[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

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".

These are accurate so far as they go but I think it's only a partial explanation. The overarching explanation is that we're talking about the unfolding of (more broadly) the modern conception of freedom as unconstrained self-determination and (more specifically) the separation of sex, procreation, and marriage. And the reason that out of all the moments in that unfolding process this one issue has gained so much traction is that (a) it's more obvious how radical a change it is, unlike divorce or pre-marital sex or adultery or birth control, (b) it places no serious demands on partisans, unlike divorce or adultery or birth control or casual sex, and (c) the fact that 97% of the population is "not-gay" like fish breathe water, again unlike all those other things. (Edit: this list works just as readily for why people would oppose OR support: (a) it's a clear break, (b) it is perceived as removing sexual constraints more generally and therefore constraints from me, and (c) 97% of the population can support it without too much at stake because they're so easily "not-gay".)

In other words, take your standard culture-warrior interpretation (this is where I disagree that "the right to control the actions of followers" is the ultimate motivation, even if I agree it's a proximate motivation with all politics) and combine it with the fact that the path of least resistance will always be followed, and you wind up with the Proposition 8 controversy. It's the same reason that "just tax the rich" and "just cut military spending" are talking points: a spiraling deficit is perceived as a radical problem, and these both place no demands on proponents and don't directly affect 97% of the population. Or universal healthcare. Or whatever. Public political opinion follows the path of least resistance because that's where stuff gets done with the least resistance.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Language isn't math Bill.

No, but Logic dictates both and to say that something is not, not something is to say that it is that something, ergo, it is illogical to claim that without an idea of what is moral, one cannot say that something is immoral. Frankly, if you refuse to acknowledge that, it is plain that you don't have a leg to stand on.

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

One could say such an act was amoral, though strictly speaking, pending circumstances it could be either.

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

Okay, so your tree does nothing other than grow. Trees, not being sentient make no sense to describe in moral terms.

I'm going to skip ahead to the heart of the issue. Clearly, you are being illogical (you deny the logic that to act in a non-immoral fashion, you need some idea of what morality is which is by definition, by any consensus of language, patently absurd.)

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.

A conscience is a moral code, so to say we lack a moral code all together would require a lack of conscience, for our morals are what constrain the pangs of our conscience. Without morals, we can have no conscience, which does indeed leave us as sociopaths. My purpose is to show that fundamentally you are touting an illogical line.

Ultimately with trivial things like speed limits and tax rates we are consigned to someone's ideals of what is right for society, which is a moral code, by definition, as sure as if it were one handed down from Sinai, or a bureaucrat in a cheap suit.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

No, but Logic dictates both and to say that something is not, not something is to say that it is that something, ergo, it is illogical to claim that without an idea of what is moral, one cannot say that something is immoral. Frankly, if you refuse to acknowledge that, it is plain that you don't have a leg to stand on.

I think you are redefining "immoral". I made some very clear examples proving my point, which you seem to be ignoring at this part of your post.

Is a tree growing a leaf a moral behavior or in immoral one? It is, of course, neither.

Does running taste good or taste not good? According to you, one must be true.

When my computer boots: Is it an act of happiness or unhappiness (for the computer, not me)? According to you: it must be one..

One could say such an act was amoral, though strictly speaking, pending circumstances it could be either.

Okay, so your tree does nothing other than grow. Trees, not being sentient make no sense to describe in moral terms.

"amoral" not "immoral"? I see you are beginning to recognize the distinction.

But I see we invent a new "sentience" test.

I just blinked my eyes. Was that moral or immoral? If necessary: assume I did it deliberately.
Also: I'm hitting the "Q" button with my ring finger and not my pinky. Is that immoral?

But you've already proven my claim: something can be neither moral nor immoral.

I'm going to skip ahead to the heart of the issue. Clearly, you are being illogical (you deny the logic that to act in a non-immoral fashion, you need some idea of what morality is which is by definition, by any consensus of language, patently absurd.)

I see an assertion, but not a support.

To speak in a non-Klingon language do you need some idea of what Klingon is?
To make a non-political decision (say: to have lunch), do you need some idea of politics?

So tell me: what do I need to know of morality to blink my eyes? My lizard blinks... does my lizard have some idea of morality?

A conscience is a moral code, so to say we lack a moral code all together would require a lack of conscience, for our morals are what constrain the pangs of our conscience. Without morals, we can have no conscience, which does indeed leave us as sociopaths. My purpose is to show that fundamentally you are touting an illogical line.

