@not_for_sale2017 wrote:
Hi springyzone.
I know you are responding to someone else, but I like what you have written. You are obviously an honest person. What interests me in part, is the different perspectives people have on this issue, and yours very much seems to be on the importance of the legal definiton of marriage, and respect for the definition. But you also make a fair bit of reference to 'rights'.
I have learned (largely through my work) that laws and rights are sometimes a world apart. I have concluded that the reason for this is because some laws were written for reasons unrelated to rights. The laws greatly reflect the beliefs and attitudes that prevailed at the time. But we are living at a time where we claim to be civilised, advanced and progressive. Personally, I think we have to challenge the laws if we believe they are in conflict with the principles of humanity. Because something is law doesn't mean it is morally and ethically correct. I think we need to dig deep with this issue, and be confident that we can look at our reflections in the mirror after we make our decisions.
Thanks for your words.
yes, I was concentrating on the legal definition & I totally agree, laws and rights are worlds apart. In fact i would go further and say that the laws & justice are two different things quite often.
In fact I don't believe people inherently have any rights-which I guess means i am not at all American in attitude.
We only have the rights that the society around us allows.
Laws should reflect the prevailing opinion. Often they don't. For instance (to use a less emotive issue than gay marriage), I would say a lot of people in the community feel that criminals have too many rights and sentences should be tougher, that the present laws are not living up to community expectations.
When there is a disconnect, then laws need to change and over time, they usually do.
I don't believe we really are at a point where we even know 'the principles of humanity'. I have a theory that every generation has a blind spot (or spots) & it can only be noticed by people looking back.
Basically, laws should roughly reflect the majority view (in a democracy). They can never reflect every view.
Gay marriage in law therefore can only come about if heterosexuals are in favour of it. That's the reality, because heterosexuals make up the majority. I do think that the majority vote will probably be yes, because views have changed.
All I am saying is that if the definition of marriage can be changed in law once, there is no logical reason it cannot be changed several times. For instance, a man here in Vic faced charges for marrying a young girl (forget the age but about 13-14) to an older man.
In law at the moment that can be classed as paedophilia, that's a common moral stance (think of Rolf Harris). But that's just a current viewpoint. I think we are going to see some pushes to further change the marriage laws.
