Wednesday, February 25, 2004
I think I understand why you have been consistently "disagreeing" with me. Its because you have been discussing the whole thing with this gay-rights drama in mind, while I have not. Now that that's clear, just read what I've said again. I said that I have a right not to have something I find offensive forcibly shoved in my face (or in my children's faces)...and certainly if this is the case with the majority, then offensive or objectionable displays in public may be subject to regulation. I gave valid examples with prostitution and porn.
Since you keep returning to this gay-rights issue (news I haven't been following and am least interested in), let me try to state my opinion: I think no recognizing a social phenomenon is silly. But, given the situation here in American society, I think gays must also not pursue an aggressive in-your-face attitude. That way there's less conflict, everyone's happy and minds their own business.
Also, don't pick up a democratic principle (of govt scope) and trivialize it. You sometimes have this tendency. If you were to pursue that narrow logic, then everything from market regulation to film censorship is unconstitutional. Defining what is an externality is always a fuzzy area. So that means that half of what they legislate on economics is unconstitutional?
Comments: Post a Comment