Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

Pretty much any arguement against gay marriage hinges on religion, which is a clear violation of church and state, and was ultimately ruled as such by the supreme court

Ginsburg, Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer shouldn't be allowed to vote!

 

[Voost Kain]

Pretty much any arguement against gay marriage hinges on religion, which is a clear violation of church and state, and was ultimately ruled as such by the supreme court

I don't know what this post is.

Again I said marriage isn't a right regardless of orientation. If religion is a reason to block it then it violates the constitution.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Last I checked, correct me if I am wrong, the average citizen does not say they want felons to vote.

Why do you write this when you've made it clear you don't actually check anything.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't know what this post is.

Again I said marriage isn't a right regardless of orientation. If religion is a reason to block it then it violates the constitution.

Supreme court already decided marriage is a right.

Also by the same token anyone infringing on the 2nd amendment should not be able to vote.

 

[Cyan]

Marriage regardless of orientation isn't a right where did you get that?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It wasn't really in the news much so you might not have seen it.

I also find your random side assumption that I am against something distasteful.

This actually wasn't what I was trying to say. I don't know if you're a Trump voter or voted against gay marriage, and it doesn't really matter. The point of my various arguments has been to demonstrate that any argument for the disenfranchisement of a certain class of people can be turned easily against another class of people.

 

[YourMaster]

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't know what this post is.

Again I said marriage isn't a right regardless of orientation. If religion is a reason to block it then it violates the constitution.

The poster you quoted is wrong, but the SCOTUS says the Constitution mandates marriage to gay couples as a constitutional right. From your argument, everyone who infringes on the constitutional rights of others shouldn't be allowed to vote. Cyan was making a rhetorical point that by that logic, people who voted for gay marriage amendments shouldn't be allowed to vote because they infringed on the 14th amendment rights of gay couples.

Why do you write this when you've made it clear you don't actually check anything.

He also didn't respond to poll numbers that clearly say the opposite!

 

[Aaronrules380]

It's actually a constitutional right as opinioned by the Supreme Court last year in Obergefell v. Hodges.



(A separation between church and state ultimately had nothing to do with the SCOTUS's reasoning)

Fair enough. Haven't really closely followed the issue

 

[stump sock]

Again I said marriage isn't a right regardless of orientation.

you can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

this whole thread is a pretty good testament to that fact.

It wasn't really in the news much so you might not have seen it.

lol

 

[Voost Kain]

It's actually a constitutional right as opinioned by the Supreme Court last year in Obergefell v. Hodges.



(A separation between church and state ultimately had nothing to do with the SCOTUS's reasoning)

And look at the anti lgbt stuff going on as a result?

Marriage before the ruling was not a right.

But regardless as I said before I don't like Cyans assumption I'm a rep based on me thinking a person who violates a constitutional right to extremes should lose their constitutional right to vote.

 

[hiryu64]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It wasn't really in the news much so you might not have seen it.


This actually wasn't what I was trying to say. I don't know if you're a Trump voter or voted against gay marriage, and it doesn't really matter. The point of my various arguments has been to demonstrate that any argument for the disenfranchisement of a certain class of people can be turned easily against another class of people.

I do think it's quite poetic that that point was lost on him, and now the thread is about marriage.

Nice derail, redname.

 

[double jump]

wow, good on VA for once.

 

[Aaronrules380]

And look at the anti lgbt stuff going on as a result?

Marriage before the ruling was not a right.

But regardless as I said before I don't like Cyans assumption I'm a rep based on me thinking a person who violates a constitutional right to extremes should lose their constitutional right to vote.

Yes it was since part of the precedent they used was interracial marriage
And the anti lgbt stuff went on before it as well. Giving people rights isn't going to make people anti-said people. At most it's just going to bring existing sentiments to the forefront that were previously less obvious

 

[ivysaur12]

And look at the anti lgbt stuff going on as a result?

Marriage before the ruling was not a right.

But regardless as I said before I don't like Cyans assumption I'm a rep based on me thinking a person who violates a constitutional right to extremes should lose their constitutional right to vote.

