California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Page 24 of 27 [ 420 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

20 May 2008, 8:37 pm

slowmutant wrote:

Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 May 2008, 8:47 pm

srriv345 wrote:

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

I would like to see this argument.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 May 2008, 8:51 pm

oscuria wrote:

srriv345 wrote:

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

I would like to see this argument.

i jerk off to porn. the morals of christianity say that's wrong but i harm no one, i am a tax-paying, productive member of society, i vote, i give money to charity, and jerking off is not a crime.

pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 May 2008, 9:49 pm

Adultery should not have to be policed by the state.

What we hope for is that people refrain from cheating on their spouses and families due to their conscience.

srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

20 May 2008, 9:57 pm

oscuria wrote:

srriv345 wrote:

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

I would like to see this argument.

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 May 2008, 10:18 pm

srriv345 wrote:

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2008, 10:22 pm

I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.

skafather84 wrote:

pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).

Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.

srriv345 wrote:

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

A good counter-argument to this, as even though laws may be morality, how do we really come to the right choice on laws?

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 May 2008, 11:08 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).

a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?

b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2008, 11:45 pm

skafather84 wrote:

a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?

It could be. Egoism is a possibility for getting around the issue of morality as well, but then there is the issue of legislating for one's personal gain, but really, can you argue against an egoist?

Quote:

b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?

Well, I am talking about the entire legal system, from the police who we send out, to the courts we use to deal with these laws, the punishments for the laws that are broken, and the actual laws that exist to be enforced.

srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

21 May 2008, 12:44 am

oscuria wrote:

srriv345 wrote:

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind.

Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear. How do you suggest legislating sexual morality in a pluralistic society--i.e. pretty much all societies? And the issue which follows this is, how do you enforce legislation of sexual morality? I don't believe this is possible without a serious invasion of privacy rights, and the right to free expression. Please do show me why I'm wrong. The most basic laws are to protect life, safety, and (sometimes) property. That is not at all the same thing as the government trying to outlaw "immoral" sexual practices.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 2:07 am

srriv345 wrote:

1) You cant, and it is a reason why we still have nothing in all states that actually penalizes bestiality which a majority can agree is a sexual perversion/deviance. Statutory rape laws are hybrid, in my opinion.

2) Like above, how private should a person be? After all our interpretation today on the "right to privacy" only came about with Griswold v Connecticut. Obviously it was assumed before.

3) My belief is there should be some form of penalty to things generally understood to be "wrong". I think we today have interpreted our rights and freedoms to something that were not intentioned. I am not suggesting anything, but something I feel must be done.

And to be honest, I would not be so against homosexual "marriage" if marriage became something that was difficult to attain. That is, if marriage became something strict it would limit the amounts of people getting married, and by doing so limit the amounts of divorce (as it would be difficult to divorce without justification).

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

21 May 2008, 9:20 am

srriv345 wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

A red herring -- from what? "Red herring" have to distract from something.
But the subject of this thread is singular -- namely, addressing the question
of whether or not marriage is changing.
I said that in the opening post, that such was the only question I was asking.
To determine whether or not your car is rolling slowly or standing still,
you look out the window. This thread is only about looking out the window.

No, actually, that was the subject of the other thread. This thread's OP announces a single change in legal marriage in the state of California.

Oops! My bad. We all began talking about the subject of my thread in this one, which confused me.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

21 May 2008, 9:24 am

srriv345 wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

The distinction is not absolute, nor should it be.
Having only laws based purely on perceived practicalities would be insufficient to govern a society fairly.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 May 2008, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

21 May 2008, 9:27 am

srriv345 wrote:

oscuria wrote:

srriv345 wrote:

Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?

I would like to see this argument.

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

Extreme example for the sake of argument:
Do you believe child porn should be illegal to be possessed? If you do, then you're for legislating morality.
We're all for legislating morality to one extent or another.
That people are against legislating morality is a pipe dream; the law is based on right and wrong,
and hinges upon whether or not one can instinctively tell the difference.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

21 May 2008, 10:42 am

oscuria wrote:

srriv345 wrote:

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind.

i realize the failed logic here...you take it as all of YOUR morals should be legislated whereas you don't have any consideration for others. law is obviously morality in the sense of a basic code of conduct...it's inseparable. however, the separation is functionless morality like many of the arbitrary laws found within religious texts that may have been applicable and useful back in BC or even so far as 1500AD or later but many of the needs for those laws have disappeared as technology has gotten better and people have been able to operate more freely without the troubles previously caused by breaking those laws (take the muslim and jewish dietary laws regarding pork and shellfish for example).

laws are also in place to keep a semblance of order within society and again, this is constantly redrawn as better understanding is achieved on how society operates and how the individual operates.

you're still wrong..but it's mostly just because you're dismissive of scientific, technological, and medical progress.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

21 May 2008, 4:31 pm

skafather84 wrote:

1) Your want in changing the definition of marriage is part of your moral agenda.

2) Nowhere have I brought religion as a focal point of my argument. You are blinded by your disdain towards religion and so you feel the need to constantly bring it up.

3) The part of Semblance of Order within a Society can be taken into consideration many ways. Just think about it.

4) I would like to understand your logic on me being dismissive of science, technology and medical practices. Really, I would like to. Considering that I'm against homosexual marriage, I don't see any of these coming into conflict with that stance.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

Page 24 of 27 [ 420 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next

Jump to:

California overturned gay-marriage ban today! Post Reply New Topic

California overturned gay-marriage ban today!