• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Armageddon

What might one do to deserve such a callsign, short of actually committing the act, which seems kind of unlikely.
 
Then again, I've seen a guy get named "The Shrew" because someone thought it was nice and insulting with no other reasons.

Flew with a Queef before.

Why pinto? Why not? Logic at work.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2
 
Brett327 said:
sometimes that means the government has to stand up to prevent the tyrany of the majority because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the exact opposite definition of a representative government? If that comes to pass I think we have bigger issues to worry about than gay marriage.


Unless I missed it, the Constitution doesn't protect the right of gay marriage nor does it protect the right of straight marriage. So, that means the states and the people of each state can regulate it as they see fit.
 
insanebikerboy said:
Isn't that the exact opposite definition of a representative government? If that comes to pass I think we have bigger issues to worry about than gay marriage.


Unless I missed it, the Constitution doesn't protect the right of gay marriage nor does it protect the right of straight marriage. So, that means the states and the people of each state can regulate it as they see fit.
Click to expand...
I think we've covered this - tyrany of the majority. There are limits to what the majority can get or should expect from their government, like some of the things spelled out in the Constitution, such as equal protection under the law (to address your second point). This is obviously an issue for the judiciary to hammer out, but if a state law (or constitution) is depriving someone or some group of "equal protection" (that's the argument, after all), then that's a conflict which needs to be resolved.
 
Flash said:
What about 'Thumbs'? ;)
Click to expand...

LOL!! "Thumb" was a good friend of mine in NavCad/MarCad class 14-61 ...don't recall what he flew for USN, (multi-engine IIRC) but he retired from UAL a while back ...we're still occasionally in touch.
 
insanebikerboy said:
Isn't that the exact opposite definition of a representative government? If that comes to pass I think we have bigger issues to worry about than gay marriage.


Unless I missed it, the Constitution doesn't protect the right of gay marriage nor does it protect the right of straight marriage. So, that means the states and the people of each state can regulate it as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Look up Loving v. Virginia.
 
It's amazing that this kind of thing was going on in America less than 50 years ago. In 20 years, people will be saying the same thing about same-sex marriage.
 
scoober78 said:
Look up Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate to say it but being from the South I can remember when I was growing up that there were still people bitter about that.


My point in bringing up the rule of government over the people mainly stems from licensing and various state laws. In my mind, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution should apply for every type of license, marriage licenses included. Having a patchwork nature of some licenses being valid everywhere (i.e., driver's licenses) and some that aren't makes for a very poor application of our own Constitution to the states.

That's what marriage boils down to, it's not a moral/ethical issue, it's a licensing/contractual issue. If marriage licenses need to be recognized everywhere (which they should be, again, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause), every type of license issued by individual states needs to be. Otherwise, the states should be allowed to regulate every type of license as they see fit.
 
Brett327 said:
It's amazing that this kind of thing was going on in America less than 50 years ago. In 20 years, people will be saying the same thing about same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Hard to say it better. It is our legacy as a people to live up to the ideals written into the Constitution and Declaration. Some have needed clarification, ala the 14th Amendment...but in general, we continue to struggle. First slavery, then African Americans, women, Japanese immigrants, gays...when will we get it?

Although there is plenty wrong with this picture...namely, I can't condone insult as a way to convince or debate others...it's hard not to agree with the sentiment of the absurdity of it all. ImageUploadedByTapatalk1337043688.380872.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top