Ultimately with trivial things like speed limits and tax rates we are consigned to someone's ideals of what is right for society, which is a moral code, by definition, as sure as if it were one handed down from Sinai, or a bureaucrat in a cheap suit.

So you assert again, but without support.

I support speed limits. I don't have a moral reason for doing so, only a practical one (I don't wish to be killed by a speeder).

I support food safety. I don't have a moral reason, only a practical one (I want to eat safe food).

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think you are redefining "immoral". I made some very clear examples proving my point, which you seem to be ignoring at this part of your post.

In things that make decisions, such as people's and nations, there are decisions which present moral dilemnas. Could drinking water be immoral? I am sure a situation could be found where it would be.

Is a tree growing a leaf a moral behavior or in immoral one? It is, of course, neither.

Trees don't make decisions oh master of the strawman.

Does running taste good or taste not good? According to you, one must be true.

Liar. gibberish is illogical, and what you have done is spoke gibberish.

"amoral" not "immoral"? I see you are beginning to recognize the distinction.

I recognize the decision. However, you seem hellbent on ignoring the fact that to decide if an act is immoral, one needs a moral code. One cannot claim to be amoral and claim anything at all is immoral, thus acting not immorally, would have no meaning whatever. Tacit denial of the fact that you are speaking with utter disregard for common logic and defending your error with gibberish is just childish.

But I see we invent a new "sentience" test.

Morals dictate choices. Choices require awareness to make choices. Jerry, are you trying to act like you don't understand language for any other purpose than to cover a gaffe?

But you've already proven my claim: something can be neither moral nor immoral.

Which does not say anything to the ridiculous assertion you made that a nation can choose to act not immorally without having a standard of what morals are.

I see an assertion, but not a support.

To speak in a non-Klingon language do you need some idea of what Klingon is?

Single negative.

Very drastically different than your double negative. This is a classic bait and switch. Lame smokescreen. To not behave immorally is very different.


I have to know what is immoral to not behave immorally.

If you don't want to behave illegally you have to know the law.

I support speed limits. I don't have a moral reason for doing so, only a practical one (I don't wish to be killed by a speeder).

And not being killed is good.

In other words, local government thinks less deaths caused by speeding motorists is a "good thing"
Your examples are assinine.

Governments and laws make decisions about what they believe society ought to do. Any time you enforce this, you have an underlying idea of what is good or ought to be and this is a moral code.

The idea of ought, good, wrong, bad all come down to moral terms.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

In things that make decisions, such as people's and nations, there are decisions which present moral dilemnas. Could drinking water be immoral? I am sure a situation could be found where it would be.

So is my decision to blink my eyes moral or immoral?

Liar. gibberish is illogical, and what you have done is spoke gibberish.

That's kinda my point. You've been speaking gibberish for several posts... at least since you declared "neither moral nor immoral" a logical impossability.

So I asked about a leaf growing... and you started making excuses about *why* it was neither a moral thing nor an immoral thing ignoring that, in doing so, you've aknowledged that my original statement was, in fact, not illogical.

I recognize the decision. However, you seem hellbent on ignoring the fact that to decide if an act is immoral, one needs a moral code.

The criteria for judging something moral or immoral is not the question at hand.

The question is: can something be neither moral nor immoral?

I asserted that a law could be created for purposes other than morality. You asserted that all laws were neccessairily an imposition of morality. You then asserted that something being neither moral nor immoral was a logcial impossaboility (a double-negative).

But, of course, there are lots of things that are neither moral nor immoral (a rock). There are lots of acts that are neither moral nor immoral (a tree growing). There are lots of acts by people that are neither moral nor immoral (I blinked).

So the *point*, is that laws do not need to be impositions of morality. That has been the point since I said it in post #25 in response to your claim about left-wing morality.

Morals dictate choices. Choices require awareness to make choices. Jerry, are you trying to act like you don't understand language for any other purpose than to cover a gaffe?

I just chose to scratch my nose.

What moral compass did I use? Was it an immoral act?

Which does not say anything to the ridiculous assertion you made that a nation can choose to act not immorally without having a standard of what morals are.

A naction can choose to act out of a desire that is entirely unrelated to morality. A person can choose to act out of a desire entirely unrelated to morality.

That's been the point since post #25. It's the one you keep glossing over.

And not being killed is good.

That would depend on your definition of "good".

I desire not to be killed: so I support laws that help me achieve that desire... much like I desired for my nose to stop itching so I scratched it.

In other words, local government thinks less deaths caused by speeding motorists is a "good thing" Your examples are assinine.