I don't care about if you're a Republican or a Socialist. I don't think you understand the rhetorical point that Cyan was making. Let me post it again to help you:

The poster you quoted is wrong, but the SCOTUS says the Constitution mandates marriage to gay couples as a constitutional right. From your argument, everyone who infringes on the constitutional rights of others shouldn't be allowed to vote. Cyan was making a rhetorical point that by that logic, people who voted for gay marriage amendments shouldn't be allowed to vote because they infringed on the 14th amendment rights of gay couples.

I also care that you have a punitive and unproductive and morally incorrect view on felon disenfranchisement.

 

[stump sock]

wow, good on VA for once.

not so fast, the GOP is trying to overturn it. probably worth bringing up again since it keeps getting lost in the rest of the thread.

 

[whitehawk]

This is good news, but you should also be able to vote if you are currently in prison.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

wow, good on VA for once.

It will be overturn.

 

[ivysaur12]

not so fast, the GOP is trying to overturn it. probably worth bringing up again since it keeps getting lost in the rest of the thread.

It will be overturn.

They're going to have a very serious standing issue, as the GOP has found with almost all of the Obama's EOs.

 

[Voost Kain]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It wasn't really in the news much so you might not have seen it.


This actually wasn't what I was trying to say. I don't know if you're a Trump voter or voted against gay marriage, and it doesn't really matter. The point of my various arguments has been to demonstrate that any argument for the disenfranchisement of a certain class of people can be turned easily against another class of people.

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

 

[ivysaur12]

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

That eye-for-an-eye is a terrible basis for a legal system and that all citizens should be allowed to vote because it's an inherent right in the self-determination of our democracy that all people should be able to take part of?

 

[stump sock]

They're going to have a very serious standing issue, as the GOP has found with almost all of the Obama's EOs.

oh no, I agree, I just don't want to be too fast to praise our great commonwealth, as it's already proving to still be full of shithead politicians.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

Well there's the fact that the actual sentence (be it life in prison, or a few years in prison) should be the punishment. And the fact that an "eye for an eye" is a horrible and antiquated policy in general

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I like these threads where everyone debates what's factually true and historically accurate with a single guy who just has feelings about it that he won't inform with research linked to him.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

edit: Nevermind, I'll let him speak for himself. He knows what he's trying to say better than I do.

 

[Ziffles]

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

Hammurabi, is that you?

 

[Aaronrules380]

I like these threads where everyone debates what's factually true and historically accurate with a single guy who just has feelings about it.

What can I say. I'm bored and I don't feel like studying at the moment, even though I probably should

 

[stump sock]

I like these threads where everyone debates what's factually true and historically accurate with a single guy who just has feelings about it that he won't inform with research linked to him.

normally they get kind of depressing but this one's kind of amusing in it's own way

 

[hiryu64]

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

Well, obviously the core concept.

 

[double jump]

not so fast, the GOP is trying to overturn it. probably worth bringing up again since it keeps getting lost in the rest of the thread.

It will be overturn.

ok.

 

[Voost Kain]

That eye-for-an-eye is a terrible basis for a legal system and that all citizens should be allowed to vote because it's an inherent right in the self-determination of our democracy that all people should be able to take part of?

I'm trying to figure out why a felon who violated someone constitutional right, and the victim was hurt or killed and may not ever get to exercise their rights again because a felon infringed on theirs. Should be eligible to vote to you.

But as it seems that is the consensus of this thread so I guess I'll just leave it for now. Can't have this circle keep going.

 

[Cyan]

Blocking people who infringe on others constitutional rights to a high degree and thus losing their constitutional right to vote doesn't seem to be disenfranchisement.

It is basically more like an eye for an eye but at a civil level. It makes sense, you hurt killed someone against theirs you should lose yours.

What part of that do you not agree with?

That is disenfranchisement. Again, disenfranchisement is literally just depriving someone of the right to vote. It doesn't matter how much you don't like them or how badly you want to make them hurt, it's still disenfranchisement.

Eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. You'll note that we don't actually follow eye for an eye in the judicial system. This is because we have learned in the several thousand years since Hammurabi that eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. If you want to bring back eye for an eye you've got a whole lot of moral reasoning to lay out here which you haven't even begun to lay the groundwork for.

Finally, if your basis for disenfranchisement is depriving other people of their constitutional rights, I would say again that this entails disenfranchising people who voted to prevent gay people from marrying.

