Re: Self-Righteousness, Sodomy and the Supreme Court (Was Re: Filter: Andreas Pour)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On February 24, 2004 04:03, Rob Kaper wrote:
> Agreed. What I'm trying to say (as I did in Orkut's San Francisco community
> in an approriate thread) is that I oppose to any kind of government funding
> for relationship choices.

i agree with you here; i find it distasteful that government is involved in a 
religious/cultural custom that masquerades as a "contract", esp when that 
contract is woefully incomplete and full of aforementioned religious and 
cultural biases.

this is somewhat beside the point for many involved, but still interesting =)

> So expanding benefits I already find doubtful is not something I'll support.

ah, but you can't simply have a government go halfway and only grant unfairly 
to one segment of the populace. if we're going to be stupid about it, we need 
to be equally stupid for everyone. otherwise it becomes prejudicial and very 
unfair.

if that requirement of being "consistently stupid" forces government to get 
out of the marriage business, then that would be a great side effect. history 
and conservative boneheads are a hard thing to fight, though.

> [1] Perhaps menstruation and erections weren't the best examples but I
> simply *do* see a significant difference between the two sexes.

so do gay people. it's still rather irrelevant to the discussion of same sex 
marriage, IMHO.

> I'm not saying the current situation is ideal, but the proposed changes
> would make the situation even worse, from a libertarian point of view.

i thought libertarians believed in free will as the ultimate doctrine. if so, 
and you claim to adhere to that concept, then NOT allowing people to marry if 
they so desire is a LIMIT to their range of exercisable free will. a 
libertarian would cry for equal free will for all, meaning equal laws for 
each at worst and no law governing marriage at all at best.

this isn't about a law that limits freedom, it's a law that increases it.

> Allowing same-sex couples into the elited of same-sex couples won't do a
> thing against the discrimination of singles, polygamists, etc etc. If this 
> is about equal rights, don't change the nature of discrimination, end it.

that isn't the point, of course. gay men and women aren't asking to be married 
to liberate their straight fellow humans, they want to be married because 
they wish to. free will, and all.

and perhaps you may want to consider that some people in a committed same-sex 
relationship WANT marriage and don't see a marriage arrangement for them and 
their would-be spouse to be discriminatory at all.

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
while (!horse()); cart();
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAPCwa1rcusafx20MRAu/hAJwLX6BVKBdYMWZqRfghxZGBnJHcnQCgj9/P
wp691OtV9HZrggi7tMgbaT8=
=jF42
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.