The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: Chris_ on July 21, 2008, 12:41:18 PM
-
Do you believe in legislating morality?
-
I voted no, but must add a caveat.......most of what we conservatives perceive as "moral" has sound basis in the logic and history behind preserving a ordered and civil society. Many of these concepts arrived from religion in the middle ages, and were initially expressed in cannon law, and as our western society evolved, were transmuted into civil law.
Those factors considered, it becomes difficult to separate what is "moral", from what is "necessary for preservation of a civil society".....therein lies the conundrum. This becomes somewhat more complex when you inject the fact that "morality" is defined differently by different groups in society.
Therefore if you equate "morality" with "what has historically proven to be best for an ordered society", I would have to have answered your question differently......
doc
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
-
In many aspects laws and regulations are 'legislation of Morality". Not all members of society abide by acceptable societal behavior and as such society has prescribed(legislated) penalties for such behaviors/actions.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
Exactly. It's the basis of our laws.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
[/quote
.
No I am not a supporter/proponent of Hate Crimes legislation.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
[/quote
.
No I am not a supporter/proponent of Hate Crimes legislation.
that would be islam.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
You slay me. Your peeps already think they can read minds, that's why they offer up hate crimes legislation. Nice one TNO. :lmao:
-
:thatsright:
FFS
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
Wow, I bet you feel stupid by now. :lmao:
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
It does so now -- it is called "Hate Crime."
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
If government had a way to read minds, would you be in favor of it prosecuting people for having immoral thoughts?
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
For example, everytime I read one of your stupid ass statements I think to myself "he really needs his ass kicked" but that is not illegal...now if I was to really kick your ****ing ass, I could go to jail for that.
Understand now?
-
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
Let me try this a different way...
A lot of people consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Should government legislate against sex outside of marriage?
-
No, but you can't have sex outside. :tongue: Dipshit
-
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
Let me try this a different way...
A lot of people consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Should government legislate against sex outside of marriage?
A lot of people consider liberals to be immoral and genetically defective. Should government legislate they be put to painful death?
-
No, but you can't have sex outside. :tongue: Dipshit
TNO might have sex in 4 or 5 years when he turns 18. But he'll have to pay for it.
-
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
Let me try this a different way...
A lot of people consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Should government legislate against sex outside of marriage?
A lot of people consider liberals to be immoral and genetically defective. Should government legislate they be put to painful death?
Stalin did. Hitler did. Pol Pot did., etc etc etc...
-
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
Let me try this a different way...
A lot of people consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Should government legislate against sex outside of marriage?
A lot of people consider liberals to be immoral and genetically defective. Should government legislate they be put to painful death?
Stalin did. Hitler did. Pol Pot did., etc etc etc...
I think they killed the people who can think. The dumb (liberals) ones they left alive to help them.
-
Actually, I believe there is legislation against adultery in several states. Just as in some states it's illegal for a male and female to live together or a girl under the age of consent to have her socks off in a car :mental:
Perhaps they've changed some of the laws, but those sites and books on irrefutably bizarre laws tend to have things of that sort.
I'm not talking about adultery. I'm talking about sex between consenting and unmarried people.
-
Murder is immoral, yet we legislate against it.
Theft is immoral, ditto.
Perjury, ditto.
Adultery, ditto.
Incest...
Sexual abuse of children...
Sexual abuse of animals...
Sexual abuse of the dead...
We also legislate against free speech from Christians, even on private property
We legislate against adults driving or riding in cars without seat belts
We legislate against smokers
But TNO is all worried that someone may start enforcing the statutes on fornication? :lmao:
-
Murder is immoral, yet we legislate against it.
Theft is immoral, ditto.
Perjury, ditto.
Adultery, ditto.
Incest...
Sexual abuse of children...
Sexual abuse of animals...
Sexual abuse of the dead...
We also legislate against free speech from Christians, even on private property
We legislate against adults driving or riding in cars without seat belts
We legislate against smokers
But TNO is all worried that someone may start enforcing the statutes on fornication? :lmao:
liberals are incapable of making distinctions, especially moral ones.
-
No, but you can't have sex outside. :tongue: Dipshit
Sure you can I have many times! :-)
-
I'm not talking about adultery. I'm talking about sex between consenting and unmarried people.
Sorry for the mix up, but oddly enough what I posted still stands. As the definition of adultery and sodomy by various states, are well... wild in some cases, not even resembling what you'd assume them to be.
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today. Biblically, fornication was adultery against your future spouse, so the same sin. Any sex with any person except your spouse, whether or not you were currently married, was sinful. :-)
-
Do you believe in legislating morality?
Morality can not be legislated. Nor should there be any attempt to do so.
-
Do you believe in legislating morality?
Morality can not be legislated. Nor should there be any attempt to do so.
Morality is the BASIS for legislation -- it is quite different than legislating morality.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
I disagree. We have legislation that punishes certain behaviors deemed unaccpetable by what is currently unpoplular. I personally do not equate that to morality.
Is it moral to be gay? Not IMO. Is it illegal? Not these days. Hell, there is hardly even a social stigma against it in many places.
-
No, but you can't have sex outside. :tongue: Dipshit
Sure you can I have many times! :-)
Two words: thorns. sand.
-
We already legislate morality. We always have. We always will.
