Question ????

[EndersConscience]

God bless you and those bulls, selfinflikted.

I am curious . . . what rights do I have that you do not?

You have the right to the legal protections and benefits that the government hands out with marriage certificates. You have the right to bond in a formal, recognized ceremony to your partner.

 

[TheBellman]

Ok, seniors not giving back was a really bad example. However, let me turn it around - Were you in charge, big boss, head kahuna, would you legislate based on your morals?

I would certainly TRY not to, as hard as I could, knowing what a bad basis morality is for law. Being a fallible human, I might well screw up and allow my morality to come into play.

And before you answer now, how about this: Morality is too firmly embedded in individuals to be separated

That's certainly true - and it's one of the reasons that a dictatorship is such a bad method of running a society. Checks and balances need to be employed to prevent one person's morality becoming law.

Were I to take charge, 'my' morality would compel me to enact the laws that I consider necessary to a society - otherwise, I wouldn't Really believe that the poor need soup kitchens, and that aspect of my beliefs could not truly be within the scope of my morality.

I disagree with this emphatically. I can REALLY believe a certain moral opinion without thinking it should be imposed on everyone or wanting it to be imposed on everyone.

Individual's morals compel them to live to their own standards; otherwise their "morals" are simply a sham.

Agreed, with one small amendment - I'd say that individuals' morals compel them to TRY to live to their own standards - many of us have, through human weakness, done something we hold to be morally wrong.

Your argument regarding seniors is an argument that differentiates between two courses that really are the same thing. If one possesses the ability to feed and provide for those unable to provide for themselves, and yet does not follow up on that course, it is the exact same thing as "explicitly" harming them.

No, I don't agree that it is - but in any case, it's a red herring. Whether the two are morally equal is irrelevant - they should be legislated based NOT on their morality (or immorality) but on the benefit to society.

If you want (for example) to pass a law that says act X is illegal, well and good - but unless you can show how act X is OVERALL detrimental to society, then I'm not interested. I don't care how morally wrong act X is; if it's not overall detrimental to society, then it should not be illegalised.

 

[Goatboy]

To lighten the mood, an old joke.
(Warning: vintage is no indication of quality)

It’s 1968 and a young Englishman is emigrating to Australia. He has completed all the forms and is being interviewed at Australia house on the Strand.

“So, cobber,” asked the emigration official, “why do you want to move to the greatest country in the world?”

“Well sir,” replied the young Englishman, “One hundred years ago this country punished homosexuals with three years hard labour in prison. Fifty years ago that changed to just six months. Fifteen years ago it was reduced to a fine and last year they decriminalised it."

"So?" asked the bemused Aussie.

"Well, I want to get out of here before they make it compulsory.”

 

[kopilo]

So, I guess my main question is: Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

Not just that, but to try to legistlate morality that other christians disagree with.

Maybe this will help.
[bible]Colossians 2:13-15[/bible]

 

[KarateCowboy]

You have the right to the legal protections and benefits that the government hands out with marriage certificates. You have the right to bond in a formal, recognized ceremony to your partner.

They have those rights, too. They just choose not to exercise those rights by partnering outside of their terms. If I did the same, I would not be exercising that right. I just chose the right kind of partner. Because love is love, you know.