I think my death not being caused is preferrable (I like living). I get with a few thousand of my closest friends who agree that they too would like to not be killed by speeding motorists.

As a result: we decide to not allow speeding motorists. We don't think speeding is immoral. We don't think it's moral. We don't consider morality at all... merely the personal desire to not be killed by speeding motorists, and our own willngness to submit to speed limits ourselves in excahge for that protection.

I don't see that my desire to not be killed is an issue of my own morality. I don't think me dying is immoral. I don't think it's moral. I simply don't want it to happen... even more than I want to drive fast.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So is my decision to blink my eyes moral or immoral?

Morals are decisions related to oughts. Whether you blink your eyes is irrelevant and completely unrelated to this thread.

Jerry, you are a pretty decent sophist, and changing subjects and pretending you haven't bait and switched is your game.

Laws are codified examples of things society has deemed people ought to do, based on their values.

That's kinda my point. You've been speaking gibberish for several posts... at least since you declared "neither moral nor immoral" a logical impossability.

Obviously, you are lying here. Gibberish has no meaning. Your disagreement with my perspective shows you know what it means which precludes it being gibberish. I know you don't want to interact, because you haven't a leg to stand on.

You made the statement that you don't need morals to not behave immorally. But that is linguistically and logically not a possibility.

To know what is immoral, requires that you have a moral standard. In fact, to recognize amorality requires one as well.

Basically, if I held your statements as true, that laws were not moral, one could argue that apartheid was amoral, as was slavery, the holocaust, etc. But you don't believe that.

So I asked about a leaf growing... and you started making excuses about *why* it was neither a moral thing nor an immoral thing ignoring that, in doing so, you've aknowledged that my original statement was, in fact, not illogical.

The criteria for judging something moral or immoral is not the question at hand.

Actually it is. If a law should be enacted or a right expanded is intrinsically a moral question for it deals with what society ought to do.

I asserted that a law could be created for purposes other than morality. You asserted that all laws were neccessairily an imposition of morality. You then asserted that something being neither moral nor immoral was a logcial impossaboility (a double-negative).

No, I asserted that we could not say a nation could behave in a non-immoral fashion without a moral basis. I could go so basic to state that that is obvious on its face sense you used the word moral with a prefix in the first place. I stand by the fact that laws are enacted based on someone's view of what ought to be, which is by definition a moral judgement. It differs from blinking in that the question is not should I blink now, but should society be able to blink now.

But, of course, there are lots of things that are neither moral nor immoral (a rock). There are lots of acts that are neither moral nor immoral (a tree growing). There are lots of acts by people that are neither moral nor immoral (I blinked).

But there are no laws that are amoral. They are by definition what defines the course of society. Unless you are making the claim that laws are rocks, or organic processes, your point here is simply the fallacy of false analogy.
I could go on Jerry, but each of your posts is a failure to interact.

Those arguing for gay rights make the claim that their relationships should be equal under the law. That is by definition a moral question. If we take their side, its tantamount to Jim Crowe laws. I don't think anybody but the knights of the KKK would argue they were not immoral.

If you take the other side, that those relationships are not legitimate and do not and have not been recognized throughout human history, still a moral issue.

If you take my position, that its none of the government's business and they are overstepping their bounds, government intrusion is still a moral issue.

Basically Jerry, it is.

Interact with the actual things that are being said, or admit you are wrong.

But I still say that speeding boils down to the moral that living is better than dying in a fiery crash. Oddly, I can think of a culture that did not share this moral. (Japan, WWII, Bushido interpretations in regards to Kamikazes) What you are failing to do is note that the generalized perception of what society decides ought to be is the moral code of that society.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Morals are decisions related to oughts. Whether you blink your eyes is irrelevant and completely unrelated to this thread.

Jerry, you are a pretty decent sophist, and changing subjects and pretending you haven't bait and switched is your game.

Laws are codified examples of things society has deemed people ought to do, based on their values.

Ignoring personal insult: you merely have two assertions of your opinion.

I don't support speed limits because I think people "ought not speed".
I don't support speed limits because I think speeding is immoral.
I support speed limits because I don't want to be killed on the road.

You made the statement that you don't need morals to not behave immorally. But that is linguistically and logically not a possibility.

My lizard blinked it's eyes.

I believe that the lizard blinking was not immoral. I also believe that the lizard lacks a moral code.

I blinked my eyes.

I believe that blinking my eyes was not immoral. While I have a moral code (and can compare my act to the moral code to determine it was not immoral), my moral code was not considered nor consulted in my decision to blink.

