[Mr. RM]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I don't think it is about semantics. I think most of the religious right (it used to be most Christians in general) just don't want to see people practicing homosexuality. Whether you call it marriage, civil union, two gays shacking up together or what ever, for many it is still not acceptable.

I think a good deal of it is with the words being used. You don't see this sort of outcry from the religious right over heterosexual couples living in sinful relationships.

People are free to live sinful lives that directly contradict the will of God. In my opinion...all governments are opposed to the will of God. He does use them to accomplish His purposes when He sees fit to...but to assume that any one government is the "voice" for God is asinine. Christians (myself included) are uncomfortable using the word "marriage" because there IS a biblical slant to that word. It is used to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church. I am honestly uncomfortable using the word "marriage" to describe many heterosexual relationships as well.

Civil unions are the responsibility of the government. I expect the governments of this world to behave like...well...the world. I don't have to like it or endorse it...but it isn't my mission to take on the government. My mission is to love people and hopefully show them the love of Christ.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I don't think it is about semantics. I think most of the religious right (it used to be most Christians in general) just don't want to see people practicing homosexuality. Whether you call it marriage, civil union, two gays shacking up together or what ever, for many it is still not acceptable.

While there is this going on, I think that many more Christians are in favor of homosexual civil unions than are in favor of homosexual marriage.

Because of the religious connotations of the term "marriage" I think many Christians are afraid that "homosexual marriage" will infringe on churches by forcing pastors to perform homosexual marriages. I think the neutral term "civil union" is seen more as government paperwork and as such is viewed as something that would leave the church to operate as it wants.

[Mr. RM]

Originally Posted by thesteve

While there is this going on, I think that many more Christians are in favor of homosexual civil unions than are in favor of homosexual marriage.

Because of the religious connotations of the term "marriage" I think many Christians are afraid that "homosexual marriage" will infringe on churches by forcing pastors to perform homosexual marriages. I think the neutral term "civil union" is seen more as government paperwork and as such is viewed as something that would leave the church to operate as it wants.

Let me add this.

I am not "in favor" of homosexual unions any more than I am of heterosexual unions that are sinful. However...I have no political objection if the government chooses to allow them. I don't endorse them...but I believe the government has the right to handle it.

It all goes back to the word "marriage" and the government conceivably getting involved in religious/spiritual matters.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Ax

Can somebody specifically who votes Republican based off of conservative social issues please explain to me the why behind this issue's importance?

Unfortunately I don't vote conservative, but here are some thoughts.

Why does 3/4 of the US self-identify as Christian, and reportedly 2/5 attends services regularly, yet it is nearly impossible to find a sympathetically-written Christian on television, whereas I can't tell you the last series I watched that didn't have a sympathetically-written gay character despite the fact that only a small percentage of the US population is gay? Obviously this is an intentional choice as well. So it's not just social conservatives who regard the status of homosexuals as a big deal right now -- it's a bunch of people. And I'd suggest the reason is, it in fact is a big deal. Or, more precisely, it is a marker for a big deal.

Jerry mentions that contraception was once a significant issue. That has to do with reproduction, sex, and marriage. So does gay marriage. In between there have been other issues in the same sphere -- no-fault divorce, for instance. Basically, then, we're talking about a social transition from one conception of reproduction, sex, and marriage to another. There are a hundred other forces at work, of course -- philanderers love no-fault divorce, people who need scapegoats find easy targets in homosexuals because most people can't even imagine desiring same-sex romance personally, etc. -- but that's the big-picture issue. And why it's a big deal is that reproduction, sex, and marriage are at the very foundation of human life; big changes there, whether good or bad, are big issues for humans, end of story. And both sides are working out these changes together, some pulling and others pushing, but they're all working on the issue.

In my personal opinion, most of the tactics used are crass and ineffective. For instance, a gay marriage ban won't do anything but delay the inevitable for a few years; if you want to effect change, enculturate different conceptions of love, marriage, etc. Laws such as bans serve merely as hedges to guard the perimeters, so won't effect big change -- in this case, it just cordons off an area where we can point at those other people who are weird or different or whatever. Effectively it's waving a big middle finger at gay people -- you've got to dig a bit deeper than condemning ordinary citizens, no different from any others, if you really want to do something worthwhile. Which isn't to say the liberals are doing any better -- Glee? msnbc? HuffPo? -- I'm just saying. And the point of it is: This really is part of people working out something that really is a big deal.

