< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://www.darklock.com/blog/" >

A Voice in the Dark

In AD 2101 war was beginning. What happen? Someone set up us the bomb! We get signal. What? Main screen turn on. It's you. How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us!! You are on the way to destruction. What you say? You have no chance to survive. Make your time. HA HA HA HA.... Take off every 'Zig' You know what you doing! Move 'Zig' For great justice.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Gay marriage

We wandered off topic in a free software discussion on Slashdot, and someone posted anonymous criticism of calling homosexuality a lifestyle.

This led me to a very off-topic idea, so I thought I'd bring it here instead of continuing there.

Regardless of whether homosexuality is-a lifestyle, every homosexual has-a lifestyle, and the group as a whole has some pattern of sameness in that lifestyle. Instead of questioning whether homosexuality is anything *more* than a lifestyle, most people are occupied in the question of whether the lifestyle is something we need to accept in America.

Well, in these United States, we have this notion of three fundamental freedoms: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It seems obvious to me that any lifestyle is directed at the pursuit of happiness, and therefore that it is permissible so long as it does not deprive others of these three basic rights.

So why the debate on gay marriage? It's the pursuit of happiness, it deprives no one of life or liberty, it should be a pretty open-and-shut case. However, certain segments of the American people believe the right to pursuit of happiness naturally presumes the right to prevention of unhappiness... and it does, provided it does not deprive others of this fundamental right. But what we have here is mutually exclusive rights, where one group must be made unhappy.

I believe it is critical to come down on the side of liberty, because the order of these three rights implies a precedence. It is acceptable when we restrict liberty to protect life, but not if we restrict it to protect some group's happiness. So depriving homosexuals of liberty to protect the religious right's happiness is clearly wrong, and we should not stand for it. These decisions establish precedents that will later be used to determine YOUR liberties if someone complains about them.

0 Comments:

<< Home