Back to post #25, and the beginning of this post, where you assert that all laws are an imposition of moral code....

I can look at my moral code to determine how I feel about driving 110mph.

I find, like blinking, I have no moral opinion on the matter at all.

So how do I feel about someone driving 110mph down my road? I don't want it, Why? I think it could result in my death or property damage and I want to live with my property intact.

Do I think my property being destroyred by accident is immoral? Let me check my moral code... nope. I see nothing immoral in the accidental destruction of my property... but I still desire it not to happen.

Similarly I don't run with sccissors. Why? Because I don't like being stabbed with sccissors. Would I consider it immoral for me to run with sccissors? No. Would I consider it a moral failing if I did stab myself? Nope. Do I care if the guy across the street runs with scissors? Nope. Do I care if he stabs himself? Turns out "yes" here... I've got empathy after all; but I would not consider it a moral issue as I have no moral opinion on running with scissors.

To know what is immoral, requires that you have a moral standard. In fact, to recognize amorality requires one as well.

You keep talking about recognition of morality... I'm not talking about recognizing if something meets a moral code. I'm talking about passing laws for reasons which have nothing to do with a moral code. See post #25.

Basically, if I held your statements as true, that laws were not moral, one could argue that apartheid was amoral, as was slavery, the holocaust, etc. But you don't believe that.

Some find apartheid, the holocaust, and slavery immoral (note: that thousands of years of Christians and Jews found no moral problems with slavery).

I personally find genocide immoral. As for slavery / seperate rights for groups (we see this in not just apartheid but in womens rights prior to the 1960, and in children's rights today)... I think there are more shades of moral grey than most recognize (few people, for example, find the parallels with age-based slavery which we accept as "raising children", and for which complete emancipation would be an unsuccessful idea). But for the sake of argument: let's assume that I find them immoral.

So what? You keep trying to change the topic from what I have asserted and you have disagreed with: that laws are not neccessairily impositions of morality.

Actually it is. If a law should be enacted or a right expanded is intrinsically a moral question for it deals with what society ought to do.

That's not why I support speed limits. The word "ought" never came into my mind, and I have no moral which addresses the issue.

No, I asserted that we could not say a nation could behave in a non-immoral fashion without a moral basis.

You may need a moral guide to make that judgement... but that's not really my point from post #25.

You may have a moral position on driving at 110mph: but I do not; and just because I supported a speed limit, doesn't mean I had a moral code, nor (since I do have a moral code), that my support of the speed limit was based on any part of that moral code.

Because it isn't.

But I still say that speeding boils down to the moral that living is better than dying in a fiery crash.

I have no idea if it's better or not. I simply prefer it personally. I'd be perfectly happy to exempt myself from speeding laws; but I understand why the rest of the population isn't going to go along with that (for the same reasons I would oppose excepting just the guy down the street).

I don't oppose NASCAR... in which people die in firey crashes.

To put it another way: I find not having sex with another man far preferrable to having sex with another man... but I don't support laws prohibiting homosexual sex.

Checking my moral code: I find nothing about it at all. It's right there with blinking, speeding, and scratching my nose.

I would oppose a law *requiring* homosexual sex, because I prefer not to have it.

I'm not asserting that I would never have a moral infuence in my decision to support or oppose a law. I do, after all, have a code of morals and I am human; but, as I said in post #25 and since, laws are not neccessairily imposed because of morals.

[JerryLove]

Another idea I keep seeing repeated in the latter parts of this thread is the juxtiposition between wants and morals.

I don't want to be killed in a car wreck and so, it has been asserted, I think it's immoral for people to drive fast ("they ought not to").

Similarly: I don't want my property destroied, and so I must consider it immoral.

I just ate a hot-dog. I could have had a ham sandwitch but I didn't want one. I preferred to eat a hot-dog and so I did.

Does anyone sincerely believe that my choice to eat a hot-dog rather than a ham-sandwitch was founded in my moral code? Seriously?

So how are a want to eat a hot-dog, a want for my lawn to stay pretty, a want to not have sex with another man, and a want not to be killed because someone was speeding different from each other?

I would oppose a law that outlawed eating hotdogs because I want to eat hotdogs. How is that morality?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Another idea I keep seeing repeated in the latter parts of this thread is the juxtiposition between wants and morals.

I would agree. Laws shouldn't have anything to do with wants, and they really do have to do with oughts.