Originally Posted by Ax

I don't vote Democrat, in fact, I like the GOP's economic stance, but I can't understand why it's so hard for them to get past social issues, especially gay rights, and focus on the economy.

I'm not suggesting that banning gay marriage is the right way to go about things, but emphasizing money for money's sake to the exclusion of anything else is hardly more compelling. Is there no better moral vision than... money?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Unfortunately I don't vote conservative, but here are some thoughts.

Why does 3/4 of the US self-identify as Christian, and reportedly 2/5 attends services regularly, yet it is nearly impossible to find a sympathetically-written Christian on television, whereas I can't tell you the last series I watched that didn't have a sympathetically-written gay character despite the fact that only a small percentage of the US population is gay? Obviously this is an intentional choice as well. So it's not just social conservatives who regard the status of homosexuals as a big deal right now -- it's a bunch of people. And I'd suggest the reason is, it in fact is a big deal. Or, more precisely, it is a marker for a big deal.

Jerry mentions that contraception was once a significant issue. That has to do with reproduction, sex, and marriage. So does gay marriage. In between there have been other issues in the same sphere -- no-fault divorce, for instance. Basically, then, we're talking about a social transition from one conception of reproduction, sex, and marriage to another. There are a hundred other forces at work, of course -- philanderers love no-fault divorce, people who need scapegoats find easy targets in homosexuals because most people can't even imagine desiring same-sex romance personally, etc. -- but that's the big-picture issue. And why it's a big deal is that reproduction, sex, and marriage are at the very foundation of human life; big changes there, whether good or bad, are big issues for humans, end of story. And both sides are working out these changes together, some pulling and others pushing, but they're all working on the issue.

In my personal opinion, most of the tactics used are crass and ineffective. For instance, a gay marriage ban won't do anything but delay the inevitable for a few years; if you want to effect change, enculturate different conceptions of love, marriage, etc. Laws such as bans serve merely as hedges to guard the perimeters, so won't effect big change -- in this case, it just cordons off an area where we can point at those other people who are weird or different or whatever. Effectively it's waving a big middle finger at gay people -- you've got to dig a bit deeper than condemning ordinary citizens, no different from any others, if you really want to do something worthwhile. Which isn't to say the liberals are doing any better -- Glee? msnbc? HuffPo? -- I'm just saying. And the point of it is: This really is part of people working out something that really is a big deal.

It's the legal enforcement of that middle finger that I don't understand. Why is it any better?

And to a further extent, why is it such a big deal that we enforce any of the issues above thru law?

I'm not suggesting that banning gay marriage is the right way to go about things, but emphasizing money for money's sake to the exclusion of anything else is hardly more compelling. Is there no better moral vision than... money?

I don't want the government dabbling in morality. It's NOT THEIR JOB. The job of a government is to protect it's citizens. The best way it can do that is through defense and economics.



The Government has a responsibility to enable the citizen to meet these needs in areas where an individual or family cannot. The best way of doing so is to promote the economy and the military.

The Government shouldn't have to be a moral light. That's stepping into the social realm which is somewhere the Government DOES NOT belong.

Also note: I said enable, the answer isn't just bankrupting the government to give handouts, it really only hurts those it's intended to help, and others to boot.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ax

Can somebody specifically who votes Republican based off of conservative social issues please explain to me the why behind this issue's importance?

I'd say because the left is currently into legislating their morality.

And governments have to legislate a morality of sorts, but currently, the climate is of a particular religious bent. Just a very civil religion.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I'd say because the left is currently into legislating their morality.

At the risk of a tangent: What's an example of what you are thinking of when you make this claim?

It would be better if the example you come up with was as signifigant and hot-button an issue for left voters: as opposed to simply something they advocated.

And governments have to legislate a morality of sorts, but currently, the climate is of a particular religious bent. Just a very civil religion.

If you stretch the definition of morality beyond a reasonable scope than, yes.

OTOH: I can find common ground with the (generally right-wing) libertarian party based exactly on their belief that the government should not legislate morality.

The government could, for example, only pass laws which provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, or ensure domestic tranquility,

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

At the risk of a tangent: What's an example of what you are thinking of when you make this claim?

