My point is, the argument of 'it's not fair to exclude X, let them in' isn't enough.
Why not? Can you prove same-sex marriage will have a negative impact? If not, should we not strive for fairness?
I should like to thank Paizo for their patience with this thread. I am sure they are more than a little nervous for this thread title to remain in the store area where any one checking out Paizo products can see.
Or, that the argument is not convincing for polyamorous unions, and so why should it be so for same-sex unions?Because we are not arguing for polyamorous unions. It is a separate issue which should be argued based on its own merit.
Certainly it should be, but the arguments being put out there are not just same-sex arguments but marriage rights arguments. The pro-same-sex marriage lobby is bring in those other marriages by virtue of the method of their arguments.
I am probably doing a bad job here of explaining the issue, I am sorry. Basically same-sex proponents are not making specific arguments, they are making general arguments like (a)if there is no obvious harm then it should be allowed and (b) competent adults should be allowed to have their unions recognized legally. These arguments aren't same-sex arguments, they are general arguments. But then they can be applied generally in that case. And yet many, not all clearly as evidence in this thread, of same-sex proponents claim these arguments do not apply to poly relationships. That is the disconnect at least logically for me. They are not arguing these only apply to same-sex unions but to all unions and then are saying, "except for those over there."
|
Untrue. Polygamous marriage was marriage for ther Church fo the Latter Day Saints within the past 250 years. There are areas of Thailand where polyandrous marriage is legal. As noted, Canada and some European countries define marriage as between two consenting adults. Let's not forget the patriarchs of the old testament where they had a wife, concubines and slave girls as part of their marriage. Marriage has not 'always been between one man and...
I didn't say "one". And I said historically not contempoarary (like Canada and Denmark).
Polygamy and homosexual marriage are so dissimilar that any comparison between the two is laughable.
*snip*
As an american, and a proud member of the U.S. Military, I'm horrified that other americans would honestly attempt to bar any responsible, adult person from marrying another responsible, adult person.
Freedom for all, damn it.
I would argue that the notion of consenting adults defining their own contractual relationships regardless of sex or number is not laughable, but I believe I've made my position clear up thread.
I concur, freedom for all.
BTW, what do you do in the service?
I'm a Contracting Specialist for the Air Force ( I write contracts for things the military needs, in a manner that protects and values taxpayer dollars)
Glad we agree.
|
|
To whom and where? There was never a society anywhere that defined marriage as a bond between to people in love, every society ever has been uberspecific and spelled out man and woman? I'm pretty sure you're talking about a societal habit as much as I am, you just say your societal habit is a definition whereas mine is a habit. And I didn't insult you I insulted the argument.[
Thank you for the insults. BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. You are bringing up societal habits, not changes to the definition.
Semantics, insulting my argument is the same as insulting me. You essentially said that I am stupid because you don't agree with me.
|
|
Once again you are claiming your societal habit as a definition and dismissing other changes to societal habit as just that.
I didn't say "one". And I said historically not contempoarary (like Canada and Denmark).
No, you were talking about societal habits and different cultural traditions involving marraige rites. Show me one historical society that did not define marriage as being between men and women.
|
|
Semantics, insulting my argument is the same as insulting me. You essentially said that I am stupid because you don't agree with me.To whom and where? There was never a society anywhere that defined marriage as a bond between to people in love, every society ever has been uberspecific and spelled out man and woman? I'm pretty sure you're talking about a societal habit as much as I am, you just say your societal habit is a definition whereas mine is a habit. And I didn't insult you I insulted the argument.[
Thank you for the insults. BTW, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. You are bringing up societal habits, not changes to the definition.
I disagree I've heard stupid arguments from smart people before (for example I grew up in the deep south, I've known smart people use dumb as brick arguments to support their racism) maybe my experience with racism and bigotry gives me a larger disconnect between an argument and the person saying it.
If mixed-race marriages != same sex marriages, then same sex marriages != polygamy. Regardless, if all the parties involved in the plural marriage are consenting adults, I really do not have an issue with it.
+1
I'm not seeing the slippery slope here.
It has less to do with the actual relationships, as I stated earlier polyamory has more in common with mixed-race unions than same-sex unions, and has more to do with the justifications being used. The justification that is primary used to support same-sex marriages is that competent adults should be able to form and get government support for any union they wish. If that justification is legitimate, then it would also be legitimate when it comes to polyamorous relationships as well. So it has more to do with the argument, then the unions themselves.