Sticking with the speed limit thing. We don't want a speed limit so we have one. That is just plain ridiculous, because that would merely be why you yourself don't drive 110, not why the moron 2 lanes over can't go 130.

We value our own lives so we enact codes to preserve our lives as a whole which indicates a moral judgement that the right to life supercedes the right to drive however fast I want.

I don't want to be killed in a car wreck and so, it has been asserted, I think it's immoral for people to drive fast ("they ought not to").

You think it is immoral for people to recklessly kill you? good.

Similarly: I don't want my property destroied, and so I must consider it immoral.

I would consider it immoral to destroy other's property and most of us would, hence it is illegal.

I just ate a hot-dog. I could have had a ham sandwitch but I didn't want one. I preferred to eat a hot-dog and so I did.

And nobody proposes making ham sandwitches or hot dogs illegal. Your description here is descriptive, a law is prescriptive for society and as such bears someone's moral code of how the world should function, because the law itself is prescriptive for what should be or what should be allowed.

Does anyone sincerely believe that my choice to eat a hot-dog rather than a ham-sandwitch was founded in my moral code? Seriously?

No, do you seriously believe your lunch decision has anything to do with legal basis? Or are you throwing up pointless, unrelated smokescreens?

So how are a want to eat a hot-dog, a want for my lawn to stay pretty, a want to not have sex with another man, and a want not to be killed because someone was speeding different from each other?

One set motivates personal action, one set motivates law. And one of them, the homosexual sex actually motivates both. (I am assuming you don't pick up gay men for consensual sex, if you don't want it, and it also motivates laws which forbid rape.)

Some of them might motivate you to mow the lawn. Others require our society to have police.

I would oppose a law that outlawed eating hotdogs because I want to eat hotdogs. How is that morality?

Simple. You value your freedom to eat hot dogs. You hold your choice there as something which ought to be yours, and a law which banned this would violate your moral judgements of what you should be free to do.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I would agree. Laws shouldn't have anything to do with wants, and they really do have to do with oughts.

But what you think they *should* be about is not really interactive with post #25... what they *can* be about.

Sticking with the speed limit thing. We don't want a speed limit so we have one. That is just plain ridiculous,

Yes. That is rediculious. Who said we have a speed limit because we don't want a speed limit?

We value our own lives so we enact codes to preserve our lives as a whole which indicates a moral judgement that the right to life supercedes the right to drive however fast I want.

You are assuming the consequent.

You assume that I only support a law because I believe I have the moral right to do so.

This assumption is without foundation and, in the end, untrue. In fact: it uses "right" in a way very different from how I would use or consider it.

You drive slow because you don't want the consequence of breaking my law. My law exists because people with the ability to make it exist chose for it to exist and, to the extent that they are able to catch and punish you, it exists because people with the ability to enforce it do so.

Your "rights" are what you can take with your own power and what is given by the power of others.

You think it is immoral for people to recklessly kill you? good.

Reckless homicide would violate my own moral code... yes.

I would consider it immoral to destroy other's property and most of us would, hence it is illegal.

It is illegal solely because there is a law against it.

There is a law against it becuase enough representatives voted to have a law against it.

We cannot even begin to discuss morality until we get into *motivation*.

I've pointed out that *my* motivation is not morality.

It is possible that their motivation was not either (in all likelyhood; it's solely about what will get them re-elected... but that's begging the question, so let's assume that they chose a personal support of the law).

As such: a law does not need to be about the impostion of morality. I personally don't think they should be.

Simple. You value your freedom to eat hot dogs. You hold your choice there as something which ought to be yours, and a law which banned this would violate your moral judgements of what you should be free to do.

I also "value my freedom" to kill people at will. It's an affront to my freedom that I might be punished for doing so. (hey: even if I don't want to kill people, I value my choice to do so or not).

It turns out, however, that I don't want to be killed. So I'll support a law that outlaws homicide, and lose my ability to kill people at will without having society punish me for it, in exchange that society tries to stop others from killing me too.

Heck. I value my freedom to copy books and CDs and movies and, indeed, inventions. But I also realize that if I do so without restriction, I might end up with less new art to enjoy. So I'm willing to give up my "right" to copy stuff... at least for long enough that the artist can be inspired to create more art.

Hence I support copyright (well, as it existed until the last few decades anyway).

PS. Since you seem so interested in my personal code of morality: I consider it immoral to base laws on moral codes.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

PS. Since you seem so interested in my personal code of morality: I consider it immoral to base laws on moral codes.

That simply is false.

