People also used to think that having blacks in the community after sundown also harmed the community. Same logic process.
larry On 3/13/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----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:5:199757 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
