Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.
|
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even realize it. On the one hand, you are saying that the Constitution and the founding fathers had much more sense than the masses do today and that we should trust the judgement of the founding fathers. That is a reasonable argument.
But on the other hand, you know what things were like in those days. The founding fathers weren't in favor of gay marriage. I think gay sex was a crime back then. So you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Should we listen to everything the founding fathers said. Or should we ignore the founding fathers and do what we think is right?
I wouldn't even have a problem if you said that the Constitution was a good document in general but it needs some changes because the founding fathers were dead wrong on some issues. That would be a fair argument. But I think it's silly to invoke the Constitution when it comes to the gay marriage argument because we know that the founding fathers were not in favor of gay marriage and being gay was not acceptable in those days. I'm not saying the founding fathers were right on this issue, I'm just saying that that is where they stood on the issue. How can we pretend that the Constitution would allow gay marriage when we know the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution would have vehemently opposed gay marriage?
I'm not saying that gay marriage should be illegal. I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on the issue. I'm just saying that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, allowing gay marriage was not one of their intentions. Quite to the contrary. If they would have even dreamed that there would be such a debate today, they would have probably spelled out specifically that there should be no gay marriages. Once again, I'm not saying they are right. They were far from infallible. They were in favor of slavery. I would say they were dead wrong on that issue.
I think it is a fair argument to say that gay marriage should be a right and that it should be legal. I could make an excellent case as to why gay marriage should be legal including the argument that it is the only fair thing to do. But I can't make an argument that it should be legal based on the founding fathers' document (the Constitution), because we know that the founding fathers would have never allowed gay marriage in a million years.