Legislating morality

[faster_jackrabbit]

So, PM you address to me so I can move the harlot house/strip clubs right accross the street from you.

You can do that? Wow, thanks. I have to drive about 17 miles right now.

 

[momalle1]

So, PM you address to me so I can move the harlot house/strip clubs right accross the street from you.

You may have a hard time with that, I live across the street from a school. What does that have to do with the discussion? The OP asked about legislating morality, the crimes you listed have nothing to do with morality, they have to do with directly harming other people.

Sans the school, as long as the patrons kept to the property and the noise level was acceptable (I already live on a busy street), I couldn't care much less, but then again, I don't try to push my morals on other people.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

It's simply, IMO. Any law that exists only to enforce some moral standard or conduct is a bad law and should be immediately repealed.

 

[sister_maynard]

Pretty much. Laws that exist to protect people from harm and enforce standards on which everyone can agree are good laws that we need to protect and keep. When laws start to enforce a moral code that not everyone follows and approves of, they're dangerously slanted in favor of one system of beliefs. Inevitably, a government that legislates morality will lose sight of the needs of all its citizens in favor of making one morality the law of the land. It then becomes theocratic, and people can no longer have truly equal rights without conforming to the chosen state religion and adopting it without dissent.

 

[ottaia]

This means using legislation to force your moral codes on someone else when they don't agree it is a moral issue.

There are many behaviors that virtually everyone agrees are immoral: killing, cheating, lying, rape, adultery, and so on. All of these harm another person.

There are other behaviors that affect only one person or a couple or a group of people who consent to the behavior: these include virtually all moral codes related to consentual sex between 2 or more adults of any gender. The only exception is adultery, because that is cheating.

Your holy book says that the second group is a sin and therefore immoral. Those of other religions and no religion disregard the authority of your holy book.

Therefore when you attempt to pass legislation regarding sex according to your holy book, you are forcing your moral codes on people who do not believe in them.

Of course that's what it is. You base your morality on an ancient book that not everyone recognizes the authority of. Some of it we agree with. The rest is unnecessarily restrictive for the sake of being restrictive.

We could also ask, how would we feel if pork was considered illegal? How 'bout if all women had to wear berkas? Maybe we should make practices abhorrent to the Satanic sects illegal?

 

[outlaw]

So, PM you address to me so I can move the harlot house/strip clubs right accross the street from you.

You’re a pimp AND you own a franchise of strip clubs?

 

[MethodMan]

Red Herring Alert

Alert? Just a normal response to the reply. Certainly you see the need for obscenity laws yet deny the moral implications behind said law. Some might see that as hypocritical.

 

[gengwall]

Alert? Just a normal response to the reply. Certainly you see the need for obscenity laws yet deny the moral implications behind said law. Some might see that as hypocritical.

And some might see it as democracy.

 

[Garnett]

Something interesting was brought up in another thread, and I thought it was important enough to discuss separately.

Great thread.

It is true that God is against Gay sex.

LOL. My girlfriend couldn't believe people nowadays actually believed this! I had to show her the Creationism forum as well! She said something about fossilised thinking almost proving evolution in and of itself.

Why stop there? Why not add pedophilia, rape, theft, (I could go on all day)?

You really missed the boat on this thread didn't you?

The thread title says "Legislating morality". What makes these immoral?...My counter point stands

...in quicksand, sinking fast etc etc.

why does god get upset over sin? Why does god hate sin? If he does, why did he create it or allow it to be created? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just make it impossible?

Here, here. If God wanted us to be compelled into piety, why did he give us freewill, and, since he did, why do his "followers" feel the need to restrict it? Does any advocate of legislated morality have an aswer to this?

Alert? Just a normal response to the reply. Certainly you see the need for obscenity laws yet deny the moral implications behind said law. Some might see that as hypocritical.

Still not made the boat I see.

 

[jayem]

Alert? Just a normal response to the reply. Certainly you see the need for obscenity laws yet deny the moral implications behind said law. Some might see that as hypocritical.

In a secular state, any law should have a secular purpose. If the state is going to restrict someone's personal liberty, especially the private behavior of adults, there should be a compelling reason for it. It should provide a clear benefit to all society. Now there may be some reasons to restrict access to sexually explicit material, but there has to be more of a reason than just because a particular religious doctrine considers it sinful. A law has to rise or fall based on its objective benefit to everyone. If it's main purpose is to comport with or uphold a specific religious belief, that is improper IMO.

