Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Re: My opinion on Gay Marriage Issue

Ramki, your logic can be turned against you as well. To what limit are you going to take this "individual liberty" argument? People have the right to consider some things objectionable, and to not have such things shoved in their face.

Why is 18 yrs of age a benchmark? Dont some mature earlier, and some later? Huh? Parents cannot use harshness to deiscipline their kids? Now there have been court cases and parent-child "divorces" already. People cannot protest against morally offensive behavior in PUBLIC. In other words, your arguments are totally discounting any notions of morality. Anything goes.

You are the extremist here. Note how I used only the word "regulate". I said that those who won't listen may be given the freedom to indulge themselves. But their indulgences must not be advertized, innocent citizens must not be unnecessarily tempted (this is the nature of morality). So publicly objectionable things should be made purposely out-of-the-way.

So if you are a compulsive porn-addict, by all means you can access porn. But you have to seek it, and if you are determined enough, you will find it. What I was arguing against is for prostitites to advertize themselves to young boys coming back from college/school, or for hard-porn to pop-up when someone is surfing the web for less objectionable stuff. That is the nature of such things.

There is, of course, a possibility of draconian laws and interference in any democracy, and there is no sureshot way to guard against it. We can only argue to regulate, under a vigilant public eye. You are free to have your walled nudist and other communities if you so please.

Obviously this is not a clear-cut issue. If you cannot agree to the philosophical idea of morality (and something being publicly objectionable), then there's no way to argue.

Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger