Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

You know what ? I'm gonna say one last thing in this thread and then (try) to get on with it.

Caz,

Let me rephrase, and listen carefully please so you understand this now:

I don't give a flying frogs fat butt if the sheep want to live forever in their cozy phoney matrixes, blindly and happily swallowing all the propaganda and crap spewed out at them from their televisions 24/7.

They can sell their souls for their mini-vans as far as I'm concerned.

The problem I have with them is when they, like YOU, try to tell people who respect individuality and support for alternative lifestyles how wrong we are for feeling this way and then start in with the God trip.

This is what you did so of course I'm going to defend myself here.

Again...I don't care what the majority does when it doesn't affect me. When it starts to, as in when people like you start insisting that the rest of us plug into your Matrix, THATS when I have the problem.

By the way, your side is not what I would call a very individualistic or diverse one. From what I see when I look out there, the majority of people are conformists and seek nothing else in life except to be the same as everyone else. I see very little individual original thought or behaviour whatsoever. Most of these people are pre-programmed sheep, IMO

So don't tell me that I either have to 'assimilate' (because resistance is futile ?) or find another culture that believes as I do, because this happens to be MY country every bit as much as yours and the last time I checked, freedom of speech/thought/religion was very much an American value.

KayEm,

Your last post was overflowing with wonderfully emotive phrases, but lacked anything of substance. You avioded answering a SINGLE one of the questions i raised...why is that?

KayEm says,
"The problem I have with them is when they, like YOU, try to tell people who respect individuality and support for alternative lifestyles how wrong we are for feeling this way and then start in with the God trip.
This is what you did so of course I'm going to defend myself here."

You offered no defense, and barely an emotional responce.

When did i ever say anyone was wrong? In fact I admitted to being wrong (confused) about some information i cited and acknowledged Pisky for correcting my error....

I did 2 things however, that im sure from reading your responce, you didnt enjoy...the first was to hold up a mirror to what you say verses what you do....i questioned if you practice what you preach, and it seems that you do not.

I agreed with 2 of your theories, one about choice and its relation to others....the other about respect.
I disagreed with your seemingly biased use of these two ideas tho.

Lets cut to the core of this debate without a lot of fluffy emotive phrases.

How can you justify saying that you respect others individuality and personal choice", yet look down at the those people, judging them and lable them "Most of these people are pre-programmed sheep."? Its their individual choice to live like that, so if you say you uphold individual choice, why have you judged them? Instead of accepting them, you try to change them? Hardly respect for them and their individual choice.

Unlike you im going to give them the bennifit of the doubght and say they are intelligent enough to have chosen to take the "conformist, stepford" path in life as is their choice....Yet because you dont subscribe to that choice, you give those people no respect....yet you demmand respect from them in support of your gay marriage adgenda...again i say this is a selfish "give me give me" attitude without reguard for those your asking things of. I asked basically the same thing of Midnight Raven and Byrd as well when i asked...

If its anamathetic for you to take up "their" beliefs (whoever they are), then why is it NOT ok for others to feel the same way?
and
Why are you supprised that the general culture resists this idea, if you are allowed to resist adopting their ideas?
Answer these questions!!!

If you expouse "doing no harm thru your actions to others" then when do you determine that harm is being done? What is your criteria for making this assesment? If a group of people come to you and say..... hey, we feel threatened and harmed by the idea your pushing....is that enough evidence for you, or do you need to see blood? Seems like on this idea, your willing to judge what is the "lesser" of the 2 harms and go with that, which is of course still a harm to one end or the other..harm is harm, and youve made a choice as to who's harm you feel is the correct one to inflict.
This is hardly do no harm.

You say,
"I don't care what the majority does when it doesn't affect me. When it starts to, as in when people like you start insisting that the rest of us plug into your Matrix, THATS when I have the problem. "

What a narrow, shortsighted and again selfish view. Previously you stated that you didnt have to be gay to support gay marriage...agreed...but you dont have to feel the effects of what society at large is doing in order to care about their course of actions....to go about willfully ignorant of the society (until selfishly affected by them), because you do not "conform" (respect) their culture is a limiting ideology at best.

