Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Strangler
I think we have two very different ideaologies. I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I don't think I need someone telling me what I can or can;t do to myself. I believe drugs should be legalized, but with the same stipulatios that are put on alcohol abuse. If they get in trouble, they should get no more or less assistance than alcoholics get when they eventually rot away and die. Afterall, the only reason why alcohol wasn't included in the list of banned drugs is because those that made the laws DRANK.
I don't believe that any morals should be applied to the consitution, as I think its a violation of separation of church and state. Liek religion, morals are relative to everyone. By your logic, if premarital sex is considered immoral, then it should be outlawed.
And as for the damage that divorce does to kids, even more reason to allow gays to marry. We straight people can only get marriage right 40% of the time. Maybe we should give gay people a crack at it.
My political and social beliefs follow this simply axiom:
You should be able to flail your fist around as much as you like, as long as it stops at the end of my nose.
|
I think you are misconstruing my assertions a little here. I'm not saying that governments should have total say over people's private lives; quite the opposite. I am merely saying that governments have a right to legislate laws that limit personal morality insofar as it may contribute to the downfall of the society and proliferation of cruelty. As with the example I gave with the drug addict, ultimately, the society suffers because of the addict's personal choice. I mean, what are we gonna do if the addict needs medical help? Deny him the help because he is an addict and because that is his personal moral choice to keep abusing drugs?
Premarital sex is not legislated against because it does not strictly result in harm for the society. And the last time I checked, some forms of premarital sex are strictly forbidden in the guise of statutory rapes. Could we say that it is only the couple's choice to have sex even if the girl is underaged? That, it is strictly their personal, moral choice to do so?
But let me emphasize the point again: the government does and rightly should enact ethical legislations insofar as they attempt to eliminate cruelty and regression, without violating genuine individuality. Do gays have a right to marry? Well, we don't know yet. But I know for a fact that we have, long ago, reached a consensus that not all things breathing should have a right to marry each other. So our burden falls on ascertaining whether homosexuality is a genuinely-human trait. If we do not determine this first and then let gays marry each other, why not let siblings, people and animals, and people and inanimate objects to marry also? Gee, I'd really hate to explain to my kids why a man and a cow strolling down central park are french kissing each other since laws are not allowed to have a say in ethics.
You're absolutely right in stating that you and I have very different ideologies. I have, long ago, inferrred that a government is an institution wrought not only to give people security and a place to call their country, but that it also fosters, not forces, a moral progress. Sure, masochistic self-afflictions can stay private. They just need to stay within the person. But does anyone obstinately believe that personal moral choices solely stay within the person? What if it has a deprecating, unwanted effect on other people also? In such a case, a government should step in(after a democratic consensus has been reached pertaining to the moral in question) and direct the society into achieving a moral progress.