ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!

 
Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  
previous: Michael Tousek In due time, when the technology... -- 1126390901 View Thread

Re: No, the feds have screwed up... This is news?

9/11/2005 1:08 PM
Dutch
email
Re: No, the feds have screwed up... This is news?
quote:
"As a society we grant driver's to people who are likely to exhibit behaviors such as keeping their car on their side of the yellow line. Likewise, as a society we grant marriage licenses to people who we think are likely to form stable families with children and who will model that behavior for their children so that it can be perpetuated. "
 
 
But it's an apples and oranges comparison.  
 
One is clearly a good decision about immediate public safety, the other is a personal issue that does not affect public safety.  
 
Society does *not* have the right to dictate with whom one is allowed to enter into a life-partnership. If one's religious beliefs do not forbid a union, then the gov't certainly shouldn't be sticking its laws in the way, or discriminating against certain couples, making them "more equal" than others. Either every life-partnered couple--regardless of their genders--should receive the benefits of that life-partnership, or none at all should receive benefits of that sort.  
 
It's pretty cut-and-dried if you look at it logically, instead of trying to interject your religious beliefs into what is clearly a matter of law....  
 
quote:
"And again, the public has a right to determine where that [line separating the more-equal couples from the less-equal couples] will be."
 
 
I disagree completely with this statement. The public has no right to place limitations on which two consenting adults may marry or not. Frankly, it's none of the public's business. If Barney and Fred want to tie the knot, or if Wilma and Betty decide that they want to form a lifelong partnership, it's not anyone's business but theirs.  
 
And before you trot out the old, tired "but I don't want my tax dollars supporting or helping *them* in any way, shape, or form" argument, remember that their tax and health insurance dollars are supporting you, too. Everyone who has health insurance pays for it in one way or another, and quite a few who *don't* have health insurance (including *me*) also pay for it in the form of taxes. Everyone in this country reaps the benefits of the military, the public roads, public assistance, state colleges, etc. Should we stop financing them because gays might benefit from them? Should we have a sexual-preference law for utilizing these resources? A HETERO lane in addition to the HOV lane on the freeway?  
 
Bottom line, gays are citizens too, and ought to enjoy the same rights that you and I do. It's only right and fair, which I beleive is what this country is supposed to be about.  
 
Respectfully,  
Dale "Dutch" Van Zile

 
Replies:
Michael Tousek But it's an apples and oranges c... -- 9/11/2005 4:32 PM