Or hell. Let's make it more eye for an eye than that. Anyone who tries to disenfranchise someone else should be disenfranchised. (I think this includes you! Sorry if I have unfairly assumed you are in favor of disenfranchisement.)

 

[Megalosaro]

I'd love to see if the people applauding this would agree with doing away with stuff like the sex offender registry?
K
Any way.. I'm for this. Post prison punishment doesn't make sense to me

 

[stump sock]

I'd love to see if the people applauding this would agree with doing away with stuff like the sex offender registry?

....no? those are very, very different issues and not worth derailing the thread further for

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm trying to figure out why a felon who violated someone constitutional right, and the victim was hurt or killed and may not ever get to exercise their rights again because a felon infringed on theirs. Should be eligible to vote to you.

But as it seems that is the consensus of this thread so I guess I'll just leave it for now. Can't have this circle keep going.

Cyan's post says it better than I can!

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=202479703&postcount=381

That is disenfranchisement. Again, disenfranchisement is literally just depriving someone of the right to vote. It doesn't matter how much you don't like them or how badly you want to make them hurt, it's still disenfranchisement.

Eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. You'll note that we don't actually follow eye for an eye in the judicial system. This is because we have learned in the several thousand years since Hammurabi that eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. If you want to bring back eye for an eye you've got a whole lot of moral reasoning to lay out here which you haven't even begun to lay the groundwork for.

Finally, if your basis for disenfranchisement is depriving other people of their constitutional rights, I would say again that this entails disenfranchising people who voted to prevent gay people from marrying.

Or hell. Let's make it more eye for an eye than that. Anyone who tries to disenfranchise someone else should be disenfranchised. (I think this includes you! Sorry if I have unfairly assumed you are in favor of disenfranchisement.)

 

[Voost Kain]

That is disenfranchisement. Again, disenfranchisement is literally just depriving someone of the right to vote. It doesn't matter how much you don't like them or how badly you want to make them hurt, it's still disenfranchisement.

Eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. You'll note that we don't actually follow eye for an eye in the judicial system. This is because we have learned in the several thousand years since Hammurabi that eye for an eye is immoral and wrong. If you want to bring back eye for an eye you've got a whole lot of moral reasoning to lay out here which you haven't even begun to lay the groundwork for.

Finally, if your basis for disenfranchisement is depriving other people of their constitutional rights, I would say again that this entails disenfranchising people who voted to prevent gay people from marrying.

Or hell. Let's make it more eye for an eye than that. Anyone who tries to disenfranchise someone else should be disenfranchised. (I think this includes you! Sorry if I have unfairly assumed you are in favor of disenfranchisement.)

How is depriving people voting who infringed on others rights whom may forever never be able to exercise them again disenfranchisement?

"Some" of these felons took someone's rights away. Possibly for good, getting convicted for the highest level of crime and you still want them to vote???

Anyway, lets stop this circle. Well have to agree to disagree.

 

[stump sock]

Well have to agree to disagree.

on dictionary definitions, apparently.

 

[hiryu64]

Just to be clear:

Why do you think it's a bad thing?

I didin't say that.

 

[Cyan]

How is depriving people voting who infringed on others rights whom may forever never be able to exercise them again disenfranchisement?

Look up disenfranchisement. Go ahead. Really. I'll wait.

 

[Voost Kain]

I'd love to see if the people applauding this would agree with doing away with stuff like the sex offender registry?
K
Any way.. I'm for this. Post prison punishment doesn't make sense to me

I actually brought this up earlier and the answers avoided the register part.

But anyway good thing about America is differing views. Good debate guys but we hit a circle so lets not make it to long.

 

[Shadowheart]

I don't get it, how can anyone in a civilized society lose their voice (in this case, their voting right is their voice)? The right to vote is to never be taken away under any circumstances.

 

[Voost Kain]

Look up disenfranchisement. Go ahead. Really. I'll wait.

Ok, I understand your point.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Marriage before the ruling was not a right.

Nope. Try again.

Loving v Virginia (1967):

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

You'll note that citations of marriage as a fundamental right go back before Loving. For instance, Skinner v. Oklahoma was a case in which the court overturned an Oklahoma "three strikes" law that forcibly sterilized anyone convicted of 3 serious crimes.