The basis. Most people say it is "wrong" for gays not to be allowed to marry. This is based on a moral code. The fact that it is intituting a secular moral code for society through using the canon of political correctness as being the standard by which all thought is judged and tolerated or not. It is a form of religion very comparable to other religions in the world.

And currently, the left rendition is legislating their morality, as the right was a few years ago. Personally, it seems fairly obvious to me that this is occurring.

It would be better if the example you come up with was as signifigant and hot-button an issue for left voters: as opposed to simply something they advocated.

Obviously you haven't spent much time on the west coast. This IS the hot button issue around me and has been for several years and personally, as someone going to a school in the PNW, it is the only political issue other than health care.

If you stretch the definition of morality beyond a reasonable scope than, yes.

Using such horrendous scopes, like Webster's dictionary...

1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.

By decreeing that I can't shoot people that look at me funny, the government has to legislate a rule of right conduct. Any law is a standard of morality, and has to be by definition.

OTOH: I can find common ground with the (generally right-wing) libertarian party based exactly on their belief that the government should not legislate morality.

Here I find common ground with them as well. There have to be some morals enforced by law, but I believe they should be as minimal as possible to enforce order. All groups are gradations of morals being enforced. Currently, laws being based on this are legislated morality of a kind different than America has traditionally stood for. But a lot of American politics only make sense when viewed as religious dogma, which is why semantics seem to matter so very much.

I find it worrisome that the current solution is always to legislate more. The focus here has been on enforcing a different set of morals in most folks. I'd rather see the government out of marriage altogether, and have such things as power of attorney and such passable to whoever you want.

Which is why I want to see government out of marriage and in as much as is possible, out of the bedroom.

The government could, for example, only pass laws which provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, or ensure domestic tranquility,

But has that been the case? I'd argue that both sides have crossed over that. Patriot act as a prime example.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Ax

It's the legal enforcement of that middle finger that I don't understand. Why is it any better?

And to a further extent, why is it such a big deal that we enforce any of the issues above thru law?

Basically this same objection is spelled out more below, so I'll just respond there.

Originally Posted by Ax

I don't want the government dabbling in morality. It's NOT THEIR JOB. The job of a government is to protect it's citizens.

There are too many responses here for me to make so I'll just pick a few. I apologize that I can't be more comprehensive now, but maybe over the course of the conversation my responses will get work together to provide a thicker answer.

1. Liberals and conservatives on this issue believe the government should protect its citizens socially, and therefore take action by either expanding its recognition of marriage to include homosexual unions or forbidding said recognition.

2. "It's NOT THEIR JOB" is terribly emphatic but nothing more. Is there any reason you would put this forward? Is it not clear that when liberals and conservatives think of "gay rights" as a big deal is because they disagree with this assertion, so you're just begging-the-question?

3. Protecting people *is* morality. Or, I guess, you might have a very technical understanding of "morality" where it is quarantined into one little area, in which case perhaps you might be able to make this distinction. But you'd have to provide a pretty good reason to demarcate things that way. Alternatively, we might say simply that "the good" has to do with the particular character of any action or institution or such, and so the imperative to protect is itself "morality," the pursuit of the good of society.

Originally Posted by Ax

The best way it can do that is through defense and economics.



The Government has a responsibility to enable the citizen to meet these needs in areas where an individual or family cannot. The best way of doing so is to promote the economy and the military.

The Government shouldn't have to be a moral light. That's stepping into the social realm which is somewhere the Government DOES NOT belong.

Also note: I said enable, the answer isn't just bankrupting the government to give handouts, it really only hurts those it's intended to help, and others to boot.

Again, this is just an appeal to power, on two levels. On the level of argument, because you're just putting out a picture and assuming that because you posted a picture it must be accepted as true. On the level of what's in the picture, because you're saying that at its root everything really comes down to power, to the power to continue or end the survival of this or that person. Obviously on some level that's true, in the sense that if you're dead you're certainly incapable of flourishing. But at the level you're arguing it's not true; flourishing is not co-extensive with bank accounts and volume of gun ownership, or else you'd not find poor people in happy marriages who raise wonderful children, or rich people who get divorced half a dozen times and burn out their lives on coke. I've watched dozens of people be transformed for the worse through the acquisition of money and guns.