In fact its discriminatory, youve said you dont subscribe to their ways of thinking...so youve distinguished/discriminated between the ideologies, and by your very words imply your disdane for "the sheep (that) want to live forever in their cozy phoney matrixes, blindly and happily swallowing all the propaganda and crap spewed out at them from their televisions 24/7."
Explain to me how this is not a judgemental and negative assesment of someone elses lifestyle choice" Throwing bricks in a glass house if you ask me.

No one said you MUST conform to becomming part of the cultural norm (matrix as you hyped it). BUT
IF you choose to walk a path outside the cultural norm, then you should be ready to accept the concequences of this choice..(im NOT advocating violence against gays or removal of anything from them)...Dont sit back and point the finger and say "we're not being included, and its your bigotted fault" when YOU exercized your free will to choose to be different from them. (we're talking about gay marriage, not being gay) when YOU come to the culture and ask acceptance of a new idea and they say no, you immediatly label them as "wrong, biggoted, or sheeple" They werent comming to you trying to do anything, you came to them with an adgenda and they (society) has declined to accomodate you.

Answer these two, and skip the flowing rhetoric, a simple yes or no on the first one will do.
DOES A SOCIETY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE ITSELF BY ADOPTING CULTURAL VALUES IT WISHES TO EXPOUSE, OR NOT TO UPHOLD?
WHEN did it become "wrong" for a culture to define itself in this manner?

As far as you being soo individualistic minded,
Like your the first wiccan ever? looks like to me youve mearly chosen from the existing shmorgasboard of religions already on the table....youve chosen to walk an ancient and not well traveled path of wicca, but this is hardly a "new" religion. Your not breaking new ground here, just following a path already blazed for you long ago.

I feel that you will again avoid answering my questions and indeed will FLEE from this thread as ive raised some serious sociological questions that you have no good answer for. Id hope you stay in this discussion, as i personally enjoyed your discussions and anyone that uses a Star Trek referance is automatically cool in my book...even tho we disagree.

The points i raise have nothing to do with determing the "right or wrong" of gay marriage, and have nothing to do with god or religion.
These issues cut to the core of this argument, and that is the basis of how a democracy functions and societies ability to have/set cultural "morals" of its own, both to define itself and to show others what they are about.

Originally posted by CazMedia


Answer these two, and skip the flowing rhetoric, a simple yes or no on the first one will do.
DOES A SOCIETY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFINE ITSELF BY ADOPTING CULTURAL VALUES IT WISHES TO EXPOUSE, OR NOT TO UPHOLD?
WHEN did it become "wrong" for a culture to define itself in this manner?



The points i raise have nothing to do with determing the "right or wrong" of gay marriage, and have nothing to do with god or religion.

Ok...first point you make...yes a culture has every right to define itself. That is exactly what this debate is about. It is also my right, as a part of said society/culture to petition that the cultural vaues be changed to reflect another value. Or should said society stay stagnant just so you can live your life, while others don't get the same privelages that you get? And, you never answered MY question about medical marijuana. Since it has passed your society/culture by popular vote...why is it not legal?

Second point you make. You're the one who brought Satanism into this argument so, therefore you contradict yourself in that statement. Futhermore, by reading that link you provided, it seems that the Satanists are more tolerant than the Christians. So, I'd rather go for Satanists...by the way, I also don't believe in Satan either. As far as the Wiccan "harm none...do as you will"...I don't follow that either. I am Pagan, but see a major flaw in this. Everyday, we have to harm to survive. Where do we get our food? Even if you are vegen, you still are harming a plant to survive. When we brush our teeth, we kill thousands if not millions of germs living in our mouths.

Gaz I don't think you give a rats ass one way or the other about it you just like to argue.

No one shoves anything down your throat. No one forces you to become gay and marry ... There is freedom of speach in this country and you are exposed to many views and values that I'm sure you don't agree with... but just because you're exposed to them and know that they are goin on does no mean that its being shoved down your throat...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Try to get around that one will ya... Because your religion offends me < for the sake of arguement> and I want your religion stamped out in this country because you are trying to shove it down my throat.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by Chevy]

MacM,
Yes, this argument does indeed boil down to a cultural right of self definition, over a personal right, and democracy in action. If only more people could understand this concept, a lot less feelings would be trampled on on either side.

