Comments | spuuky: Here is a question I have for you.

spuuky

Here is a question I have for you.

Oct 14, 2008 13:36

This was sparked by an LJ post of someone's, and I'm just curious about what you (my loyal readers) feel about this particular topic ( Read more... )

Comments 8

kenicky October 15 2008, 17:44:56 UTC

Apparently no one thinks anything; or at least not anything they'd be willing to risk debating with you.

spuuky October 15 2008, 21:57:06 UTC

I'm used to that. *glare*

friendless1 October 15 2008, 19:46:10 UTC

It depends on whether it's an ignorant majority. Sometimes I think a wise, benevolent dictator is what we need. But, assuming the populace is wise and benevolent, I believe the majority should rule on issues that ultimately affect everyone, which would include matters of public safety and health, education, how to spend tax revenues, etc. On issues that are strictly a matter of personal choice (like whether I can kill myself or my unborn child), the decision should be made by the minority of one or two people who are directly affected.

Sorry, but I don't have time to debate, just to pontificate.

spuuky October 15 2008, 21:56:47 UTC

Yes, we do need a wise, benevolent dictator. The populace is neither wise nor benevolent.

The reason this came up is regarding proposition 8 in California, which is regarding whether homosexuals can marry or not. Now this may seem like a personal choice matter, but the only sense in which they would no longer be able to marry (and are currently) is an economic one; that is to say whether or not the populace is willing to subsidize their marriage with tax breaks. Does that make this a "majority" issue?

halan October 16 2008, 13:01:26 UTC

I've always viewed the gay marriage issue as more of an equal rights type of thing dealing with tax breaks, medical issues, etc. (the benefits that straight couples now enjoy) moreso than the religious aspects of it (even though that's really what the arguement is geared towards.) If over 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, then it becomes really hard for people to say gay marriage is wrong because marriage is a SACRED thing.

spuuky October 18 2008, 02:50:39 UTC

Why exactly can't we just increase the benefits of civil unions to match those of marriages, then, while maintaining a distinction?

delmurder October 16 2008, 02:27:03 UTC

I'll let either group rule as long as they agree with me!

halan October 16 2008, 13:04:10 UTC

It's really about who is in the majority and if what they want is really what is best for the entire group. Either one could work...but then you also have the issue with the silent majority, where a small minority ends up changing laws because everyone else is too lazy or uncaring or afraid to stand against it. Pledge of Alligence in schools is an example; a few people get offended because it mentions God and suddenly it seems totally wrong because the majority doesn't speak up. Ehhh, it's a tough issue.