(July 1, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:02 pm)blackout94 Wrote: why can't I vote for gay rights if I'm not gay?

Because they are *rights* and not privileges, and putting them at the whim of the electorate is precisely how we get tyranny of the majority.

In this case it's a conflict - We can have a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority - What' worse? I really can't answer. But you made a good point, gay rights shouldn't be on referendum, I was just giving an example. If I vote for a conservative party let's say, I'm already voting intrinsically against abortion, if I vote for a liberal one, I'm voting to support legalization, and I'm a man.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:01 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Surely you aren't suggesting that something which has been established as a protected Constitutional right ought to be subject to a popular vote?

Where is abortion a constitutional right? At most it can be included in the right to family planning, but I have my doubts.

In the United States it is. Roe vs. Wade, surely you've heard of it. The Supreme Court found that abortion is constitutionally protected matter of privacy between a patient and her doctor.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Where is abortion a constitutional right? At most it can be included in the right to family planning, but I have my doubts.

In the United States it is. Roe vs. Wade, surely you've heard of it. The Supreme Court found that abortion is constitutionally protected matter of privacy between a patient and her doctor.

I'm not from the USA, I study law but american cases are irrelevant since the system they use (commolaw) is different from the portuguese one (Roman-Germanic). But I'll check out that case, it interests me and contributes to my knowledge.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Because they are *rights* and not privileges, and putting them at the whim of the electorate is precisely how we get tyranny of the majority.

In this case it's a conflict - We can have a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority - What' worse?

Please explain how protecting a minority's civil and individual rights can be construed as "tyranny".

(July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I really can't answer. But you made a good point, gay rights shouldn't be on referendum, I was just giving an example. If I vote for a conservative party let's say, I'm already voting intrinsically against abortion, if I vote for a liberal one, I'm voting to support legalization, and I'm a man.

Yep, and in places where rights are subject to statutory law, that might fly. Here, where such rights are protected under the nation's Constitution, statutory law cannot override Constitutional law.

blackout Wrote:2 - By allowing this we would have to apply it by analogy to other situations, only gays would vote for gay rights, minorities for minorities rights, workers for workers rights. This is wrong because both parts have a saying in the matter. By only allowing women to vote they'd vote what benefits them more (same goes for other categories), this doesn't mean it would benefit society as a whole more. Imagine this - Low paid workers vote for minimum wage, they chose an extremely high wage because it benefits more and since employers can't vote they can't say NO to i (and a NO would be the right call from an economical perspective)

Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Please explain how protecting a minority's civil and individual rights can be construed as "tyranny".

It is not, but if the minority dictates the rights as they see fit while harming the majority's rights it should not be allowed. I'm just saying neither should the majority dictate public life, but minorities shouldn't have privileges or dictate the majority's rights/benefits

(July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I really can't answer. But you made a good point, gay rights shouldn't be on referendum, I was just giving an example. If I vote for a conservative party let's say, I'm already voting intrinsically against abortion, if I vote for a liberal one, I'm voting to support legalization, and I'm a man.

Yep, and in places where rights are subject to statutory law, that might fly. Here, where such rights are protected under the nation's Constitution, statutory law cannot override Constitutional law.
[/quote]

Yes one of our professors told us the USA has a constitution per federation and the federal state has the main constitution, the later being supreme

---

(July 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Losty Wrote:

blackout Wrote:2 - By allowing this we would have to apply it by analogy to other situations, only gays would vote for gay rights, minorities for minorities rights, workers for workers rights. This is wrong because both parts have a saying in the matter. By only allowing women to vote they'd vote what benefits them more (same goes for other categories), this doesn't mean it would benefit society as a whole more. Imagine this - Low paid workers vote for minimum wage, they chose an extremely high wage because it benefits more and since employers can't vote they can't say NO to i (and a NO would be the right call from an economical perspective)

Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.

Tell that to our government, abortion was brought on referendum, and gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:16 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Please explain how protecting a minority's civil and individual rights can be construed as "tyranny".

It is not, but if the minority dictates the rights as they see fit while harming the majority's rights it should not be allowed. I'm just saying neither should the majority dictate public life, but minorities shouldn't have privileges or dictate the majority's rights/benefits

(July 1, 2014 at 5:10 pm)blackout94 Wrote: I really can't answer. But you made a good point, gay rights shouldn't be on referendum, I was just giving an example. If I vote for a conservative party let's say, I'm already voting intrinsically against abortion, if I vote for a liberal one, I'm voting to support legalization, and I'm a man.

Yep, and in places where rights are subject to statutory law, that might fly. Here, where such rights are protected under the nation's Constitution, statutory law cannot override Constitutional law.

Yes one of our professors told us the USA has a constitution per federation and the federal state has the main constitution, the later being supreme

---

(July 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Losty Wrote: Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.

Tell that to our government, abortion was brought on referendum, and gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.
[/quote]
I don't see anywhere in this conversation that suggests the majority's rights would be harmed. All this is about is women having the right to control their own bodies
No idea why you brought up a 'tyranny of the minority'

(July 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm)blackout94 Wrote: It is not, but if the minority dictates the rights as they see fit while harming the majority's rights it should not be allowed. I'm just saying neither should the majority dictate public life, but minorities shouldn't have privileges or dictate the majority's rights/benefits


Yep, and in places where rights are subject to statutory law, that might fly. Here, where such rights are protected under the nation's Constitution, statutory law cannot override Constitutional law.

Yes one of our professors told us the USA has a constitution per federation and the federal state has the main constitution, the later being supreme

---

(July 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Losty Wrote: Wtf? No one should be voting on rights. They're called rights for a reason.

Tell that to our government, abortion was brought on referendum, and gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.

Quote:I don't see anywhere in this conversation that suggests the majority's rights would be harmed. All this is about is women having the right to control their own bodies
No idea why you brought up a 'tyranny of the minority'

I'm not contesting the right of women to abort. The only thing I contested in this discussion were not the legality, only the ethics of abortion AND public expenses payed by taxes.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm)blackout94 Wrote: gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.

Good decision.

Imagine being a black person in the southern part of the U.S. without such protections.

(July 1, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm)blackout94 Wrote: gay adoption WAS about to be brought too but the constitutional court decided it was against the constitution to ask the people if a certain class should have fundamental rights.

Good decision.

Imagine being a black person in the southern part of the U.S. without such protections.

A curiosity, is abortion in the USA mostly legal or illegal? - Abortion per se by the simple requirement of the biological mother, not by any exceptional reason. Yes the decision was great.