If you mean equality before the law, fine. But otherwise I couldn't disagree more. A free economic system will always result in inequalities. Frankly, the only way to ensure true equality is to crush all freedom and force everyone to live as peasants. Miserable, but equal. This Rush song illustrates the point nicely: There is unrest in the forest, There is trouble with the trees, For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas. The trouble with the maples, (And they're quite convinced they're right) They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light. But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made. And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade. There is trouble in the forest, And the creatures all have fled, As the maples scream "Oppression!" And the oaks just shake their heads So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights. "The oaks are just too greedy; We will make them give us light." Now there's no more oak oppression, For they passed a noble law, And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvQ2JF-glvw
Completely correct. 'Freedom', beyond any specific legal definition, cannot mean anything beyond anarchic behaviour (which, I believe is personally untenable... strictly speaking). However, 'equality' is an even more problematic predicate. As applied to human individuals, equality is impossible. Or, at the very least, can apply only if one elects to ignore all elements that are specific to an individual. For all intents and purposes, making use of the word equality with respect to persons is utterly meaningless. p.s.: mad, nice Rush reference. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cheers.
Who knows? I'm assuming he lives in a tiny little town in the Midwest. You know, a place where gays don't exist (even though he probably knows about 9 gays, they're just too afraid of being beaten to death to come out), and where the only person of color is whoever is in the holding cell? And I'm not flaming him here. His opinions and positions really seem to come from a small-town, isolated mentality.
Actually I live in Grand ol' Texas, in the fourth largest city in the US and a state where marriage is legally defined as between man and woman.
Just as good. Texas is one of the most racist, sexist, and homophobic states in the nation. No wonder you are the way you are.
Marriage simply means joining together. Same with wedding. Everywhere on Earth thru most of history, people cohabited for various reasons having little to do with religion & nothing to do with law or government. Churches & governments got involved in order to further control people & get more money out of them. OUAT, blacks & whites couldn't legally marry. That was horrible & so is this. Letting the government tell any adults they cannot marry means that you are letting the government control you too. If any adults are denied permission & you are given permission, you are both being controled in something which should be entirely up to you. If anything lessens the value of marriage, it's having to apply for, pay for & get a LICENSE.
You have to balance both with the goal of maximizing both. If everyone is free to do whatever they want - even if only economically - you will quickly end up with massive inequality. On the other hand, trying to make everyone completely equal would quickly destroy freedom. Fortunately it's not a zero-sum game; a small decrease in freedom can result in a large increase in equality. For example, saying that a single firm can't completely dominate a vital market through anti-competitive behavior is a reduction in freedom that's so small as to be meaningless to the vast majority of people - but it results in a very noticeable increase in equality for everyone.
Not from a shithole at all. I'm from a place that has far less racial tension and governmental homophobia than your neck of the woods. It should come as no surprise that a bigot would call Texas home, considering how you people operate. I agree. What I find the most hysterical (and sad, really) is that so many Christians (especially the Evangelicals) seem to believe that they invented marriage, or that marriage is at worst an Judaic institution. They have no idea why marriage exists, where it came from, or how long it has been around, in one form or another, in civilization. And it is this false claim of ownership that empowers them to make outrageous demands like not allowing marriage licenses to gay couples.