If just the cash and the military might mattered, Hitler could have raised Germany to such power without promises of German exceptionalism, and US Presidential hopefuls would not need campaigns about hope and change. If, instead, we treat the person as one whole, one integrated person, then hope and social cohesion and nukes are holistically connected, not merely a straightforward division between degrees of foundation and ornamentation.

If at its root the world is about money and power then the world is worthless.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The basis. Most people say it is "wrong" for gays not to be allowed to marry. This is based on a moral code

I disagree that equality under the law stems inherently from morality. I've always viewed it as a pragmatic trait of effective law.

Even if I were to accept that it's a moral position: I don't see how not wanting a goverment to itself act immoraly is comparable to wanting a government to make citizens follow a moral code.

In short: how can *not* restricting something be an imposition of morality?

Obviously you haven't spent much time on the west coast. This IS the hot button issue around me and has been for several years and personally, as someone going to a school in the PNW, it is the only political issue other than health care.

Can you find me some news footage of people saying that they would always vote for a pro-gay-marriage over anti-gay-marriage candidate regardless of all other issues?

I can find some for abortion if you'd like reciprocity.

Using such horrendous scopes, like Webster's dictionary...

Without a stretched-passed-credulity definition of those definitions; they don't match the sentance you are addressing.

By decreeing that I can't shoot people that look at me funny, the government has to legislate a rule of right conduct. Any law is a standard of morality, and has to be by definition.

That's absurd.

The law in FL says that 6% of the money paid for the purchase of goods must be remitted to the state for sales tax.

Is paying 6% tax the standard of morality?!?

The law says that in order to change lanes on a road, a turn signal must be used.

Is it immoral to not use a turn signal?

Your first argument was founded on the belief that how a government acts, and how it forces other to act, are the same. Your argument here is founded in the belief that all laws are inherently morality.

To make such a belief conform with the reality of the law, such as those above, requires one to define "moral" far more broadly than I suspect anyone here would intend... which is what I was trying to get at in my last post.

Though I must admit that one of my examples (abortion) Is actually a bad one. Specifically: I don't see abortion as an argument of morality, but of definition. Certainly the argument is often framed in "killing" vs "not killing"; but at it's core it's a discussion about who is entitled to protection under the law... that one side asserts a fetus does and the other that it doesn't (and indeed, no one argues that a fetus is consenting).

Homosexual marriage... more specifically the opposition to homosexual marriage; seems to be one founded solely in the imposition of morality on citizens.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I disagree that equality under the law stems inherently from morality. I've always viewed it as a pragmatic trait of effective law.

Even when there is full equality under the law, (CA domestic partnerships for example) there is a stretching past that point to acheive an equal status. Marriage is inherently a comingling of church and state. I'd like to see equality, but marriage not be the battleground, I'd rather a bright line go up between church and state.

Even if I were to accept that it's a moral position: I don't see how not wanting a goverment to itself act immoraly is comparable to wanting a government to make citizens follow a moral code.

i see how you worded there to say something without saying it. lets ditch the nots. A government wanting to act morally is good. However, that means it has a moral code it determines good by, hence it has religious tones in its moral code by definition of trying to be benevolent. I am not saying bad/good or that it should be Judeo-Christian or Muslim. I am just pointing out that there is a secular moral code functioning in the role of a religion in a state. It has to exist for a culture to have a theory of what is "good."

In short: how can *not* restricting something be an imposition of morality?

Because of the way ti is being done.

Can you find me some news footage of people saying that they would always vote for a pro-gay-marriage over anti-gay-marriage candidate regardless of all other issues?

I can find some for abortion if you'd like reciprocity.

Well since that is moving the goal post entirely, I can find some for people who say they will vote for the anti-crime candidate, being as that is fully as reciprocal as abortion would be. But I have seen local news clips to that effect in CA. It is that big a deal.

Without a stretched-passed-credulity definition of those definitions; they don't match the sentance you are addressing.

You mean like normal word meanings?

The law in FL says that 6% of the money paid for the purchase of goods must be remitted to the state for sales tax.

Is paying 6% tax the standard of morality?!?

The law says that in order to change lanes on a road, a turn signal must be used.

Is it immoral to not use a turn signal?

In a very real sense, YES! The taxes are what portion of your income they feel provides for the services you use to pay for public service, and the turn signal is to show your intentions to preserve life.

Your first argument was founded on the belief that how a government acts, and how it forces other to act, are the same. Your argument here is founded in the belief that all laws are inherently morality.

