Tuesday, September 18, 2007


I feel I need to clarify a couple points I made in my recent post on privacy.

OzzyC Commented:

“…At the same time though, I do believe that I have the right to lobby congress and try to get laws changed, contrary to your article.”

Reading through my post again, I see I’ve given the impression that I’m against campaigning to have laws changed or altered. Nothing could be further from the truth. When a society has no say in the creation and amendment of their own laws, you get a dictatorship.

What I meant was that I’m against the use of law to force one group’s principles or sense of morality upon another.

The Gay Marriage ‘issue’ can demonstrate my point perfectly.

Every opposing argument to gay marriage is a so-called ‘moral’ one. Yet the problems this causes for gay couples isn’t about morality, it’s about human rights.

A gay couple could live together for 50 years, but without marriage, they’re not legally recognized as ‘next of kin’. Basically, imagine your husband or wife falling sick, and finding you have absolutely no rights, and therefore no say when it comes to their treatment. Imagine your partner dying and finding that you’re not invited to the funeral.

Basically, one group of people cause real problems for another, simply because they don’t ‘approve’ of their lifestyle.

Just to underline this point, imagine if a law was brought in tomorrow that made it illegal for you to live with a member of the opposite sex before marriage, or that sex between two consenting adults became illegal.

In other words “I don’t approve of the way you live your life, so I’m going to make it illegal.”

That’s what I’m against. There are some areas that government and law simply has no place in.

For example, I personally believe that some people have kids when they’re way too young, and that some people simply aren’t qualified to raise a child. However, it’s not my place to impose my opinions upon them as law.

Think about that for a second. Can you imagine the uproar if a law was passed that made illegal to have a child before the age of 25? Or that you had to pass a government-approved written test before you’d be allowed to have a child, and if you break those laws your baby would be taken from you?

This is what I’m talking about.

Laws are there for public protection, not to force a particular viewpoint or moral compass on people.

Back to the original article, about the fiancée of the guy who died in the motorcycle accident wanting to have his baby…it doesn’t matter how ‘wrong’ or ‘weird’ we think it is, it has nothing to do with us. If she has the child and doesn’t take care of it or endangers it…that’s when the law should step in.

Long story short, Laws should protect us, not dictate how we should live our private lives.

No comments: