|
|
| Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (102331) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Tue Feb 28 17:08:25 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006. Guns should be "controlled" the same way the DMV "controls" the privilege of driving; and the Buildings Department and other departments "control" their jurisdictions through permits and fitness statutes. Anybody operating outside gun "control" statutes thus promulgated should face definite felony charges with guaranteed prison time if found guilty.Bingo. Actually, the primary problem I have is with so-called "discretionary" permit systems, such as we have in NYC. They are loaded with corruption and racism and it's absolutely disgusting. *For the uninitiated, a "discretionary" system is one where you get the permit... if the powers that be decide that you get a permit. More often than not (and often way more often than not), all you get is a simple "no," for any reason, or for no stated reason. A more just system is a shall-issue system, in which you get the permit by default upon application, UNLESS there is a specific reason to disqualify you, such as a prior felony record or history of mental illness or suicide attempts. As far as marriage, I don't see any slippery slope. When it comes to pedophilia and bestiality, ask yourself this question: Are both parties legally able to give consent? If not, there is your answer. In any event, many states (particularly the "red" ones) have marriage ages so low I have a hard time differentiating it from pederasty. And with all due respect, your personal views on the issue, as well as my personal views, mean squat. This is other peoples' lives, and they can do with their lives as they see fit. Now, if somebody was trying to gay-marry me to some guy, I'd definitely be against that! But nobody's trying to gay-marry me (or straight-marry either...), so if two other people want to do that, all the best to them. Here's the bottom line, and it comes directly out of Enlightenment thinking and the Constitution. Here is a person. This person is a sovereign citizen, endowed with natural and unalienable rights. Now, here come a whole bunch of other people, who start trampling on his rights by the exercise of their selfsame rights. The government is created, and laws are enacted, which limit the rights of people, so that their free exercise of rights does not unduly infringe on the free exercise of the rights of others: my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. Furthermore, the burden of the law must be fair, and apply equally to all: I can't protect the rights of one person or group by abridging the rights of every single other person. This is what the "equal protection of the laws" is about. Now, here are two gay guys (or gals) who love each other and want to get married. Where is the harm (the negative externality, in econo-speak) caused to others by their free exercise? I don't see any, and despite the zillions of arguments offered by the moral zealots, not one stands up to scrutiny. That is, unless you, like Rev. Phelps believe September 11 was punishment from God for the gays in this country. Therefore, where is the harm done, and thus what is the cause for denying these two individuals the same free exercise that others (i.e. heterosexuals) have enjoyed for many years? If there is no harm to others, it ain't the government's damn business to get involved in. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|