My first argument was that there has to be a moral code for a government to determine its actions and the actions of its citizenry and decide what good was.

The second, that we have a codified standard of conduct that is written that expresses the wish of this government and determines what good is. All law inherently expresses a morality, even if that moral standard is assinine.

To make such a belief conform with the reality of the law, such as those above, requires one to define "moral" far more broadly than I suspect anyone here would intend... which is what I was trying to get at in my last post.

but the problem is this, that that is merely burying ones head in the sand and failing to admit that they have one two. It is like the myth of human objectivity. None of us are objective, and all of us have a moral code, and the law is the moral code of whoever enacted it.

Though I must admit that one of my examples (abortion) Is actually a bad one. Specifically: I don't see abortion as an argument of morality, but of definition. Certainly the argument is often framed in "killing" vs "not killing"; but at it's core it's a discussion about who is entitled to protection under the law... that one side asserts a fetus does and the other that it doesn't (and indeed, no one argues that a fetus is consenting).

Homosexual marriage... more specifically the opposition to homosexual marriage; seems to be one founded solely in the imposition of morality on citizens.

and killing is a matter of morality, and who is entitled protection under the law is a moral matter, unless you are arguing that slavery and Jim Crowe laws were not moral issues.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Even when there is full equality under the law, (CA domestic partnerships for example) there is a stretching past that point to acheive an equal status. Marriage is inherently a comingling of church and state. I'd like to see equality, but marriage not be the battleground, I'd rather a bright line go up between church and state.

That's fine, but it's moved past connection with the topic.

I don't believe that the "pro-homosexual marriage" side is (in general) asserting that the state should be involved in marriage. Rather, it seems that they are asserting that homosexual couples should have the same rights as hetero-sexual couples... equality under the law.

And *that* does not appear to be an example of a desire for the government to impose morality (which is and has been my point).

i see how you worded there to say something without saying it. lets ditch the nots. A government wanting to act morally is good. However, that means it has a moral code it determines good by, hence it has religious tones in its moral code by definition of trying to be benevolent. I am not saying bad/good or that it should be Judeo-Christian or Muslim. I am just pointing out that there is a secular moral code functioning in the role of a religion in a state. It has to exist for a culture to have a theory of what is "good."

To not act immorally is not the same as to act morally.

The basis for a speed limit is not morality. The basis for contract enforcement is not morality. Indeed, the basis for outlawing homicide (execept in some circumstances) is not morality... it is a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of the governed.

Well since that is moving the goal post entirely, I can find some for people who say they will vote for the anti-crime candidate, being as that is fully as reciprocal as abortion would be. But I have seen local news clips to that effect in CA. It is that big a deal.

Am I moving the goal posts? Let's go look at my original statement.

"At the risk of a tangent: What's an example of what you are thinking of when you make this claim?

It would be better if the example you come up with was as signifigant and hot-button an issue for left voters: as opposed to simply something they advocated. "

Perhaps I have moved them a bit at that. My apologies. I can only say that I sincerely had visions of the "this issue over all" discussions running through my mind at the time.

That said: have you tied it to (and let me quote you here) "legislating their morality."?

You mean like normal word meanings?

That's just rhetoric.

In a very real sense, YES! The taxes are what portion of your income they feel provides for the services you use to pay for public service, and the turn signal is to show your intentions to preserve life.

Ahh. So the 6% tax was a moral decision. I assume that 7% would be amoral?

I'm seriously going to just stop here. You have to be able to see how far you are stretching to win the argument. I can't imagine that you can tell me these are examples of morality... and if you can, I'm worried for you.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And *that* does not appear to be an example of a desire for the government to impose morality (which is and has been my point).

To not act immorally is not the same as to act morally.

This is actually some of the worst logic I have ever seen.

You use a double negative and expect it to not be a positive.

But lets start at the basis. To not behave immorally implies you have a standard of morals which determines what is immoral. To not behave immorally entails adhering to a moral code, whatever that moral code might be. Thus to not behave immorally is to behave morally. And for any group to claim to adhere to a moral code entails there being a code of conduct.

The basis for a speed limit is not morality. The basis for contract enforcement is not morality. Indeed, the basis for outlawing homicide (execept in some circumstances) is not morality... it is a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of the governed.

