You can not give gays equal rights without denying the rights of those who believe it is morally wrong.
This is demonstrably untrue. People who hold that homosexuality is wrong (almost always for religious reasons) are still perfectly free to not practice homosexuality, to teach their children that it is wrong and to campaign against its practice in others. All they are prohibited from doing is discriminating against homosexuals in the marketplace.
Democracy was the solution to this. The majority decides.
This is also a misunderstanding of what at least the US form of democracy means. Our government was design to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. That was its express purpose in the beginning. I think it is important to remind Americans that our revolution was against another democracy. Not an absolute monarch.
The only way to please more people is to give them more autonomous areas. The real problem is demanding the minority has rights everywhere. This makes no logical sense. What happened to majority rule?
This is an odd notion. I understand that you prefer local rule. We have that in the US to an extent. Less now than before. And I agree that there should be more decentralization of governmental function. For example I believe that doing away with the department of education is a good thing if done in favor of giving local schools control of and responsibility for the results they attain. This does not mean, however, that I favor allowing schools in Arizona to expel gay students because they are "immoral". The notion that they could just move elsewhere is not compelling.
You may not be aware of it but you imagine a system in which there are no immutable individual rights. Under your system all human rights are defined by what a simple majority wants
at the moment. So if a majority wants to abolish, for example, free speech or define any speech that criticizes the government as "sedition" then you appear to be good with that.
The single most important key to any workable democracy is freedom of speech. This is not a community right, it is an individual one. So starting there you have to admit that at its heart democracy must recognize the supremacy of the individual or is perishes.
You can see what happens when individual rights are diminished by looking at money in politics in the US. We have allowed our nominal democracy to be co opted by this money. Ask yourself this. Imagine that we went back to the law as it was in early US history. Imagine that corporations were not allowed to contribute money to political campaigns in any way. How would America be different?
snip
Refugess and illegal immigrants are two different things.
True. But what about illegal immigrants? What rights should they have? My contention is that they should be protected from exploitation like any citizen. Whether this is sexual slavery or just under-the-table low wages they will not be protected until one of two things happens. Either they are allowed to stay legally or they are expelled. So the solution to the problem is to determine whether or not they have a legitimate claim to stay. If they don't, expel them.
You are to consider that anyone can apply for US or Canadian entry. Not everyone will be admitted. This is as it should be. I believe that the concept of "nation" has real meaning and value. Inherent in the very concept is the principle of borders and controlled entry. I am a big fan of legal immigration. I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants. That said, they remain illegal immigrants. And they should be humanely sent home.