Author trying to out law keeping big cats
This video is kind of an interesting perspective of one person trying to pass a law about keeping big cats as pets. Apparently it is not against the law in their state, but there is obviously some debate about that. I can definitely see both sides of this perspective. On the one hand, it doesn't seem quite fair to pass the law if some people will make good big cat owners. On the other hand, is it fair to the lions not to pass the law if most of those owners will not do a good job of taking care of them? So then it becomes a very complicated issue.
Anytime someone is trying to pass a law or repeal a law it is a complicated issue though. It seems like every law becomes an issue of weighing the rights of two or more distinct parties. In hindsight some of these laws are not really about rights for both parties, though they may think so, but are in fact a struggle between traditions of one party and the rights of the other. Fortunately so far we have seen these rights eventually prevail over tradition, but it can take decades for that to happen sometimes.
Like with marriage laws in the U.S. While there have been laws about marriage for almost as long as there has been marriage, a lot of them have been, and sometimes even still are overly restrictive laws. Like the former laws about race/ethnicity, and current laws relating to gender and sexual orientation and marriage. While many people view these kinds of issues as struggles between the rights of those pressing for the law change and those against it, in reality it appears to be more a struggle between the rights of those pressing for law change versus the comfort of those resisting it. Let's not forget that while the constitution and the declaration of independence state a right to the "pursuit of happiness" it seems like that should be primarily about rights, not about the comfort of the majority.
Of course, some people may always see this as a moral issue, and that is where the real difficulty comes in. On the one hand you do want the majority to be able to state their opinion on the law, to vote and live how they want, etc. On the other hand, you want for the other group to be able to state their opinion on the law as well, to vote and live how they want too. So how do we resolve this kind of issues when we cannot just make a law for each person to make them happy? Only time and history can tell, but if I had to guess based on the past and the present, I would say this will most likely end the same way anti- bi-racial law ended. In a good, peaceful death.
This video is kind of an interesting perspective of one person trying to pass a law about keeping big cats as pets. Apparently it is not against the law in their state, but there is obviously some debate about that. I can definitely see both sides of this perspective. On the one hand, it doesn't seem quite fair to pass the law if some people will make good big cat owners. On the other hand, is it fair to the lions not to pass the law if most of those owners will not do a good job of taking care of them? So then it becomes a very complicated issue.
Anytime someone is trying to pass a law or repeal a law it is a complicated issue though. It seems like every law becomes an issue of weighing the rights of two or more distinct parties. In hindsight some of these laws are not really about rights for both parties, though they may think so, but are in fact a struggle between traditions of one party and the rights of the other. Fortunately so far we have seen these rights eventually prevail over tradition, but it can take decades for that to happen sometimes.
Like with marriage laws in the U.S. While there have been laws about marriage for almost as long as there has been marriage, a lot of them have been, and sometimes even still are overly restrictive laws. Like the former laws about race/ethnicity, and current laws relating to gender and sexual orientation and marriage. While many people view these kinds of issues as struggles between the rights of those pressing for the law change and those against it, in reality it appears to be more a struggle between the rights of those pressing for law change versus the comfort of those resisting it. Let's not forget that while the constitution and the declaration of independence state a right to the "pursuit of happiness" it seems like that should be primarily about rights, not about the comfort of the majority.
Of course, some people may always see this as a moral issue, and that is where the real difficulty comes in. On the one hand you do want the majority to be able to state their opinion on the law, to vote and live how they want, etc. On the other hand, you want for the other group to be able to state their opinion on the law as well, to vote and live how they want too. So how do we resolve this kind of issues when we cannot just make a law for each person to make them happy? Only time and history can tell, but if I had to guess based on the past and the present, I would say this will most likely end the same way anti- bi-racial law ended. In a good, peaceful death.
