This whole gay marriage thing brings up an interesting issue: How far does "majority rule" go?

Seriously, stop and think of it for a minute. If we allow total "majority rule" then that means that 51% of the population could pass laws enslaving the other 49%, taking their property, stripping them of all human rights and it would be perfectly OK because 'the majority' voted on it.

A lot of people are saying that gays can't get married because 'the majority' voted against it. Well, what if 'the majority' voted to ban interracial marriage, as was done in america until recently? Would that be OK? Suppose the majority voted to bring back segregation? Hey, majority rules, right?

I believe in a civillized country, the majority has rights and power, but the minority has the right not to be crushed by majority, and personally I think that gay marriage is a priavate matter for consenting adults, and the majority really doesn't have a say in it.

I believe in order to maintain a civillized society, the minority must have some inalienable rights that the majority can't take away or violate. Thruout history whenever things have gone south, it's been a typical human response to point a finger at a convenient minority and 'solve' everything by persecuting or destroying them.

Society and civillization only advance by learning from the past, and one lesson we must learn is that people who don't fit into the majority viewpoint are still people and still have rights, and  one of the great tests of a civillization is how much it respects the rights of the minority.

So I'm in favor of gay marriage laws, and if 'the majority' doesn't like it, then it can just live with it. Allowing people with differeing views to have their rights respected within reason is part of living in a civillized society.

So, you've discovered Tyranny of the majority ? Good for you !

This said, opposition to gay marriage being based on homosexuality inherent squickyness/immorality/whatever, I'm afraid there's not much point in trying to reason it . Even in my own very secular country, I don't expect any progress in the foreseeable future. Time will sort this out, I suppose.

It's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  It is a social institution--in western democracies, a special subset of contract law--to which participation is extended as a franchise.  Just like voting, not just anyone is entitled to the marriage franchise.  We don't let close blood relations marry, nor juvenilles, nor do we allow polygamy despite it being part of certain religious beliefs.  Larger questions like equality under the law can make the case that gay marriage should be legal.  But there is nothing inherently wrong under the principles of "natural law" why the majority of the population can decide to exclude same-sex marriage.

    In case you are wondering, I have no problems with gay marriage.  My sister is civil-unioned to a perfectly lovely woman who has become a close part of our family.  They would have married if the legal challenges resolving gay marriage in Canada had been resolved sooner.

Andrew

Quote from: SamarkandIt's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  
Andrew

Just a small nitpick : over here, marriage is a constitutionnally protected right. Of course, at the time only heterosexual marriage was contemplated and there is a whole body of law surrounding this principle (particularily because of immigration issues), but you still have an opening.

Quote from: SamarkandIt's important to remember that marriage is not a right.  

Article 16

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonArticle 16

I have to say, on first blush this is the first legal basis I've seen asserted for marriage as a right. Most legal arguments I see are for protection under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. It could be that I just don't pay that close attention to the subject, but it really is the first time I've seen the UN declaration, in which America is a participant, asserted. Very nice.

I have only one problem with it - playing devil's advocate as it were - with the assertion.  Look at the first item of Article 16:

Quote from: Declaration of Human RightsMen and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I can see someone pointing out that it does not, with respect to marriage, bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. It bars discriminating on the basis of race, nationality, or religion (and gender by saying Men and Women), but not sexual orientation.

So, in theory, it would be possible for a country to say which Men and Women can marry, as long as it's not based on one of those three items mentioned. This is the same way in which many people, essentially, dismiss the 14th Amendment.

As I said, I'd love to see this put forward in more of the discussion. It's not that I'm rabidly for or against the proposition of same-sex marraige. But I am interested in the legal aspects of the debate. I wonder why this isn't used more often? Could it be the current dislike for the UN in the US?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I just realized this may be hijacking the thread as it's about majority rule.  My apologies.

Someone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Quote from: James McMurraySomeone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Now that would be an interesting twist. I'm homosexual because my religion says I must be. Since you can't discriminate against a religious belief, you can't discriminate against my homosexualtiy with respect to X, Y, or Z.

Intersting, indeed.

Quote from: James McMurraySomeone needs to declare homosexuality a religion and/or nation.

Or a race, maybe. Clever idea. Hollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

Quote from: Dominus NoxHollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

You are one warped personage. What are you sniffing now, your armpits or your crotch?:eek: All that Right Wing pungency seeping up into your nostrils must be a potent and toxic brain destroyer:eek:  

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonArticle 16

Luckily, for religious conservatives in America, the United States of America has pretty much ignored everything the UN has ever done. Frankly I'm surprised anyone would even bother with the UN given it's disgraceful state-which of course, ironically enough, is our (Our in this case being the world's nations, including America.) own fault.

As an American what kills me is how this last election played out, and then how gay marriage laws have turned out. It seems even the most liberal American's aren't keen on same sex marriage.

Now personally I think the institution of Marriage is garbage, and steeped way too deeply in the Judeo-christian traditions. I think civil contracts should be as far as the government gets involved, but I may as well be pissing into a strong wind these days.

Quote from: Dominus NoxOr a race, maybe. Clever idea. Hollering about "Racism" and "Discrimination" has gone a long way to help a lot of people in america get ahead, even people who couldn't spell "racism" or "discrimination".

Well, hey, since its looking like there's a biological basis for homosexuality, and the big argument from many of that persuasion is that they're "made that way" - its not a choice, you could easily get protected group status. If nothing else, the American's With Disabilities Act would be a powerful tool for them.

I mean, not that its a disability. True, in nature, any characteristic that dosn't breed true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_breeding_organism ) is damn hard to pass on, and hence is biologically useless or worse. And since homosexuals can't naturally conceive... well, that way lies flame-fest.  

Hey, its not me, its the scientists!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html

I read that same article, WereKoala.  It simply illuminates the problems that homosexuals have in attempting to establish equality.

If you think it's born into you, some scientist from the University of Oregon is going to show how you can be "cured."

If you think it's a choice (based on nurture or not), you lose some of your steam in the equal rights battle.

It's a horrible position to be in.

I actually think the genetic route is the way for them to go, because they can (as seen in the article) start screaming about how abhorrent "fixing" homosexuality would be. Would you also, they might ask, be able or willing to "fix" black? Etc.

By taking the genetic route, they can ban any manipulation of genetics. Hey, the homosexuals and hard-right have common cause! Their future is assured!

Homosexuality, if it is a genetically-connected trait, is obviously one that does not depend on direct genetic inheritance. Otherwise it wouldn't last very long, would it?

Likewise, evidence seems to indicate that it is definitely biological.  It could be biological without being directly genetic.  That seems likely, since children and siblings of homosexuals don't seem any more prone to homosexuality than anyone else.  It also doesn't appear to be a learned behaviour, since children raised in homosexual/lesbian families don't seem any more prone to become homosexuals either.

The reality of it all is considerably more complicated, it would seem.

I don't see, however, how any of that makes any difference in terms of civil/human rights.  There's a ton of stuff, like, say, religion, that is obviously a "lifestyle choice" that receives protections under the law. Its an issue of freedom.  Even if homosexuality is entirely and completely a question of choice (and I really don't believe it is; nor do I see how anyone could think it is) that wouldn't affect in the least the rights of homosexuals as human beings.

RPGPundit