Interesting thoughts, but there are a few problems. Why are their speed limits? (to protect lives, preserve resources, insanity, depends on who you ask,) but the simple fact is, somebody got that codified as something good to do. Remember when Montana briefly toyed with doing away with them? Obviously, to the federal government having speed limits is a "good." To define such as good takes creating a moral standard. I am not arguing they are always even rational.

Why do we have contract law enforcement? Because we as a nation have decided it is "bad" to lie, and cheat, and break contracts.

Now as to your social contract idea... where is said contract that we all signed of our own freewill? That's right, it does not exist. Laws are in this country enforced whether you agree with them or not.

Am I moving the goal posts? Let's go look at my original statement.

Oh just the minor issue of shifting from... I don't know, gay rights to abortion and pretending you were not changing the subject. You changed social issues entirely. Such is not something you can pull and expect not to get called on.

It would be better if the example you come up with was as signifigant and hot-button an issue for left voters: as opposed to simply something they advocated. "

Last two states I have lived in, it HAS BEEN! Gay marriage is being crammed down our throats on the west coast as the moral imperative. And yes, the word immoral gets thrown around on this one a lot.

Perhaps I have moved them a bit at that. My apologies. I can only say that I sincerely had visions of the "this issue over all" discussions running through my mind at the time.

That said: have you tied it to (and let me quote you here) "legislating their morality."?

Legislating morality is what any group does that is trying to enforce an ideology. Do the majority of Americans support gay marriage? When it comes to a vote and isn't legislated from the bench, the answer has been no in CA twice now. Ca is pretty darn liberal. So changing laws in opposition to the will of the people based on someone's agenda based on their moral code...

...its just legislating morality, a different version than most people have used the term for in the past, but legislating morality none the less.

That's just rhetoric.

Nah, thats not a rebuttal, thats a weak attempt at an insult to dodge the fact that your definitions did not agree with standard English uses of a word. My fringe definitions came out of the dictionary. I think yours were the ones out of normal usage, if we accept that Merriam-Webster is not a right wing religious nut.

Basically you are wrong and trying to steamroll to hide the fact that you were wrong.

Ahh. So the 6% tax was a moral decision. I assume that 7% would be amoral?

Obviously someone thought 7 would be too high, which would be immoral, amoral would mean without morals and would be a completely different system. I am thinking either anarchy or totalitarianism could theoretically, possibly, exist without morals, but those are about the list I can come up with.

I'm seriously going to just stop here. You have to be able to see how far you are stretching to win the argument. I can't imagine that you can tell me these are examples of morality... and if you can, I'm worried for you.

If you think they aren't I am worried for you, because without moral codes, we are sociopaths.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

This is actually some of the worst logic I have ever seen.

You use a double negative and expect it to not be a positive.

Language isn't math Bill.

I took a drink of water just now. Was that an act of morality or an act of immorality?

Of course, it was neither. It was not immoral, and it was not moral, it just was.

But lets start at the basis. To not behave immorally implies you have a standard of morals which determines what is immoral.

Ok. So there's a treee outside my house. It has never done anything immoral. It must have standards of morals?!?

Why are their speed limits? (to protect lives, preserve resources, insanity, depends on who you ask,) but the simple fact is, somebody got that codified as something good to do. Remember when Montana briefly toyed with doing away with them? Obviously, to the federal government having speed limits is a "good." To define such as good takes creating a moral standard. I am not arguing they are always even rational.

The 55mph speed limit was placed to concerve fuel.

Conserving fuel is moral and not conserving fuel is immoral? I really hope you don't drive a truck!

Why do we have contract law enforcement? Because we as a nation have decided it is "bad" to lie, and cheat, and break contracts.

Not really... no.

In fact: there are no laws against lying (unless under oath or to commit fraud), and few laws against cheating. We decided we were willing to give up an ability in order to prevent others from doing so.

I support contracts being legally binding, not because I think to not hold to them is immoral, but because I'm willing to be boud to contracts I sign in exchange for the legal protection that the other party being bound provides me.

It is, itself, a contract within society.

Now as to your social contract idea... where is said contract that we all signed of our own freewill? That's right, it does not exist. Laws are in this country enforced whether you agree with them or not.

The nature of majority rule... which remains more egalitarian an option than anything shy of anarchy.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Perhaps I have moved them a bit at that. My apologies. I can only say that I sincerely had visions of the "this issue over all" discussions running through my mind at the time.