I have been told this idea is "insideous" by proponents of gay marriage, because it sidesteps the "right" thing to do (right being relative to whom you ask), and it presents the argument against in a way that makes any counter points hard to justify as in order to do so, one would have to defy democratic principals as well as cultural identity and the sciene of social studies. Its too "emotionally" steril for those so empassioned with emotion on either side, that they cant/wont see the true question/s being asked here.

I agree that a culture should not remain static for long, and that under our type of governance, the people have every right to question and lobby to make changes to a culture's identity, laws, values.
This idea leads me to ask 2 more questions...

1) If a democratic society determines thru it proper proceedures, that the answer to adopt gay marriage is NO....Then what? Certantly those opposed to this decision can keep efforting this change...but i feel this will lead to question 2.

2)Most people will go on an emotional basis to determine if gay marriage is "right/wrong", and if the cultural decision is NO, those opposing this will begin to scream biggots, homophobe, sheeple, ect twords the cultural majority....(AZ supreme court already said no, i expect CA to follow with MA)

How can tolorance be taught to BOTH sides, as tolorance and respect are both 2 way streets...and are earned not given...this is why i've said many times that the gay marriage adgenda has been selfish....because they dont respect/acknowledge the cultural values that they are seeking accomodations from. Simple put, dont ask me for something after you disrespect me.

Both sides are guilty of disrespect, but one side is pushing, the other is defending....How can common ground be found? Is this even nessisary if you agree that cultural identity determination is proper...this ultimately leads one to say "keep trying", "deal with it" or "find someplace more to your liking". Not to be mean, but there are still choices for the "losing" side.

Satanism...
LMAO again....
notice i put that link in as a seperate post, i didnt want it to be mis-construed as to being a real part of my arguments....but
As i did erronously try to compare/contrast ideological viewpoints (not as abasis for my point, only to raise a question) and used satatnism as an example, i guess i did "use" it.

I wouldnt have even posted that link except that i found it funny that the gay alliance would have such a controversial and generally despised ally there....Hmm how come you dont hear anyone saying thhat church supports gay marriage? It is a recognised religion....

I also wouldnt have used it except that PISKY corrected my confusion about satanic vs wiccan ideology.....and posted some links to their site as support....what i did find interesting is that PISKY obviously looked thru their site, yet somehow "overlooked" the major article on gay marriage...which is why i posted the link as well....i questioned weather Pisky didnt want to contaminate the pro gay marriage position by showing this information. From a universally despised source....

As for medical mary jane....
i cannot prove at this time, but i feel that the drug companies, with their big bucks backing them, dont want marijuana of any kind legalized as they only want Americans doing drugs that we have to purchase from them. The drug companies back most of the anti-drug messaging out there, much like big tobbaco does with sponsoring the lions share of anti smoking ads.....they can both "look good" while actually getting SOME control over the messages against their positions.

The pro gay marriage adgenda folks dont have nearly the monetary resources nor the political clout as big tobbaco or drug companies do.
thats why i see medicinal marijuanna being held up by the feds even tho the states voters have passed this legislation.
This is also why i cant see getting gay marriage passed.

Caz,

I do have to say, you make very valid arguements. You are about the only poster here who has come up with some intelegent arguements against this issue.

As for your questions, I would say that if the majority voted it down, then that should be the law. You will hear the screems though from the activists. Just remember that not all gay people are the screeming activists. My view (as a gay man) is that if it is such a big deal to call it marriage, then don't. But, to be equal, we would have to change heterosexual unions to civil unions also (the ones that are not done by the "Church"). But, again, you have to realize that many (if you can call it that) church's do except and are willing to marry gay people. So, I don't know what's going to happen, I guess we'll just have to wait it out and see.

The pro gay marriage adgenda folks dont have nearly the monetary resources nor the political clout as big tobbaco or drug companies do.
thats why i see medicinal marijuanna being held up by the feds even tho the states voters have passed this legislation.
This is also why i cant see getting gay marriage passed.

