![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
i posted a valid link in a form that is accesible by clicking on it.
i thought this best instead of editorializing.
this is an article to a newspaper link and is not obfuscated by 'right or left head radio', a phenomenon I understand you are conversant with.
read the article and formulate your independant opinion, or not, as the case may be.
david williams
I happen to be one who likes a paragraph or two from articles so I'll know if I want to read the rest of it.
Say what you must about talk radio, just don't try to drag me down with your snide remarks.
People are always complaining about laws, public servants, courts. Every time a person refuses to participate in a discussion of an issue, in particular if the person doesn't vote or respond from the heart to surveys of public opinion, that person is removing their right to complain about the result.
Ya get ya chance. If ya don't take it, don't whine to me.
Ian
Let's see. The article begins with:
<quote>HOMOSEXUALS who would have to live "discreetly" to avoid persecution in their home country might be entitled to refugee status in Australia, the High Court found in a landmark judgment yesterday.
The gay Bangladeshis at the High Court yesterday / Alan Pryke
The court split 4-3 over the decision to grant an appeal by a gay Bangladeshi couple, who claimed they would face persecution if sent back home.
The Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court previously had ruled the men would be unlikely to face persecution if they resumed the "discreet" gay lifestyle they had lived before fleeing Bangladesh in February 1999.
...</quote>
A lot depends on how they define 'persecution', but the ruling strikes me as being a bit 'over the top'.
Would a ruling like this here mean that gays applying to immigrate would have to be excepted to national immigrant quotas? that's my understanding for current defined persecution groups.
Of course, I think that also includes an implyed threat to continued health and well being.
roger
Hi, Dr. Bill.
Don't forget that Bangladesh is an Islamic country, so I suspect persecution is by no means beyond the pale...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
I sort of agree with Dave!
One thing I find bizarre is the left's embracing of Muslim and homosexual as minority victim, and yet even in "moderate" Islamic countries (e.g. Egypt) homosexuals are imprisoned, subjected to beatings and humiliation while in custody, and even executed to this day! I don't know of any modern day government that executes homosexuals in the name of Christianity or Judaism, and though admittedly not a religious history scholar, I would think you would have to go back a long way to find such. Not the case with Islam.
Incidentally, whippings for public drunkenness are also a Sharia punishment, so can alcoholics claim asylum too? This is the sticky thing about this decision because I do think there should be a distinction between a discreet and non-discreet lifestyle. Otherwise, being homosexual puts you at the head of the line for entrance into another country and that starts to smack of preferential rights.
Evie ![]()
allowing Vice to become an excuse for preferential treatment, especially in immigration which doesn't even involve citizens. Every country has a right to deal with Vice within their borders, and other countries have a responsibility to accept that as a national right.
Would you support a country's policy of executing people based on sexual behavior?
Dan
Your Christian beliefs are your own, your right and the right to have a belief is enshrined in your legal system. However, your bigotry and hatred because someone sticks their ***** in an **** not a ****** is becoming wearying.
And there is no data in the source post that they are sexually active, it simply states they love each other and do not wish to be stoned to death because they do not like vaginas.
These people are not breaking a law for financial gain, they are acting from a joint commitment to love. Can you see the difference?
Ian
Hi, KP.
No, they're in tune with the shocking notion that gays are as much human beings, with the attached rights, as anyone else.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
but then the legislature, like the people, doesn't get it, right?
Hi, KP.
The legislature is more subject to the voters' prejudices; judges are freer to determine what's right under the law. This is nothing new -- the same pattern (of judges preceding legislation) was also seen in the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Remember the hubub over "Brown v. Board of Education," and Eisenhower having to call out the guard in Little Rock to enforce the desegregation order for Central High School? Probably you aren't old enough to -- but I do.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
I trust a democracy to do the right thing more than a ruling Tribunal.
and 'judges are freer to determine what's right under the law'. Dave, who decides what the law is? The judges, right? So, we're really being ruled by the judges' prejudice. Combine that with a legislature free from voter prejudice, and what do you have? I think it's generally called a dictatorship.
Hi, KP.
Don't forget that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers wanted a representative democracy, not a pure one, was to avoid having decisions made directly by the people. That's why there's an Electoral College, and why until 1913 and the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were elected by State Legislatures, not directly by the state's voters. At times, there's something to be said for that notion, though usually I'm not a fan... The expansion of civil rights has been one of those areas. For example, George Wallace started out as a progressive on race relartions, but took on a bigoted persona to get himself elected (I still remember the chilling line in the Gary Sineece biopic of him, where after losing his first election he said "I'm never going to get out-n*****ed again").
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
now you are saying that the founding fathers did not want the legislature answerable to the voters? I must admit that's the first time I've heard that novel notion. BTW, I always thought the House was considered part of the legislature. I guess the 17th amendment was a step backward?
I think you know that the concept of the Senate is to prevent rash action by the people, not to suppress their influence. If the Founding Fathers were concerned about rash action, what do you think they would say about judges who make new laws based on the fashion of the day?
Hi, KP.
I won't say they didn't want legislators to be at all responsive by the voters, but they didn't want them ruled by the voters, either. Presidential electors were originally supposed to be completely independent to vote for whomever they considered the best candidate -- the Constitution was not written with political parties in mind. (In fact, Washington did not officially run for President). The lifetime appointment of judges and six-year tenure for Senators who were only indirectly elected were both efforts to decrease the impact of temporary political trends.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
That defeats the purpose of the original constitution then doesn't it.
roger
Hi, Roger.
We've moved more in the direction of direct democracy since the Constitution was written, and the 17th Amendment was a reflection of the move. OTOH, most would say California's initiative (and recall) system has gone too far!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
As I understand it (admittedly I'm no history scholar), the Senate 2 members per state were to be selected as each state established. And there were various means chosen.
Someone decided sometime for some reason that it was unfair for a more indirect way for the people of the state to express their will than direct voting. So they got the admendment passsed.
I suspect someone thought it was wrong for a legislature with a narrow majority to be allowed to pick both senators with similair views. They saw a chance to keep one party from chosing both senators.
I'm not sure that throwing it out into a general election was an improvement. That was suppose to be the purpose of the House.
The House was to acknowledge the larger population centers, and the Senate was to keep a way for smaller and/or less populated states to maintain their influence. So one more compromise thrown out.
roger
indeed.
david williams
they would have to wait in line just like everybody else instead of looking for a special exception. In everything today the homosexuals are looking for special exceptions. If they wanted to be like everyone else, we wouldn't even know they were homosexuals. Nonsensical statement.
.