So the argument is we don't want to allow polygamy, so we won't allow same-sex marriage?Or, that the argument is not convincing for polyamorous unions, and so why should it be so for same-sex unions?
I object to the "and get government support for" portion of the argument.
I would argue that "government support" is a driving part of the problem.
I object to the "and get government support for" portion of the argument.
I would argue that "government support" is a driving part of the problem.
Indeed, though it should be noted that the government uses force against groups that seek no government recognition of their unions (see most polygamists in the US currently). These groups do not seek government support, but that is not enough for many, instead they have to be actively persecuted against, must harsher than the current same-sex couples have it I might add.
Indeed, though it should be noted that the government uses force against groups that seek no government recognition of their unions (see most polygamists in the US currently). These groups do not seek government support, but that is not enough for many, instead they have to be actively persecuted against, must harsher than the current same-sex couples have it I might add.I object to the "and get government support for" portion of the argument.
I would argue that "government support" is a driving part of the problem.
I agree, and of course I oppose it.
Indeed, though it should be noted that the government uses force against groups that seek no government recognition of their unions (see most polygamists in the US currently). These groups do not seek government support, but that is not enough for many, instead they have to be actively persecuted against, must harsher than the current same-sex couples have it I might add.I object to the "and get government support for" portion of the argument.
I would argue that "government support" is a driving part of the problem.
Government support is a dicey argument in this case.
Republics utilize representative government, representative government SHOULD indicate that you're electing someone better qualified to handle the large issues then the masses. A result of this is that if a representative acts against the will of his constituents, he loses his position.
The unfortunate side effect of this is the allowance it provides for faith to influence lawmaking. The US is predominantly religious, therefore the consituents expect their outlook to be represented (in this case in a very inappropriate manner) on the governmental level.
I take issue with Galahad on this as well, as he mentions the societal aspect of marriage. We're a religious society, but our legal system and government are supposed to be free of religious affiliation to protect and support its integrity. Sometimes, societal mores need to be laid aside for the greater good (read : fair and honest treatment) of the american people.
They are not arguing these only apply to same-sex unions but to all unions and then are saying, "except for those over there."
Ah, I think I see where you are coming from.
What, specifically to same-sex marriage, will have a positive impact on society. I think you and I touched on some earlier. Married same-sex partners could provide a stable family to adopt children. Allowing homosexuals to marry whom they want is less likely to create a marriage that will ultimately end in divorce. It will promote less promiscuous relationships.
I believe I saw an article a few months back about how married people leave a smaller footprint on the environment because they share resources. Same-sex marriage would add to that.
I am not really coming up with anything else right now.
I am not convinced arguing from a broader scope is flawed though. If an argument has merit, it maintains its merit across applications, right? Assuming it applies. I am certainly not arguing against plural marriage, but I think that deserves its own forum. If I start chasing every application of any given argument I am running in circles. I want to stay focused on the pros and cons of this issue.
Semantics, insulting my argument is the same as insulting me. You essentially said that I am stupid because you don't agree with me.
You called one of my arguments ridiculous. It is not the same. Not every argument is worth the same consideration. Consider: Same-sex marriage should be allowed because I like cheese.
You called one of my arguments ridiculous. It is not the same. Not every argument is worth the same consideration. Consider: Same-sex marriage should be allowed because I like cheese.
Diane and I are in the office laughing out loud!
Seriously though, Galahad0430 ,attacking your argument is not the same as attacking you.
Most of you have probably seen this already, but it's worth repeating.
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Ok, lets look at countries that have gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005 countrywide, only one major has occurred differently since it's legalization, and that is gays got married. Nothing bad happened we didn't force ministers to perform said unions, and even government employees who felt uncomfortable officiating said unions get to delegate them to other employees.
Denmark legalized same sex marriage in 1995, again no major social collapse. In fact Denmark has given us our first viable study on children raised by same sex families, the results being these children had no increased chances of being gay themselves. Both Canada and Denmark have had no social collapse or degredation for it. So whats all this claptrap about it ruining society?It's the bigoted, small minded, OFFENSIVE thought that homosexuality is wrong, vile, disgusting and infectious.
Watch out! The GHEY is catching!
If I start chasing every application of any given argument I am running in circles.
Don't poodles like to run around in circles?
Look! Squirrel!
|
|
You called one of my arguments ridiculous. It is not the same. Not every argument is worth the same consideration. Consider: Same-sex marriage should be allowed because I like cheese.
Diane and I are in the office laughing out loud!
Seriously though, Galahad0430 ,attacking your argument is not the same as attacking you.