I disagree. We have legislation that punishes certain behaviors deemed unaccpetable by what is currently unpoplular. I personally do not equate that to morality.
Is it moral to be gay? Not IMO. Is it illegal? Not these days. Hell, there is hardly even a social stigma against it in many places.
I know I worded my previous post poorly.
What I was trying to convey is that the perception of "moral" has changed over the years as our society has changed.
When I stated that morality shouldn't be legislated, I was thinking along the lines of making pre-marital sex (which many find immoral) illegal, as an example.
-
It seems that the only "morals" that should not be legislated are the sexual ones. :whatever:
-
It seems that the only "morals" that should not be legislated are the sexual ones. :whatever:
I'm not sure that anyone has stated that. I was merely using one or two examples from the top of my head.
What sort of immoral behavior, if any ,do you think should be legislated?
What some find immoral, I might not and vice versa. Which is why I am always a tad concerned when the topic of legislating morality comes up.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
Some parts of it may be. I don't think others are... Such as the laws concerning firearms, FCC regulations, EPA regulations, political campaigning etc.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
Some parts of it may be. I don't think others are... Such as the laws concerning firearms, FCC regulations, EPA regulations, political campaigning etc.
The framework is Biblical -- you confuse the items with the container.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
Some parts of it may be. I don't think others are... Such as the laws concerning firearms, FCC regulations, EPA regulations, political campaigning etc.
The framework is Biblical -- you confuse the items with the container.
No.. I don't confuse the items with the container. I was intentionally speaking about the items. And I was doing so for a reason.
The comment I responded to read:
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Any blanket statement that says our laws are bibically based is incorrect. Now if the statement had read that the framework of our laws is bibically based... I would have agreed.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
Some parts of it may be. I don't think others are... Such as the laws concerning firearms, FCC regulations, EPA regulations, political campaigning etc.
The framework is Biblical -- you confuse the items with the container.
No.. I don't confuse the items with the container. I was intentionally speaking about the items. And I was doing so for a reason.
The comment I responded to read:
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Any blanket statement that says our laws are bibically based is incorrect. Now if the statement had read that the framework of our laws is bibically based... I would have agreed.
If the framework is Biblically based then the laws are.
-
If the framework is Biblically based then the laws are.
So, if a brick house has a wooden frame, it should be called a frame house? That doesn't seem right.
-
What were our original laws, before our legislature decided to start impressing everyone with their verbosity? Those were absolutely Bible-based. The additions are largely garbage.
What sort of immoral behavior, if any ,do you think should be legislated?
What some find immoral, I might not and vice versa. Which is why I am always a tad concerned when the topic of legislating morality comes up.
Murder is immoral, yet we legislate against it.
Theft is immoral, ditto.
Perjury, ditto.
Adultery, ditto.
Incest...
Sexual abuse of children...
Sexual abuse of animals...
Sexual abuse of the dead...
We also legislate against free speech from Christians, even on private property
We legislate against adults driving or riding in cars without seat belts
We legislate against smokers
How many pages of legislation deal with the proper way to slaughter cattle, or house kennel dogs? How many pages of legislation deal with transporting fruit? How about the pages...pages? books...of legislation dealing with taxation in all it's forms. We legislate everything. Why on earth would anyone care if we also legislated sex outside marriage? Is that the "holy grail" that the government isn't allowed to touch? ::)
-
How many pages of legislation deal with the proper way to slaughter cattle, or house kennel dogs? How many pages of legislation deal with transporting fruit? How about the pages...pages? books...of legislation dealing with taxation in all it's forms. We legislate everything. Why on earth would anyone care if we also legislated sex outside marriage? Is that the "holy grail" that the government isn't allowed to touch? ::)
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens... I really don't think that people in the time before the Bible or the Commandments thought that things like theft, rape, and murder are okay. If they had thought that, humanity probably wouldn't have survived. The truth is that the Bible got its morality from mankind, not the other way around.
-
Having "thoughts" and acting on those thoughts are two different things.
Let me try this a different way...
A lot of people consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Should government legislate against sex outside of marriage?
No.
I don't think sex outside of marriage is immoral.
-
If the framework is Biblically based then the laws are.
So, if a brick house has a wooden frame, it should be called a frame house? That doesn't seem right.
You once again demonstrate your complete ignorance. It is pointless trying to school you.
-
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Some are. Many more are not.
The USC is based on Biblical concepts. All laws flow from that and thus are, indeed, Biblically based.
Some parts of it may be. I don't think others are... Such as the laws concerning firearms, FCC regulations, EPA regulations, political campaigning etc.
The framework is Biblical -- you confuse the items with the container.
No.. I don't confuse the items with the container. I was intentionally speaking about the items. And I was doing so for a reason.
The comment I responded to read:
Our laws are biblically based, no matter how people deny that today.
Any blanket statement that says our laws are bibically based is incorrect. Now if the statement had read that the framework of our laws is bibically based... I would have agreed.
If the framework is Biblically based then the laws are.
Nonsense.
What is the bibical basis of the recently overturned D.C. handgun ban?
-
No, but you can't have sex outside. :tongue: Dipshit
Sure you can I have many times! :-)
Well, ya the wife and I did in Hawaii :hyper:, but ya had to be on the lookout. :uhsure: