Monday, June 29, 2015

Gay marriage, collective punishment, and licenses

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Those who argue against the supreme courtjesters' "marriage equality" decision on religious grounds confuse me.

They say things such as "god will not be mocked", and "expect god's judgment" (to fall on us all for this ruling). Yes, I have actually seen both posted over this.

Does this mean they believe their god is evil and engages in collective punishment just like some nasty kinderprison "teacher"?

Because, make no mistake, collective punishment IS evil. It is punishing the innocent along with the guilty because the innocent failed to... what? Kill the guilty person as soon as the offence was discovered? And because it's too hard for the punisher to sort them out?

The guilty are guilty. And, if you haven't initiated force or violated property rights you aren't guilty. Good people understand the difference.

But, ignoring that, I realize a lot of religious rules involve things that are "immoral" (as judged by that religion) but not unethical- they don't involve aggression or rights violations. Still collective punishment for even these things- within the religious community who believes those particular rules- seems twisted.

If I am in a room with some number of people, including an unknown murderer, would you believe it is right to kill everyone in order to "get" the guilty person?

What if you were supposedly omniscient and knew exactly who the murderer was, but chose to kill everyone instead of singling out the bad guy, even though your omnipotence would allow that? What if you kill everyone because they knew who the bad guy was and chose to not kill him themselves? I don't see how that can be seen as something to emulate or honor.

What if it's not a murderer, but someone who chose to eat shellfish?

Now, you can argue against the decision on the grounds that government has no business regulating private consensual agreements, and I'd agree.

I still understand, somewhat, the joy felt by those who don't like being meddled with by bullies using the excuse of "law". I'd love it if the supreme courtjesters declared ALL "gun control" illegal and said it was all immediately null and void (fat chance of those loudmouthed cowards doing that). I like it when the chance of being violated for living in liberty goes down, for whatever reason it does.

I still think it's silly and harmful to buy a license to do what no one else has any right to control. And I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to expand the rights violations to everyone, rather than simply ending them.

It's not that gays have a right to get marriage licenses; no one has the right to demand such, nor to claim a marriage is valid only with government approval. That's the difference between a lesser violation and liberty.


An update

I found out a bit of interesting information about my previous "rejected" column.

The woman whose outlaw carport started the whole mess was quoted in the paper as...
"Mrs. __ stressed that folks in the city should
get building permits for any construction they do."

Only, she says she never said any such thing.

Is this a case of the paper saying something that fits with their agenda, rather than with the truth? Or, did she really say that to the bullies and is now denying it?