Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.
|
While I understand the resistance of the mob I will not accept the notion that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has to be scheduled. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere but where the line is drawn has to be based on sound rational and fairness. One should avoid drawing lines with
Tom Delay's pencil.
It is desirable that change be organic but matters of importances shouldn't be sat on. Sometimes issues must be forced (i.e. revolution, civil rights, civil war, etc). You have to confront gay marrige head on instead of tip toeing around it. If you don't the masses will simply assume all is well which is not the case. I am sure when we look back at the gay marriage ban thirty years from now we will wonder how people could favor such blatant injustice.
The French Revolution (a first class clusterfuck) is far too complex to compare to any other revolution let alone the American Revolution. Interestingly one of the contributing factors to the demise of Louis XVI was his financial support of the American Revolution at the expense of his countrymen (bankrupted France).