"Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be." -- maybe you misunderstood, maybe I was not as clear as I could have been.I in no way appealed to the founders. In fact, if anything, I was pointing out how the laws in this country have progressed after the founding. The trend of granting voting rights would be allowing blacks to vote, or women, things well after the founding of the country. I have never been a fan of appealing to what the founders would think of today's society nor of assuming one knows how they all thought, or that they even agreed on any given subject. I don't know where you get an appeal to the founders from my bringing up changes to voting rights over the course of the country's history.
The argument about the trend, the progression has always been based on an appeal to the founding generation ratifying documents with 'equal rights' enshrined -- this and other concepts. Now, look at what Dante actually wrote in the quoted text in this post: "Framing it as a trend allows you to ignore the founder's philosophies and prejudices. Yet your appeal is actually to them. Many of them were of the opinion that future generations should not be tied to the past -- as strictly as you would have us be."
The foundation of your appeal is not to the trend or the progression, but to the founding generation's use of terms like "natural rights, equal rights..."
and herein lies the dissociative conflict: Past generations did not stick with how the framers viewed representation, yet many like you say this generation must stick with the recent ones of the past?
Consciously or not, appealing to an authority with what amounts to ignoring the whole history is at best -- flawed.
Why should the current generation have to follow others?
I never said the current generation has to adhere to the past. I merely pointed out the way this country has tended to go. If you want to change that, fine. I think that changing from a path of granting more rights to stripping them away should be looked at pretty damned carefully first, though.
Also, the founders felt much differently about equal rights than I or others today do. They denied rights that we take for granted in modern society. I'm willing to admit appealing to the concept of equal rights, sure, but I'm certainly not appealing to the founders' idea of what that means.
I don't think we are tied to the past. There have been huge changes in our laws and society over the years. In my opinion, the best, the most important changes we've undergone have involved granting rights and freedoms rather than taking them away.