> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Everland III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > We used to use this argument all the time in high school. The law to limit > speed is based on public safety. My rights or freedoms stop when they > start to hinder your rights and freedom. Me going 150mph in a school zone > that should be 25mph could kill someone or permanently disable them. > Doesn't that person have more of a right to live or to not be disabled? > What harm would gay marriage cause to me? How would that harm me? How > would that stop any of my rights or freedoms?
But why does one person have more of a right to live than somebody else to drive unsafe? Gay marriage may not harm you, but some think it will harm them. If somebody thinks two men being married does harm to the community, they will act on that. > I believe there is a difference because there are things known as > "accidents". Perhaps you have heard of them. The person will still be > punished because they took someone's life, but they will not be as > punished Manslaughter isn't the result of an accident; the law defines that differently as well. For instance a hunting accident in which somebody may have died, that is an accident, and the person probably won't be punished. > Laws should not reflect morality. They should be those that reflect the > need to protect people. My town in Florida doesn't allow me to buy alcohol > on Sundays. I can drive 5 minutes and go to another city and buy it. I can > even go into a bar in my town and have a beer. So what is that law > protecting? All I see it is someone in power had a moral issue with stores > being able to sell alcohol on Sunday. > > I think your problem is that you have accepted that our laws need to have > morality in them or that they need to go towards the way society is > leaning at the time. This is the reason I have been glad we have a Supreme > Court that could take those laws and not have to be burdened with > political power or having to worry about being reelected. They could judge > a law on its merits and not with their own morality. Segregation was ahead > of its time, but the Supreme Court said it was not right. I don't think all of our laws have to have morality in them, however a number of them do. Isn't striving for freedom in humanity a morally based quest? Isn't the idea that individuals are free, and at birth have the right to be free a morally based idea? Our laws, our entire system of government is based on a moral belief that man ought to be free, he ought to be able to do what he wants so long as it doesn't interfere with the good of society. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199756 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