Yes, I agree with CF, but what happened was I made a point that was factual and because he disagreed with it he called it stupid. That is not the same as making fun of a non sensical statement. BTW, I like cheese too so therefore SSM should only be acceptable on Thursdays, Saturdays, and alternate Mondays :)
|
|
Watch out! The GHEY is catching!Ok, lets look at countries that have gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005 countrywide, only one major has occurred differently since it's legalization, and that is gays got married. Nothing bad happened we didn't force ministers to perform said unions, and even government employees who felt uncomfortable officiating said unions get to delegate them to other employees.
Denmark legalized same sex marriage in 1995, again no major social collapse. In fact Denmark has given us our first viable study on children raised by same sex families, the results being these children had no increased chances of being gay themselves. Both Canada and Denmark have had no social collapse or degredation for it. So whats all this claptrap about it ruining society?It's the bigoted, small minded, OFFENSIVE thought that homosexuality is wrong, vile, disgusting and infectious.
Seriously, last night even though my wife was out and I said I was going out too, I actually chose to stay home to watch project runway! If gay marriage is legalized I'm going to have to upgrade my subscription to get Logo! I now support prop 8.
|
Seriously, last night even though my wife was out and I said I was going out too, I actually chose to stay home to watch project runway! If gay marriage is legalized I'm going to have to upgrade my subscription to get Logo! I now support prop 8.Watch out! The GHEY is catching!Ok, lets look at countries that have gay marriage. Canada has had gay marriage since 2005 countrywide, only one major has occurred differently since it's legalization, and that is gays got married. Nothing bad happened we didn't force ministers to perform said unions, and even government employees who felt uncomfortable officiating said unions get to delegate them to other employees.
Denmark legalized same sex marriage in 1995, again no major social collapse. In fact Denmark has given us our first viable study on children raised by same sex families, the results being these children had no increased chances of being gay themselves. Both Canada and Denmark have had no social collapse or degredation for it. So whats all this claptrap about it ruining society?It's the bigoted, small minded, OFFENSIVE thought that homosexuality is wrong, vile, disgusting and infectious.
Don't worry; you're safe.
Nobody watches Logo.
I agree that arguing that same-sex marriage harms mixed-sex marriage is silly.
I also find the argument that just because there is no obvious harm is reason enough to recognize it is equally silly.
I'm sure with little effort we could all come up with lots of things that don't necessarily harm anything but that we wouldn't want to have the government grant any special recognition to. For example, how would allowing people to have legal marriages to their RealDolls(TM) harm mixed-sex or same-sex marriages? But really, that is incredibly silly idea for most people. The "no harm" is a weak argument at best, it is sad to see a judge base a decision on it.
|
|
No, you were talking about societal habits and different cultural traditions involving marraige rites. Show me one historical society that did not define marriage as being between men and women.Once again you are claiming your societal habit as a definition and dismissing other changes to societal habit as just that.
I didn't say "one". And I said historically not contempoarary (like Canada and Denmark).
Sure ancient rome before the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
That law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married to be executed. Which means that gay Romans before the founding of christianity could get married. Because otherwise there wouldn't be a call for executions as no one would have been married.
If mixed-race marriages != same sex marriages, then same sex marriages != polygamy. Regardless, if all the parties involved in the plural marriage are consenting adults, I really do not have an issue with it.Incest has biological reasons against it. I already conceded that we often exclude someone, but there has to be a good reason.
+1
And as has been previously stated, nothing 'broke' in Canada when marriages between same sex couples were nationally recognized. Even though many groups (religious groups only by the way) tried to tell us it would.
In fact I personally haven't seen any difference besides maybe more acceptance and protection for people that care about each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My point is, the argument of 'it's not fair to exclude X, let them in' isn't enough.Why not? Can you prove same-sex marriage will have a negative impact? If not, should we not strive for fairness?
Can you prove 'Fred' will have a negative impact? See, it's the same thing. OF course the judge in the case said that it was 'proved' that it would have a 'positive impact' so lets see the proof.
No, you were talking about societal habits and different cultural traditions involving marraige rites. Show me one historical society that did not define marriage as being between men and women.Once again you are claiming your societal habit as a definition and dismissing other changes to societal habit as just that.
I didn't say "one". And I said historically not contempoarary (like Canada and Denmark).Sure ancient rome before the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
That law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married to be executed. Which means that gay Romans before the founding of christianity could get married. Because otherwise there wouldn't be a call for executions as no one would have been married.