You are wrong. Marriage is and has long been a fundamental right, and it has long been recognized as such. That the Supreme Court hadn't said "Hey, infringing on this due to the sexuality of couples isn't OK" isn't an excuse for why people should get to infringe on the constitutional rights of others.

So you're on board with disenfranchising everyone who acted to enact same-sex marriage bans, right? All those people who voted for Prop 8, struck from the voter registry, right?

 

[afreaknamedpete]

It's great that felons who have served their sentences get to vote; rather I was unaware that they weren't before. Just seems like a no-brainer and a direct contradiction to rehabilitation to deny them the right to vote. If a court has judged a felon able to go back into normal society, then they should have a return of all rights normal society has, most importantly the right to vote.

Cannot say I agree with allowing currently incarcerated felons to vote though. The US punishes felons by taking away many rights; consider before the right to vote that by definition felons are denied the right to live where they want, eat what they want, do what they want or basically do anything not already pre-approved. Instead of a "do whatever except" policy, jail by itself is "do only what we let you". I honestly think that felons should be disenfranchised; you do something to victimize another person, ending lives and livelihoods, then you shouldn't get a say in how society is run. Once the sentence is passed though, I think it's only fair to treat them as anyone else.

 

[Htown]

Here's another example. A lot of sex offenders/Child molesters are felons. They also unlike a lot of other inmates have to register as child mol/Sex offenders.

Do you guys think that once they serve their time, they should get those labels they had to register for (cm/so) removed and be allowed to vote?

Label removed? Eh, probably not. I don't know the numbers on recidivism rates, but I'm guessing they aren't good.

Should they be allowed to vote? 100 percent absolutely.

 

[breadtruck]

If someone served their time and after a period, have proven to be a productive member of society, then sure, they can gain the right to vote back.

There is absolutely no good reason to give this privilege to those who are currently incarcerated (falsely accused or not.) You are put in prison because you LOST your right to freedom. You dont get to keep the right to vote.

 

[FormallyMegadrive]

^ when released, they served their time and punishment for their crime. All human rights should return afterwards. They don't need to prove anything to you.

The Adam Ruins Everything episode on voting really opened my eyes to this. I can't believe this exists in America at all.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Label removed? Eh, probably not. I don't know the numbers on recidivism rates, but I'm guessing they aren't good.

Should they be allowed to vote? 100 percent absolutely.

From what I recall, recidivism rates are slightly better than the average prisoner, and significantly better if you consider just when they re-offend for the same crime (ie, a sex offender commits a second sex crime, or a burglar commits a second burglary).

Where things get murky is a two-fold problem:

1) It's hard to say what the real reoffense rate is due to the drastic underreporting of sex crimes.

2) There are so many onerous anti-sex offender laws that it becomes ludicrously easy for those to get violated and then you have them sent back to jail for violating that.

 

[Beerman462]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It wasn't really in the news much so you might not have seen it.


This actually wasn't what I was trying to say. I don't know if you're a Trump voter or voted against gay marriage, and it doesn't really matter. The point of my various arguments has been to demonstrate that any argument for the disenfranchisement of a certain class of people can be turned easily against another class of people.

I had an argument with a guy at work about gay marriage. He was from California and pointed to Proposition 8 as an example of democracy at work and it some how proved that gays shouldn't be legally married. At the time I said that it was very similar to blocking interracial marriage he and another coworker argued that it wasn't the same. I don't remember their reasoning or if they even had any. I just wish I could have pointed to this article back then.

 

[spwolf]

In a single word? Yes.

It's not that simple of course, some countries have special laws like not being allowed to vote for a set period of time, regardless how long the sentence is or only being excluded for one election.

thanks for the link... it seems this is a no brainer considering rest of the world.

 

[Voost Kain]

From what I recall, recidivism rates are slightly better than the average prisoner, and significantly better if you consider just when they re-offend for the same crime (ie, a sex offender commits a second sex crime, or a burglar commits a second burglary).

Where things get murky is a two-fold problem:

1) It's hard to say what the real reoffense rate is due to the drastic underreporting of sex crimes.

2) There are so many onerous anti-sex offender laws that it becomes ludicrously easy for those to get violated and then you have them sent back to jail for violating that.

Ludicrous Speed? Are you a Chromebook? (sorry couldn't resist a Chromebook joke. Have yet to find anyone giving any advantage to use those pieces of junk.)