The of example of laws I'd consider religiously based to an improper degree are Sunday blue laws (which, fortunately, are mostly gone now anyway.) If a business wants to close on Sunday, that's their choice. But the state has no right to demand all businesses close on a specific day that has religious significance for one specific religion.

 

[MethodMan]

In a secular state, any law should have a secular purpose. If the state is going to restrict someone's personal liberty, especially the private behavior of adults, there should be a compelling reason for it.

And I would think the bill of rights are quite compelling. Our issue here is how far you would permit another to walk all over your right by claiming they have a right to do so.

It should provide a clear benefit to all society. Now there may be some reasons to restrict access to sexually explicit material, but there has to be more of a reason than just because a particular religious doctrine considers it sinful. A law has to rise or fall based on its objective benefit to everyone. If it's main purpose is to comport with or uphold a specific religious belief, that is improper IMO.

It is a wonderful opinion, but that is all it is. If the laws are designed to what the rest of society sees as immoral, then it is imparitive that the Gov't respect the wishes of that society that elected them and pass the laws.

The of example of laws I'd consider religiously based to an improper degree are Sunday blue laws (which, fortunately, are mostly gone now anyway.) If a business wants to close on Sunday, that's their choice. But the state has no right to demand all businesses close on a specific day that has religious significance for one specific religion.

And how did the blue laws get over turned?

Why were they there to begin with?

Just because they make no sense now doesn't mean they had no sense when they were passed. IMO, it is more evidence this country in evolving morally downward.

 

[ottaia]

And I would think the bill of rights are quite compelling. Our issue here is how far you would permit another to walk all over your right by claiming they have a right to do so.




It is a wonderful opinion, but that is all it is. If the laws are designed to what the rest of society sees as immoral, then it is imparitive that the Gov't respect the wishes of that society that elected them and pass the laws.



And how did the blue laws get over turned?

Why were they there to begin with?

Just because they make no sense now doesn't mean they had no sense when they were passed. IMO, it is more evidence this country in evolving morally downward.

Could you please explain the downward evolution of our country's morality?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Just because they make no sense now doesn't mean they had no sense when they were passed. IMO, it is more evidence this country in evolving morally downward.

Or rather away from the excessively restrictive morality of the bible. If that is happening, hopefully it will continue and better yet, accelerate.

 

[MethodMan]

Or rather away from the excessively restrictive morality of the bible. If that is happening, hopefully it will continue and better yet, accelerate.

Restrictive? Now that's funny.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Restrictive? Now that's funny.

Someone who believes that ancient mythology is real is laughing at me?

 

[jayem]

And I would think the bill of rights are quite compelling. Our issue here is how far you would permit another to walk all over your right by claiming they have a right to do so.

Of course. Any law must be constitutional. And if, for example, someone could show how an adult accessing pronography on their own computer, in the privacy of their own home, violates a second party's constitutional rights, then the state should certainly act on it.


It is a wonderful opinion, but that is all it is. If the laws are designed to what the rest of society sees as immoral, then it is imparitive that the Gov't respect the wishes of that society that elected them and pass the laws.

As noted above, if someone can show that such a law violates a constitutional right without a compelling reason, then it's invalid, and will be overturned. No matter what you think of the courts, it's their job to decide.


IMO, it is more evidence this country in evolving morally downward.


That certainly is an opinion. Not one that I share. I have no desire to return to the days of Prohibition, racial segregation, and lynchings.

 

[Spherical Time]

Or rather away from the excessively restrictive morality of the bible. If that is happening, hopefully it will continue and better yet, accelerate.

I agree.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I have no desire to return to the days of Prohibition, racial segregation, and lynchings.

Or slavery. Don't forget the bible promotes that too.

 

[gengwall]

Or slavery. Don't forget the bible promotes that too.

OK, I'm on your side in this thread but "promotes" is a little strong. "Acknowledges the reality" is a little closer IMO.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Seems like giving instruction on proper procedures would be a little more than acknowledgement. Are there not scriptures teaching the proper care of slaves?