I forgot African Americans had big coorperations backing them during thier fight for equality.

Well I'll be danged

Deep

Allright then.

Both of you continue to ignore the biggest arguement FOR the issue that there is. That being that another persons lifestyle and what they choose to do in their home is STILL none of your business regardless of what the "democratic majority" decides will be the law/norm/whatever.

I was going to stay out of this because I'd included my two pennies and then some, but I had to take some offense at McMerdin (sorry if I spelled that wrong) when he/she said that Caz's was one of the few intelligent replies in this thread. I take umbrage at that statement as I'm sure others will when they read it as well.

How intelligent does one have to be to realize that what other people do behind closed doors just does not concern you ? People who obsess over what other people do need to get their own lives and quit banging their heads against walls trying to change other people.


Caz..I thought I had answered your questions but obviously you don't think I have so I'll try again.

You asked if I would change my ways or stop the behaviour if a group of people came to my door and told me that I was doing something that "hurt" them. Although you didn't say WHAT exactly that was, you just vaguely left it out there, so I'll have to pick an example. I'll use my upcoming tongue-piercing in this case, since it comes quickly to mind (not to mention I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning and I don't particularly feel like picking and choosing between the multitude of other examples I could use, but this one will do nicely, I think).


If a group came to my door and intimated that my tongue piercing was offensive to and "hurt" them because it doesn't fit in with their ideas of the "norm" I would tell them all to mind their own business and to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Or..let's try another one:

If a group came to my door and told me that they saw me reading a book of faery magick in the park and it offended them because one of their children saw it, I would tell them the same thing, in no uncertain terms, all over again.

Why ? I shouldn't have to point this out to you but it's because what I wear in my face, or choose to read is none of your business. You choose to look at me and to be upset over what I'm doing. And I will not be told that I'm selfish because I refuse to change.

A huge part of love and tolerance is acceptance of other people just as they are. You should try this, Caz, it is very freeing. Because once you can do that, you are freed to pay more attention on your own life and spiritual growth.

Oh, which reminds me, you also said that I was the one being intolerant and unaccepting of the "majority/norm/whatever".

That is simply so untrue I nearly sprayed coffee all over my keyboard when I almost choked laughing.

This I explained clearly to you before. I don't bother with other people are doing, and that includes the majority. Unless they bother with and hassle me for lifestyle/beliefs.

The problem here is that I think you are equating people choosing alternative paths/lifestyles/hair/clothing/thoughts with overt thumbing of the nose at the reigning majority. Which it not. When is the last time you ever saw some guy peacefully smoking a joint in the park, with multiple facial piercings, openly gay...Pick one here, Caz...walk up to some minivan driving -obviously majority, normal type soccer mom and tell her how her lifestyle offends him ?

Its like television. You don't go getting all hot and bothered because of something you see. You don't go writing letters trying to get a show taken off the air (like that beeeyaatch did years ago with married with children) just because YOU disapprove and only want people wanting nice clean, fake-as-Hell vomitus such as The Cosby show. You simply turn it OFF or change the channel.

Originally posted by KayEm

I was going to stay out of this because I'd included my two pennies and then some, but I had to take some offense at McMerdin (sorry if I spelled that wrong) when he/she said that Caz's was one of the few intelligent replies in this thread. I take umbrage at that statement as I'm sure others will when they read it as well.

First of all Kayem, I am gay. Secondly, I didn't say that Caz was the only intellegent poster. I said Caz was the only intellegent poster AGAINST gay marriage. Please read carefully before jumping down someone's throat. You have had intellegent posts, yes, but I specifically said posts against gay marriage.

And actually if you read the remainder of my post, you would know if I was a man or woman.....since in the post I stated I was a GAY MAN.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by MacMerdin]

I've pretty much been staying out of this thread, and this topic, since me and Mac had our last conversation.

Kay, you know I love ya hun, but I can't get onboard with your ideas. Am I against love? No, in fact the more love in this world the better. Am I against equal rights? Again, no I'm not.

