{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/10/2013 5:10:32 PM
15
Should social issues really be a part of politics?
To be more specific, I'm talking about at a national level on politics. Subjects such as abortion and homosexual unions should be debated on a state/local platform while the federal government can focus more on the economic, military, and border issues that are going on.
Anybody else agree or have some sort of understanding?
English
#Offtopic
-
Bearbeitet von asir: 10/11/2013 1:40:26 AMI really wish they [i]didn't have to.[/i]
-
No because for you example of gays you might been jailed in one state but free to marry in another you need a national policy on some leave other wise you have 50 countries not 50 states.
-
Bearbeitet von Random: 10/10/2013 11:06:02 PMAbsolutely yes. Furthermore, I don't understand how this problem is solved by reducing the scale of consideration. If a person is concerned about rights infringements, what makes them think that in reducing it to state level it will be solved? It's a sort of argumentum ad populum with the assumption that majority opinion is always correct (it's not!). You're replacing one comparatively larger body's discrimination/'infringement of rights' with 50 odd smaller organisations with basically the same capacity over a smaller area. Sure, some states would do the right thing, but don't kid yourselves, most states won't. I'm beginning to think it's all just a bit of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics]dog whistling[/url], and the states where people want certain groups discriminated against (think women, LGBT, minorities) want the power to do it.
-
4 AntwortenOf course. Fundamental civil rights should be uniform throughout the States.
-
I think I know what you mean since I have pondered this. I am all for the advancement of gay rights, legalization of drugs, etc. but I am very fiscally conservative so I vote based off of my economic beliefs. (They still count though)
-
5 AntwortenOf course. That's kinda the reason for government. They really only have a few jobs. One is to decide what is and isn't legal, the other is to manage the military and our treaties. Slavery was a social issue. So were women's right to vote, many worker's rights.
-
1 AntwortenYes. If I'm a member of the disenfranchised party (black being discriminated against in the mid 1900s south, women trying to get an abortion in North Carolina, poor Democrat and/or black trying to vote in North Carolina, gay trying to get married to my partner) I would be -blam!-ing furious and would demand that the higher authority intervene to stop the suppression and repression of my rights.
-
2 AntwortenI can agree and disagree with this. I do believe the Federal Government should have the power to prevent civil right infringements.
-
7 AntwortenBut federal law supersedes state law, so those social issues have to be part of federal politics.
-
It should be included in government. Why? I think my fellow fooldians answered magnificently
-
Absolutely, considering federal law affects them.
-
Certainly.
-
-
8 AntwortenBearbeitet von Icy Wind: 10/10/2013 5:14:41 PMNo, I don't agree - especially in regards to same sex marriage. No state has the right (Or shouldn't have the right) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and prevent marriage, the same way they shouldn't have had the right to ban interracial marriages. Which is why the Federal Gov't needs to get involved.
-
24 AntwortenYou've got to go all or nothing. If you believe this, as an example you should also believe that states and their voters should have the right to decide whether blacks have the same rights as white for instance. Maybe Texas decides it is within property owner's rights to not serve black people. Property owner's decision. Ron Paul caught a lot of flack for not being in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for similar reasons.
