I didn’t see whether you answered the questions I posed in my second paragraph. Are you saying that laws are not based on some sort of morality other than how they “threaten” individual rights? Would you agree that the definition of marriage *should* be redefined to include homosexual couples, since nobody’s individual rights are clearly “threatened”?
And cut the personal attacks. That’s not befitting a FReeper.
No. I am not saying that marriage should be “redefined.” However, a case COULD be made that the State should not be involved in marriage in any way, shape or form. That it is when GOVERNMENT gets involved in the proper domain of the CHURCH is when we have many more problems than we can handle, and, for the most part otherwise PREVENTABLE problems.
In fact, when you look back in history, government involvement in marriage and other things was because the local lord wanted control over his serfs and every aspect of their lives so he instituted all these formerly abominable things, often with the help of the early Church, which likewise wanted control over others’ lives. Then of course, there was the quaint notion that the local lord could exercise his “right” to be the one to spend the wedding night with the new bride. Kinda gives you a nice warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn’t it?
Over time, such barbaric customs died off, but the interference of the State into marriage and other private affairs was pretty well established by then, sad to say.
But, yes, I am saying that the LAW should ONLY come into play when someone’s INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are threatened or violated by someone else. That’s it and that’s ALL. Isn’t that enough for you?
And there are no personal attacks. Saying that I know too many like you is not an attack; it’s a statement of fact. A most unfortunate fact and one that I shouldn’t have to point out on FR, but a fact nonetheless.