On the other hand, we do retain the right as a people, to chose the moral compass we follow. This is really nothing more than a semantics battle is you ask me. I'd say most gays are like Big Mac (hey buddy), they would be fine with a civil union situation that affords them the same rights and reliefs due to a married couple. I would go so far as to say that any hetrosexual "marriage" done by the state should also be considered a civil union and labeled as such.

The fact of life and society is, is that people can not just do what they want. We have decided that abortion is ok, that beating your children is wrong, murder and rape are wrong, subjugation of women, child labor, and the like are also "wrong". Honestly, they may seem obvious to us, but they are subjective and moral choices that we have decided to live by.

While there are some bigots and zealots in the anti-gay marriage camp, I would venture a guess that most (the grand majority) are not.

MacMerdin,

I do apoligize, I must have missed where you said you were a gay man, sorry. I was probably distracted for a moment and missed it, but I have read the entire thread. I also didn't mean to jump down your throat, sorry about that too.

KJ,

Do you mean to tell me that when I said that I would tell anybody who told me that my tongue piercing bothered them to go to Hell that I was wrong ? That I shouldn't because culture has decided that unpierced tongues are the "norm" ?

I just can't believe from what I've read of your posts that you would agree with such a conservative viewpoint. That because a culture has deemed it this way that the rest of us are to follow behind blindly like sheep even if we do not agree ?

I can't believe that in as alternative a site as ATS nobody else agrees with me on this issue. I need somebody here on my side, QUICK because I'm starting to get seriously upset at the thought that you guys think that it's ok for the majority to come into MY life and tell me what to do and if I resist I'm selfish.

I guess I just don't buy into this "majority" rules crap. Why not ? Because it's unfair to the rest who happen to disagree to have stuff shoved down their throats that they disagree with. Just because society says abortion is ok doesn't mean that I do (which I DONT, but that's a WHOLE other bunch of threads).

I believe that all peoples wishes should be respected, and this includes those of the "minority".

edit (sorry spelled your name wrong)Kayem,

Appology accepted. I must appologize also for sounding as though noone else had anything worth while to say. Also, I agree with you about the majority should not rule thing when it comes your tongue and so forth. But, when it comes to laws, the majority/culture does have the right to say what is legal and what is not. We may dissagree, but until we can change the laws (which is what they are trying to do here (hopefully it works)) we are stuck with them.....or you can break the law and hope not to get caught. Anyway, I see both sides of this argument as valid. We will just have to see what the courts decide.

KJ,

BigMac.....I like that hehe. How goes it? Hope your business is doing better now that it's summer time. Doesn't realestate pick up in the summer months? Anyway, have a good one my friend.

I just read over this and I think I must be the worst speller out there. Oh well.

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by MacMerdin]

Originally posted by KayEm
I can't believe that in as alternative a site as ATS nobody else agrees with me on this issue. I need somebody here on my side, QUICK because I'm starting to get seriously upset at the thought that you guys think that it's ok for the majority to come into MY life and tell me what to do and if I resist I'm selfish.

Well, here's one.
Frankly I'm sick and tired of people wanting to control my life with no rights to do so.

So what if I wear long flowy dresses and a pentagram necklace -- does that make me a danger to society ? - No - but I've had my share of 'Devil worshipper' comments thrown at me. It doen't bother me now, but it did at the begining. people like that aren't worth the tears.

What I do in my own home should be nothing to do with 'society' unless I'm murdering people, sacrificing babies or commiting vile depraved acts. If I wanted to colour my hair day-glo purple and wear a nose ring, would that make me into some monster - no ! But many would find it offensive.

Should I deny my own individuality purely because of what the majortiy think. If all of us did that, where would we be? Albert Einstein wasn't particularly good at school. According to the majority, he shouldn't have become the genius he is recognised as being. Adolf Hitler was originally a painter and attempted to get a place in Vienna's art college. His work was not appreciated by the majority, so he was denied. So, with time on his hands, he turned completely to politics. I wonder what would have happened if he had got into that college. No World War 2 ? - certainly no holocaust.

