The property resulting from being or relating to the greater in number of two parts; the main part; more than half of the votes.
It is interesing that this is the commonly held definition of the word "majority," yet the political left only seems to agree with it when it suits them. In the 2000 electection, Dems shouted that Gore won the popular vote (or he won the majority) and that Bush stole the election. Or a neat BS statistic that Iraq's people don't want us there, or that a greater number of people want us to leave. Here is another one. The left slanted media loves to bring up the fact the Bush's approval rating is only 37% in favor. This, of course, means that the majority of people don't agree with Bush. Ok fine.
So why is it that when the majority of America is not offended by saying Merry Christmas, or having the 10 commandments in front of a government building, is it shut down? Why is it that while people in America overwhelming vote for defining marrige as being between a man and a woman, lawsuits are being won to overturn that? All of this the left champions by the way.
Just a thought I had. Im sure someone will try to answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I will just say that sometimes the majority shouldn't have an "end all, be all" vote. There are minority opinions and voices. For example, just because the gay population does not make up a majority doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights to love and companionship as the All Powerful Majority. So why shouldn't certain places be havens for the minority? I see no crime in actually using the justice system to asses in a case by case basis necessary laws for our citizens. Why not have states where gay marriage is recognized and legal? Or at least give these couples the same rights of companionship as straight couples.
It is always easy to point out the power of a majority voice when it's speaking your own opinion. Sometimes, the majority is making 51% of the population at the expense of the other 49%
I don't not question the validity of democracy nor it's place as "better than our other options." All I am pointing out is the importance of the voice(s) of the minority/-ies. Lest we rest with a majority rule situation and disappoint 49% of the constituents of our grand nation. Democracy must leave room for expression of the minority opinion, otherwise, we're settling for 51% majority and possibly denying the other 49% their identical rights to Life Libery and Happiness as quoted in our original contract. If it's a black or white issue (and really, how many of those are there?) majority rules is fine. But let's compromise the decision to benefit the "little guy" too: make the most number of people happy, not just the more than half.
And I fully support a union between gay couples that grants the same marital rights and respect as traditional marriage.
I am unsure why the low blow to democrats and their beliefs. Particularly since I have been very solid and vocal on my own. However, I will of course argue that a sense of open-mindedness may be too often confused with "wishy washism" by people who are so set in their ways and opinions that they daren't listen to the possibilities once having made their decision.
And I will also point out that there is no line between morality and immorality. It is a subject concept according to the religion, upbringing, social situation and status of the person viewing the issue. That is why we have been philosophers through the ages. That is what the ancient Greeks pondered and what we continue to right speeches and articles about today: what do we call moral and immoral? How do we know what's right and wrong.
Again, it is seldom an issue so black and and white
You have an undeniable talent to completely NOT understand what I'm saying, nor what I'm talking about.
Point proven: when you use MY defense as your defending argument. My point in saying that I will not deny gay marriages the same rights as straight marriages is that obviously, these couples believe in their love and their marriage, so even if I'm not headed for a same sex marriage myself, I won't say that it is morally wrong and pass judgement on that person -- something you seem absolutely HELLbent on doing yourself and asking me to do.
You ask me how I can make a decision about whether two men having sex is "wrong" or not if I can't even define the subject and my ANSWER is the fact that I won't label it as right or wrong, because the two don't truly exist in any pure form of the words. You can't say that homosexuality is wrong, just because it's not your lifestyle.
You are so content to put things in their little boxes and pigeon holes without looking into the possibilities of the situation. You label something "right" or "wrong" and deal out prizes and punishment accordingly and the move right along. Well, it's not UP to you. You, regardless of your background, do not determine what is right, wrong and morally unjustified.
You make no sense whatsoever: you say it must be black and white to be able to vote, and then immediately say that if it's black and white we dont' NEED a vote. So what you're saying is that if everyone just agreed with YOU, we wouldn't have to bother with that pesky thing called DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM OF OPINION.
And will you PLEASE stop making the childish and generalized statment that no liberal anywhere has ever made a decision, drawn a line or had a solid opinion. I have vividly proven you wrong on every posting on this blog -- I quite obviously have an opinion and just because it doesn't align with yours, doesn't mean it isn't just as valid.
Post a Comment