• Initiation of Force In Support of Tradition

    Charles (whom I admire and respect greatly) said:

    As to homosexuality, what we’ve forgotten is that the institution of marriage is for the express purpose of regulating the sex drive.

    I’m not sure that it is up to any one individual to decide that this is the “express purpose” for a practice that has existed for centuries in varying forms and cultures long before government and its definitions and privileges entered the fray. Decide for yourself or within voluntary group affiliations, but please keep government out of it. It is only recently (last 2000 years or so) that people have looked to government to initiate force (via favorable taxation policies and legal protections granted to SOME but not ALL individuals in its jurisdiction) to decide which protected group will be allowed to participate in an arrangement that is none of government’s business. And that has almost always been for the purpose of lending one class of citizens (by religion or melanin or cultural affiliation) special privileges denied to the rest.

    Either it is a spiritual and cultural affair or it is not. We cannot have it both ways by saying its rooted in spirituality or regulation of the sex drive (which is also rooted in spiritual beliefs) and should be defined by such roots and then look to government to enforce such spirituality or regulation of sex drive on others against their will via forcible taxation and special rights afforded to one protected class of citizens. By offering one class of individuals (heterosexual married couples for example) a better rate of taxation and legal protections than another class of individuals (homosexual life partners for example), we are using government force to tax one group higher and redistribute that money via a tax break to another group. This is initiation of force in order to enforce a spiritual or cultural belief. How secure and authentic can such a belief be if it requires government tax thugs to promote it?

    Charles (whom I admire and respect greatly) said:

    Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman so as to prevent one or both from going outside that institution’s boundaries and engaging in illicit activity.

    If that is the definition you wish to adhere to of your own free will that is fine, but if you wish to involve government in the initiation of force in order to make this definition the “official” one that is not fine. Define marriage however you want on a individual or voluntary group affiliation basis, but keep government out of it. This is a matter that should be between individual consenting adults and/or whatever higher power they profess belief in (or not). It is not government’s proper role to make decisions that have been part of individual rights for tens of thousands of years.

    In short, call marriage what you want on a personal level or within voluntary group affiliations, but don’t use government to initiate force against others (via taxation or special privileges denied to other classes of individuals) to enforce your definition en masse.

    Charles (whom I admire and respect greatly) said:

    As per ancient scriptural injunction, sex between a married man and a woman is for the purpose of producing a child that is to then be reared in a God-conscious manner.

    Spiritual belief systems are fine as a voluntary guide for individual actions. When we look to government to validate and promote our spiritual definitions to others then we appear to have abandoned belief in individual rights and free will, which can lead others to believe that our spiritual beliefs do not stand strong on their own but only through the coercive oversight of Statism. I don’t believe that spirituality needs government protection or advocacy. Let belief systems stand or fall on their own merits. Leave government out of the equation. Do not initiate force on its behalf.

    This entry also posted in Yahoo! Groups – Interracial Couples.

    Post Tagged with ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.