Not to mention the Spartans and the Sacred Ring. Ancient Greeks (the foundation of all western society) believed that All humans had two "perfect" mates... one male and one female. They also supported a form of Male adult - Male child love (traditionally NOT physical, more the abstract beauty of a child, though I'm sure it happened.) The Spartans were such an effective fighting force in part because of the simple fact that when one of them was slain... another of them had just lost a lover.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So the argument is we don't want to allow polygamy, so we won't allow same-sex marriage?
Nope, the argument I always hear is 'allowing same sex marriage would never lead to polygamy etc being legalized.'
The counter is, "Government recognition of marriage would never assume same sex marriage." Ask anyone from the 1920's. We see that. When people say 'any consenting adult' should be allowed to marry, a lot of people don't think they're saying brothers should be allowed to marry. Well two brothers are 'consenting adults'.
So the argument is we don't want to allow polygamy, so we won't allow same-sex marriage?Nope, the argument I always hear is 'allowing same sex marriage would never lead to polygamy etc being legalized.'
The counter is, "Government recognition of marriage would never assume same sex marriage." Ask anyone from the 1920's. We see that. When people say 'any consenting adult' should be allowed to marry, a lot of people don't think they're saying brothers should be allowed to marry. Well two brothers are 'consenting adults'.
Adult brothers. ;)
And the argument against biologically damaged offspring would be irrelevant in the case of two adult brothers.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As to seperate but equal, we have seperate licences for hunting and fishing, for auto drivers and motorcycle riders, for owning a shotgun or an uzi.This is a terrible analogy. The hunting license does not want to be a fishing license. You are talking about things, not people.
Nope, it's the exact analogy I wanted. Hunting != Fishing. Motorcycle != Car.
Man + Woman != Man + Man or Woman + Woman.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My point is, the argument of 'it's not fair to exclude X, let them in' isn't enough. To quote another blogger elsewhere...
"Many people ... insist that “gay marriage” absolutely does not open the door to plural marriage? Why? Because once gays have part ownership in the word ‘marriage’ they will lock the door?"
Less socially acceptible? I assume you mean things like marriage to objects or bestiality. These cannot fall under marriage definitions now since they're not between consenting adults, there is no plurality. It is a one way street and therefore couldn't be defined as marriage.
Unless you're referring to something else?
I was referring to the incest example, or age of consent laws. In either case, what if (when) a judge declares such laws invalid?
This is why I argue for a seperate path for SSM. It avoids all the 'slippery slope' arguments and increases liberty.
I agree that arguing that same-sex marriage harms mixed-sex marriage is silly.
I also find the argument that just because there is no obvious harm is reason enough to recognize it is equally silly.
I'm sure with little effort we could all come up with lots of things that don't necessarily harm anything but that we wouldn't want to have the government grant any special recognition to. For example, how would allowing people to have legal marriages to their RealDolls(TM) harm mixed-sex or same-sex marriages? But really, that is incredibly silly idea for most people. The "no harm" is a weak argument at best, it is sad to see a judge base a decision on it.
I disagree that no harm is a weak argument. To the contrary, I believe the burden of proof is always on the government to decisively prove harm to restrict anyone's rights.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
Can you prove 'Fred' will have a negative impact?
Prop 2 - The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
"Fred" is about as likely as an invisible pink unicorn. When people ban gay marriage, thet tend to also be very careful to ban gay civil unions, and any other form of partnership recognition. The above is the text of the applicable law in Texas; most other states have something similar.
The "no harm" is a weak argument at best, it is sad to see a judge base a decision on it.
I disagree. We do not want to enact policies that we know will do harm. I think the first logical step is to ensure any new policy can be reasonably determined not to have a negative impact on society. There are plenty of things that are harmful that we still allow.
However, the "no harm" is not the only argument. I think fairness is a big argument.
Can you prove 'Fred' will have a negative impact?
Beyond the needless duplication of paperwork? No. You got me there. I do submit that 'Fred' needlessly discriminates against a minority and that has a negative impact on said minority. Not all of society mind you. If it is just a word and everything else is going to be equal, why not eliminate the paperwork and discrimination and call it marriage?
Nope, the argument I always hear is 'allowing same sex marriage would never lead to polygamy etc being legalized.'
Our experiences are vastly different then.
When people say 'any consenting adult' should be allowed to marry, a lot of people don't think they're saying brothers should be allowed to marry. Well two brothers are 'consenting adults'.