That said: have you tied it to (and let me quote you here) "legislating their morality."?

Originally Posted by Bill

Oh just the minor issue of shifting from... I don't know, gay rights to abortion and pretending you were not changing the subject. You changed social issues entirely. Such is not something you can pull and expect not to get called on.

That's not accurate. Neither gay marriage nor abortion was the topic.

The topic was right-vs-left one-issue-uber-alles voting. The *context* was gay marriage.

Last two states I have lived in, it HAS BEEN! Gay marriage is being crammed down our throats on the west coast as the moral imperative. And yes, the word immoral gets thrown around on this one a lot.

I love how you describe it as though it's compulsory and you are being wed to "Joe" against you will.

Legislating morality is what any group does that is trying to enforce an ideology. Do the majority of Americans support gay marriage? When it comes to a vote and isn't legislated from the bench, the answer has been no in CA twice now. Ca is pretty darn liberal. So changing laws in opposition to the will of the people based on someone's agenda based on their moral code...

Liberal CA... that's where Reagan got elected repeatedly? (indeed: half the governors are republicans)

Still: I wonder if a multi-million-dollar smear campaign against it had any influence.

...its just legislating morality, a different version than most people have used the term for in the past, but legislating morality none the less.

So you believe that allowing women to vote was a moral issue rather than an issue of equality under the law? Because I'm having trouble finding a difference.

Actually: don't bother answering. You've already said you consider speed limits a moral issue. You and I simply lack any common ground based on that.

Nah, thats not a rebuttal, thats a weak attempt at an insult to dodge the fact that your definitions did not agree with standard English uses of a word. My fringe definitions came out of the dictionary. I think yours were the ones out of normal usage, if we accept that Merriam-Webster is not a right wing religious nut.

Basically you are wrong and trying to steamroll to hide the fact that you were wrong.

Proof by repeated assertion remains invalid.

Obviously someone thought 7 would be too high, which would be immoral, amoral would mean without morals and would be a completely different system.

Again. You feel a sales-tax-rate is a moral decision... we lack any common ground to have a discussion from.

I am thinking either anarchy or totalitarianism could theoretically, possibly, exist without morals, but those are about the list I can come up with.

Totalitarianism without speed limits and taxes (both of which you just defined as moral decisions)?!?

Anarchy only works with individuals voulenteering for the greater good.

If you think they aren't I am worried for you, because without moral codes, we are sociopaths.

No. Without empathy and shame/consience we are sociopaths. A sociopath (despite some layman definitions) can have a moral code: but they are anti-social and lack an emotional tie to immoral behavior.

I do realize that my response is semantic: but your comment was rhetorical.

[JerryLove]

I support the laws against driving drunk: not because I think it's immoral to drive drunk, but because I don't want to be killed.

I support the laws against theft: not because I think it's immoral to steal,but because I don't want to be stolen from.

I support universal healthcare: not because I think it's immoral not to pay into insurance, but because I don't want to go bankrupt/die due to lack of insurance.

I support equal rights: not because I think it immoral to discriminate, but because I don't want to be discriminated against.

I support fairness in laws: not because I think fairness is moral, but because I want to be treated fairly.

A tree branch falls and kills someone... the tree is not behaving immorally. It is not behaving morally. It just is.Morality or immorality exists not just in the relative world of which moral code applies; but in the subjective world of intent and idea.

So yes: Perhaps you would have supported the 19th ammendment because you felt it was morally wrong to deny women the vote (doubtful given both Jewesh law and Paul's writing), and so you might consider it an imposition of morality on others... but it's not the reason I believe it's a good law. It's not the reason I would support it.

Laws proscripting gay marriage protect no one... but they do harm homosexual couples. I cannot justify a law which hurts some to help none. It's just a bad law.

I also cannot support laws as the imposition of morality.

Back to the "big dealness" of it: There's a lot of behavior disallowed in the sections of the Bible that oppose male homosexual acts: adultry (not even on the right's radar it seems), and wearing clothing of mixed material (laughed at as an issue by Christians), and women in positions of power over men (an issue only to the farthest fringe).

So why this one over others?

I think that was answerd. It was chosen as a rally point in order for leaders on the right to control the actions of followers. It could have been anything that met the right combination of "icky" and "only 'they' do it".