Friday, January 21, 2005
Domestic Unions
How is it, that our Government can pass a law that mandates the use of seat belts? Here in Idaho we also have a law that mandates the use of helmets when riding a motorcycle. Now in both cases, I want to know who gets hurt if a helmet is forgotten or the seat belt is not worn? The answer is -no one-! Not a soul. Now if I were to be involved in an accident -and- I had neglected the safety gear, then the one to get hurt (more) would be me.
So if the only real danger in NOT wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet is to my own person, how is this bad for everyone else. Why should it concern them? How is it not a violation of my human rights to choose whether or not to use them. Why is it, that everyone thinks this is such a good idea, that an officer can pull me to the curb and have me fined for not wearing them? I hope you get the idea here.
Not wearing a seat belt or helmet puts me at more of a risk in an accident. But the Government does not trust me to do the right thing, so they take away my freedom of choice in order to enforce a rule that is -mostly- aimed at saving me from my own foolishness.
When it is just seat belts, no one complains. ... But doesn't this principle apply in other areas of life as well? Couldn't we use it as a base for comparison where domestic unions are concerned?
Consider this: If it can be shown that the BEST domestic union is one man, one women, married for life, no divorce, no extra-marital affairs, and that this union produces better kids for the next generation. Children, having had a more stable home life, tend to grow up into more mature and responsible adults. This means healthier happier people, neighborhoods, and cities.
So if the government can mandate the use of safety equipment to keep us from harming ourselves, why can't they mandate the conditions of marriage to prevent us from the same thing, and (hopefully) from harming the children as well?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, Daniel (and not to disagree with your overall point on domestic unions re:marriage) society (and your family) IS damaged when someone is hurt because they've been preventably injured or killed by not wearing a helmet when motorcycling, or not wearing a seat belt while driving.
How? - Let's say the incident was [preventably] fatal. You're dead ...but isn't the government now going to be denied the taxes you would have paid, the tremendous investment that has gone into your education & training? Obviously ....
And what about "merely an injury" type incidents? Whether short or long medical care is indicated, won't the cost burden for your care be shared by insurance companies (denying shareholders profit from their investment), worker's disability (burdening state and/or federal income taxpayers) or some combination thereof? I think this answer obvious, too.
I think you're right.
We all suffer a loss of personal freedom because our choices do in fact effect other people.
Now I for one, would not go to a voting booth and vote to enforce seat-belt or helemt laws based on the loss of tax dollars... but the argument about increased medical costs and disability payments might convence me.
But this ties into my point about domestic unions.
Hasn't it already been proven that same-sex partners are NOT as good a choice (health-wise) as traditional marriges? And so being, the people who choose them, like the guy who wont wear a seat-belt, is at risk, and is going to raise those same medical care costs and disability payments. Same reason, same princable.
So shouldn't the laws be applied evenly?
Post a Comment