Shouldn't the argument then be, "We will allow same-sex marriage, just not plural marriage or incest"? Again, this argument seems based in fear that some other group might do something we don't want.
Man + Woman != Man + Man or Woman + Woman.
O.k. They are different. So is same-sex and plural marriage.
Why is it important that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?
I am about to leave. I want to thank Matthew Morris, pres man and Galahad0430 for intriguing counter arguments. I wish everyone a great weekend.
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism."
—- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1857).
The will of the majority isn't a good enough reason to withold equal rights from minority groups. This is part of the reason that the U.S. was set up as a constitutional republic, not as a straight majority-rule democracy.
I agree that arguing that same-sex marriage harms mixed-sex marriage is silly.
I also find the argument that just because there is no obvious harm is reason enough to recognize it is equally silly.
I'm sure with little effort we could all come up with lots of things that don't necessarily harm anything but that we wouldn't want to have the government grant any special recognition to. For example, how would allowing people to have legal marriages to their RealDolls(TM) harm mixed-sex or same-sex marriages? But really, that is incredibly silly idea for most people. The "no harm" is a weak argument at best, it is sad to see a judge base a decision on it.
I disagree that no harm is a weak argument. To the contrary, I believe the burden of proof is always on the government to decisively prove harm to restrict anyone's rights.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
But I would disagree that we are talking about a restriction of rights here. Let's be clear, the default status is that the government doesn't give any "special" recognition to a relationship between adults. Now for whatever reasons, the government has decided to give special recognition to one type of relationship (mixed-sex couples, of adult age, and not of close familial relations). The issue now is, should those special recognition be applied to same-sex couples. And there are certainly legitimate reasons why as a society it would benefit us to do so, but this isn't a restriction on rights, but whether we wish to give benefits to these relationships. There is nothing stopping a same-sex couple in Nebraska from saying they are married to one another, they just don't get any special recognition of that relationship over two guys who are just roommates.
Now in the case of polyamorous relationships, I would agree with you, there is currently being a restriction of rights, the government is outlawying those relationships, in that case we would have to justify that criminalization of behavior as harmful. But to just not give special benefits to a relationship isn't harm in the strictest sense, but of course people will say if you don't give a bonus, then you are in fact harming.
But I would disagree that we are talking about a restriction of rights here. Let's be clear, the default status is that the government doesn't give any "special" recognition to a relationship between adults.
I believe the default should be maximum liberty possible for everyone, not "special privileges for certain groups and the rest be damned." For example, the government is under no obligation to give the "special" recognition to caucasians that they no longer have to pay taxes -- but if it were to do so, I personally think the non-caucasians would in fact have a legitimate gripe. YMMV.
As far as a restriction of rights, you've got inability to share health care, inability to handle one another's financial affairs, inability to handle last rites in accordance with the loved one's wishes, etc. Now, if you want to split hairs, those things are indeed privilages, not rights -- I agree. But if society considers those privileges to be the norm, requiring only a piece of paper to obtain, then they take on the status of de facto rights. Specifically denying them to a particular group for no reason other than "well, we don't HAVE to grant them!" is a clear statement of second-class citizen status to the people who can't have them. That may well be the sort of nation you want, in which case voting against SSM is logical -- but just be aware that others prefer something a lot less arbitrarily discriminatory.
Nobody watches Logo.
Hmmm...I'm straight (or depressingly straight, according to some...), support Prop 8 and have several Gay friends (including one crashing in the front bedroom, asleep right now) and find LOGO preferable to most of the drivel on the networks.
Nobody watches Logo.Hmmm...I'm straight (or depressingly straight, according to some...), support Prop 8 and have several Gay friends (including one crashing in the front bedroom, asleep right now) and find LOGO preferable to most of the drivel on the networks.
As a straight man who's a conservative, I watch a lot of LOGO. You can't beat the Buffy marathons they have.
... You can't beat the Buffy marathons they have.You're dead to me.
You don't like Buffy? What's wrong with you? You haven't been the same since they transplanted your brain to the jar.
Oops...
|
Kagan, I think will be a fearfully bad justice.Sorry it took me a while to dig up the article,
Courtfool asked me to argue why SSM is dangerous. Since that's not my position, I didn't feel obligated to reply.
Fortunately, Mr. Rousch lays out my feelings better than I can.
You have no idea.
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism."
—- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1857).The will of the majority isn't a good enough reason to withold equal rights from minority groups. This is part of the reason that the U.S. was set up as a constitutional republic, not as a straight majority-rule democracy.
+1