interpret the laws made by those elected officials. the supreme power is in the hands of the people. if the people were outraged by the supreme Court decision they could demand the Constitution be amended to ban gay marriage. but since the majority of Americans support gay marriage that obviously isn't the case.
because in the definition of democracy it says government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
by them or their elected agents. says nothing about other people.
Alex, where are you getting the idea that everyone involved in government must be elected for it to count as a democracy?
I don't know how you aren't getting this. you elect your lower and upper house of Representatives. (congress and Senate) you elect your president. that is a democracy. end of story. if you try to argue otherwise you just stupid or intellectually disingenuous. there is no room for oppinons. those are the facts.
yes that what you just said is not a democracy, we are not supposed to be one either.
oh dear lord. not every single position in a government must be elected for it to be a democracy. I can't think of a single government on the planet that elects every single position. that isn't what makes it a democracy. the judiciary is supposed to "do stuff to the laws" that is what they were created to do. and the people (through their elected officials) can change the constitution if they want to over ride the courts.
I agree, they should not be elected and the lifetime seat is good for the reasons you said. that just isn't a democracy. I'm not for a democracy. but the court can do stuff to the laws WITHOUT the people's concent. in a democracy everything is done by the people.
they aren't in the same branch as the elected officials. the judicial branch is independent of the others so that they can be impartial. I misspoke. yes they are considered a branch of government. no they are not elected, nor should they be. their job is to be impartial arbiters of the law. that is impossible if you have to worry about campaigning and elections. but I reiterate. they do not, and never have, write laws. only elected officials have that power.
the judicial branch of goverment, the third branch of goverment is not part of the goverment. umm historybuff???
no. also not true. every democracy has unelected positions. not every position needs to be elected. and no, the judiciary is not a part of the government. they are independent so that the government cannot pressure them. the reason I'm being stubborn is because you are completely wrong. anyone who knows anything about how democracies function could tell you that.
historybuff this is the most stubborn I've ever seen anyone in any debate(including myself) the judicial members and cabinet members are not elected by the people yet part of the goverment. in the democracy people vote on EVERYONE on the goverment.
cabinet members are another example of leaders we don't vote for.
no. that is wrong. legal experts interpret the law. that is what the judiciary is for. that is its reason to exist. the people are not experts on the law. they aren't qualified to interpret it. the people tell the government what laws they want (more or less). the government makes laws. the judiciary interprets and enforces them. these are the roles in a democracy
for some leaders there are, for some there are not. a democracy needs them all to be elected by the people.
I'll try to use smaller words since you still seem to be having trouble. Rather than dodging with how you disagree with a specific court decision that rejected your religious oppression of a minority, please answer a simple question.
Do people vote in the USA, yes or no? Are there elections for leaders?
and in a democracy who interprets the law? the people
judges are not elected. they are appointed. judges do not make laws. they interpret the laws passed by elected officials.
about taxes, I know we need them, but the MAJORITY of people will not vote for them. the majority is neither rich nor intelligent. that is why we do not have a democracy because people are dumb.
yes I looked into it and just could not find how to vote for those supreme court judges
Yes, intelligent people want taxes because they find driving on roads pleasant. Elected people wrote the laws against discrimination, and for equality. Elected people wrote the law that marriage was a right. The court simply said that, since these laws existed, you couldn't refuse to give some of your citizens that right.
You still seem confused about whether people vote in elections in the USA. Have you looked into that yet?
but democracy was by the people. what part did the people play in that? none. in a democracy of there is a problem with rights it is brought up for the people to decide.
if this was a democracy where the people make laws or at least people elected by the people, to do what the people want, make them would we have taxes? do people want taxes? no but if this is a democracy why do we have a law the majority of the people hate?
they did not make new laws. they struck down discriminatory ones.
Do you vote for your government, yes or no? It shouldn't be that hard of a question.
If you answer yes, congratulations, you have learned that you live in a democracy.
If you answered no, I'm sorry the education system has failed you.
the supreme Court did not make any new laws. It interpreted laws which already existed. the law already said marriage was a right (case law). it also said that everyone was equal, they all have that right. it doesn't take a genius to realize that by looking at both these things (which were already laws) that laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional.
the country was even founded as a rebublic, the founding fathers, at the constitutional congress, had no intention of doing what the people wanted, but what was what they wanted and thought. the country wasn't even founded on a democracy.
Oh, the law of abortion and gay marriage were made by congress, right.
that's not what happened.
all laws are made by elected officials. what are you talking about?
yes your right we vote for the judges that decide big issues like abortion and gay marraige. democracy is DIRECT goverment by the people or their ELECTED officials. you can argue about rights all you want, but that doesn't change the fact we are not a democracy.
the supreme Court is interpreting and enforcing the law. they didn't make any new laws. they simply ruled that laws banning gay marriage were unconditional. which they are. this does not infringe on democracy. if the government disagreed they could potentially amend their constitution to discriminate against people. obviously that will never happen since the majority support gay marriage. but in theory they could.
I'm pretty sure people vote for their representatives. Perhaps you forget that you have a president? If so, do a bit more research into how the country works quick before you look really foolish.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
last time I checked the Supreme Court is not elected. Do these elected agents really do what is wanted by the people or do they do what they think is best. the do the later and that is okay, it's just not a democracy.
the stupidity of the things you say is still surprising after all this time. did you not go to school or something? I'm pretty sure they cover that America is a democracy. it always has been.
Could you look up the definition of a democracy?
I'm not complaining I'm saying america is not a democracy, or we would have voted on gay marraige and abortion. the founding fathers decided against a demacracy for a reason that still a plies today- the majority of people is stupid and should not be trusted, if the founding fathers did not create a democracy how can you call it one?
A republic is a certain kind of democracy. it is a democracy, period. you cannot debate that. it is a fact. the judiciary are there to make sure the laws are upheld and interpreted correctly. they ruled that everyone has the right to get married. they ruled that gay people are in fact people. that means they also have that right. just because you don't like a single judicial ruling doesn't somehow mean that America isn't a democracy. besides which if there was a national vote on it it would pass anyway. where is your complaint?
The US is defined as a Republic. (i.e.) A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, a Republic is two wolves and a well armed lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Just because majority rules doesn't necessarily make it law
if we were a democracy the people would have the vote on laws, not 5 unelected judges in washington. in a democracy the people would vote on laws, majority wins.
lmao. oh Alex... when will you look things up. The US republic is a democracy.
america is not a democracy, it's a rebulic, but yes the people do have a big part in the law.
And for Gods sake use commas Steven.
I object...the society for the most part of a democracy IS law...If we separate the two we will have problems...And bestiality and child marriage is totally wrong because they probably have no say in it...
Yes, but I agree they should be accepted BY SOCIETY but should be punished BY LAW.
According to a research to change people involve in antisocial activities ,hostility and despise is not going to help in way. It was seen in research that developing acceptance to such people can drive them away from antisocial activities.
Perhaps these antisocial people getting rejection from society seek comfort in these antisocial activities.
In France, a complete research totally funded by government was done to develop favourable environment for such people.
So we should accept such people and let law work for them.
marriage needs consent of both. How will you ensure consent of animals?
and children are not mature enough to decide it.
Marriage with children and animals is an offence.
So, it's not wise to consider it acceptable.
Gay people deserve to be accepted because it is a relationship between two consenting adults. Pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality are not. By combining them, you demonstrate not just your intolerance and bias, but your stupidity in thinking no one would point this out.