What about individuality ? I'm not a drone ant or worker bee, neither am I willing to allow shallow people to turn me into one of them. It is not gping to happen.

Do I insist that they do what I want ?
No - unless they are murderers, child molesters or wife beaters, I couldn't give a damn what they do. The only time I would interfere in another's life is if I had real cause to do it. A battered wife, an abused child. I won't allow that, but if you want to marry a person of your own sex because you love him/her, then why not ???
I was about to add 'it's not the end of the world' to that last sentence, but I daresay some of the more conversative Christians would say it probably is. So I'll just leave that alone.

Originally posted by KayEm

KJ,

Do you mean to tell me that when I said that I would tell anybody who told me that my tongue piercing bothered them to go to Hell that I was wrong ? That I shouldn't because culture has decided that unpierced tongues are the "norm"?

Not at all, nor did I say that. There is no true freedom, because once rules are added, someone is excluded and someone gets trampled. It's the way things are (mind you, these truisms are not direct comments on the topic, so don't translate them to it).

I just can't believe from what I've read of your posts that you would agree with such a conservative viewpoint. That because a culture has deemed it this way that the rest of us are to follow behind blindly like sheep even if we do not agree ?

I'm not sure if you know, but I AM a conservative. Another truth in life is that many people are sheep. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say that 70% are (and I am being generous). Such is the human condition, but I NEVER said you should accept what you disagree with, but on the other hand, neither should we. It works both ways because although gay marriage is not a hot topic for me, I will continue to be against it even if it should be legalized as is my right. That in no way lends itself to me discriminating against them or even disliking them in any way. But because I disagree in no way dictates the subjugation of your right to free speech and thought.

I can't believe that in as alternative a site as ATS nobody else agrees with me on this issue. I need somebody here on my side, QUICK because I'm starting to get seriously upset at the thought that you guys think that it's ok for the majority to come into MY life and tell me what to do and if I resist I'm selfish.

Oddly, the majority come into your life and tell you what to do all the time. I find that liberals think it�s ok to come into my house and take money I rightfully earned, and distribute it to those who did not (which does not apply to you, only the mentality). They believe it is alright to tell me that it is ok to (in my opinion) kill a child, but call me a misogynist or a bigot for fighting to change what I do not believe in. Yet when I think that we should keep things the way they are in the marriage department, then I am the new bastion of hate. It is ridiculous and completely selective as to which times the government can tell us how to live our lives.

I guess I just don't buy into this "majority" rules crap. Why not ? Because it's unfair to the rest who happen to disagree to have stuff shoved down their throats that they disagree with. Just because society says abortion is ok doesn't mean that I do (which I DONT, but that's a WHOLE other bunch of threads).

As you can see, majority DOES rule, and as such it is the only fair way to do things for MOST of the people (which is the best you'll ever get in a country this large). This in no way says that the minority has to take it, and good for them, I only disagree.

I believe that all peoples wishes should be respected, and this includes those of the "minority".

Respected and implemented are two very different things. I respect your opinion, that is why I offered a civil debate about this.

Originally posted by Midnight Raven
What about individuality ? I'm not a drone ant or worker bee, neither am I willing to allow shallow people to turn me into one of them. It is not gping to happen.

Oddly, I honestly think that you are shallow. Individuality comes from your mind, not your outward appearance (which you obviously covet).

I find that goths (and other such folks) work so hard to be different that they become the same, albeit usually work dead end jobs, smoke, and read about vampires.

Sorry, this is not a flame although it may seem like one. It's also totally off the topic.

I just wanted to note that this is the oddest thread I've ever seen, from a "Godwin's Law" perspective, inasmuch as Hitler has been mentioned twice, and neither time was it negative or insulting, even to Hitler himself! Odd.

By the way, I'm mentioning Hitler in a non-insulting way in this post too, so this thread has been Triple-Godwinised in the weirdest way imaginable!

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by AlexKennedy]

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
I just wanted to note that this is the oddest thread I've ever seen, from a "Godwin's Law" perspective, inasmuch as Hitle has been mentioned twice, and neither time was it negative or insulting, even to Hitler himself! Odd.

By the way, I'm mentioning Hitler in a non-insulting way in this post too, so this thread has been Triple-Godwinised in the weirdest way imaginable!

This is why I stayed out of it for so long. Abortion and Gay Marriage seem to be the biggest Godwin's Law invokers out there today, especially in the Pit.

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

The only time I can agree with people interfering in others lives is if there is a serious reason for it. No-one is saying that a child abuser should be allowed to continue in his foul manner, neither is anyone saying that a murderer should be allowed to walk the streets in search of victims. What I and others are saying is that there needs to be a limit.

The situation is that many people believe that they have a god-given right to dictate to others. They do not. If I want to dress like a pixy and sit on a massive toadstool on my front garden, then that should be the end of it. I'm not hurting anyone, but I daresay someone would complain. They always do - usually just for something to do.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
As you can see, majority DOES rule, and as such it is the only fair way to do things for MOST of the people

Not always, as I will now demonstrate.

Did you know that at certain times our respective Governments have been decided by minority rule ?

Take the UK parliament for example. Before Blair, we had a Prime Minster called John Major. He was put in power supposedly by the 'people' - the majority. I'm not sure about the specific numbers but at general election that brought him into power, more people voted against him than voted for him. I daresay that the same thing can be said for certain US Administrations.

So why is it that more people can vote against someone than votes for them, yet they still get into power ? - Because the people who voted against him were split. I believe that we really need Proportional Representation in the UK because that's the only way everyone's vote will count. (But that's definitely another thread).

Using the above as an example, we actually had a minority dictating to a majority.

How strange is that ?

So why can't indivuality be lauded, rather than slammed down. Fear of the unknown or an instinct to follow the heard ?

Now ... to answer a few more points

Originally posted by Midnight Raven

What about individuality ? I'm not a drone ant or worker bee, neither am I willing to allow shallow people to turn me into one of them. It is not gping to happen.

Very true, Raven. Resistance is not futile, despite what the 'Borg' would like us to think. Hell, if I followed the herd, ATS would have been deprived of some of my most entertaining threads

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Oddly, I honestly think that you are shallow. Individuality comes from your mind, not your outward appearance (which you obviously covet).

I don't get that from her posts at all. Maybe its because I understand what it is like to be 'different' in ones belief structure. When I first followed the pagan path back in the mid 80's I too received the comments of 'Devil worshipper' and 'Satanist'. I was neither, but still got crap from the fact that I openly defended my right to follow a pagan path (being Wiccan at that time). That is what I see Midnight Raven doing. If she wants to wear a pentagram then why not, if she genuinely follows the path she has chosen then why should she and others (including myself and KayEm) get verbal and mental nastiness for doing so?

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
I just wanted to note that this is the oddest thread I've ever seen, from a "Godwin's Law" perspective, inasmuch as Hitler has been mentioned twice, and neither time was it negative or insulting, even to Hitler himself!

Thanks for that Alex. I'd forgotten the name of the law and wanted to check it out for myself

I really could do with a drink after all that typing

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Oddly, I honestly think that you are shallow. Individuality comes from your mind, not your outward appearance (which you obviously covet).

I find that goths (and other such folks) work so hard to be different that they become the same, albeit usually work dead end jobs, smoke, and read about vampires.

I am neither shallow, nor goth. I wear the clothes I want to because I like them. I've been asked why I don't wear tight tops and short skirts and my reply is that I don't like them. Why should I wear something I don't like just because some guys think they would make me look more sexy ? (in their eyes). It's my body after all. If they don't like what I wear then its they who are shallow. And you are right when you say that individuality comes from the mind, but it also comes from the heart.

As I said earlier, I'm not a goth neither do I read about vampires or have a dead-end job. Everyone is different, its just that too many want to be the same because they are scared of what others will think.

And yes, you are right, its off topic but I just wanted to reply to what you had said. And no, I don't think you were flaming, just saying what you think - as I have now done.

Originally posted by Pisky
If I want to dress like a pixy and sit on a massive toadstool on my front garden, then that should be the end of it.

OMG !!! Thank you pisky for giving me my first true laugh of the day