Laws are based on something. That being the will of people who make them. The will of people who make them are ruled by their beliefs and consciences which form their moral code.

Post 25 has been dealt with.

What laws are intrinsically about is regulating a society and deciding how that society should operate. How a society should operate is a moral question by default.

If you don't support laws based on morality, then you can only support anarchy.

Kohlberg's moral development theory seems highly relevant here.

[Becky]

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'm a conservative Republican... so to answer that question...

I think there are a lot of excuses, on both sides of this issue. The main one that I still have a hard time letting go of, is that kids need both a mom and a dad.

The thing is... and this obviously doesn't apply to everyone... but I think its fair to say that there are a lot of people this applies to... particularly in the circles that tend to be heavy activists... i think both sides care so much about this issue, because they are living in fear. For the left, there is the fear of being ejected, fear of being ignored, fear of not being loved or belonging...

I think for a lot of Christian conservative republicans, there is this underlining fear that the sin of the people around us, is going to harm us, or our children or grand children. We fear it will take our loved ones away from Jesus... or we fear that it will negatively effect our way of life. It will turn God's wrath on the nation as a whole, and we'll get sucked in with it.

I do not think we would be as frantic about these laws, if we just accepted that the world around is is evil, and we can't stop it, turn it back, or make it better. All we can do is share Jesus. When we do that, people wont be asking "why is this such a big deal", because it wont be a media fest. Instead, we wont need long lists of arguments or a megaphone.. we can just say, it doesn't line up with scripture... and shrug.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

That simply is false.

Laws are based on something. That being the will of people who make them. The will of people who make them are ruled by their beliefs and consciences which form their moral code.

My decision to scratch my nose was based on something: that being the will of the person who scratched it (me).

So scratching my nose was a act of morality? It requires a moral code in order to scratch my nose?

Because until you can show that it not only requires a moral compass to scratch one's nose: but that the scratching must indeed be an act of morality (which is quite impossible if we accept both your claim that non-humans lack moral codes and the fact that non-humas scratch their noses)... until that, or until you can prove a fundamental difference between rubbing my finger on my nose and rubbing my finger on the "yea" button on a voting machine, you are simple placing a string of assertions not only lacking in support: but contra-indicated by other claims of yours.

Post 25 has been dealt with.

Apparently not as it's about the only thing being argued right this moment.

What laws are intrinsically about is regulating a society and deciding how that society should operate.

Says you... but that doesn't make it so.

Laws have no purpose except the purpose placed in them by the people who made and enforce the laws. If I didn't pass a law because I thought society "should operate" this way, then the law is not about "should". If I didn't pass a law to get people to conform to my moral code: then the law is not about morality.

A law in effect is an act: and and act too has no purpose, meaning, or morality apart from the one placed there by the person who does it.

If I feel scratching my nose is a moral imperitive: then scratching my nose is an act of morality.
If I scratch my nose merely because it itches... or for that matter scratch it without thinking or realizing that I have done so... it is clearly not a statement of morality.

You keep falsely placing characteristics on laws which can only actually apply to motivations; and you keep falsely inferring that *your* asserted motivation is, of neccessity, the motivation of everyone everywhere who supports or opposes any law.

If you don't support laws based on morality, then you can only support anarchy.

Yet another word you misuse.

Anarchy is a system of government in which, to put it simply, the government takes no taxes and provides no services. Let's call it the ultra-extreme conservitivism.

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if I take your less correct but more-oft bantered definition (A state of lawlessness brought on by a lack of leadership): it's still in direct opposition to "a set of laws, enforced, but not based on morals".

Notice that "enforced laws" and "lawlessness" are mutually exclusive.

So: No. To have anarchy I would need to support either no laws or no government. Since I support laws, and support government: having my way does not result in anarachy.

Kohlberg's moral development theory seems highly relevant here.

An odd reference considering his work is full of examples where a person supports a law (don't allow stealing), while feeling morally compelled to do something different than that law (steal a drug to save another's life).

I was thinking something more akin to Locke.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Becky

I think there are a lot of excuses, on both sides of this issue. The main one that I still have a hard time letting go of, is that kids need both a mom and a dad.

I am a little confused as to how this applies to gay marriage.

I would expect people to be out protesting laws which allow divorce based on this; as well as outlawing adultry (a cause of divorce) and perhaps outlawing sex by those with no intent to cohabitate.

But given that a gay couple becoming married does not cause the appearance of children; and given that removing their ability to be married does not cause them to go seek heterosexual marriages instead: how does one relate to the other?

The thing is... and this obviously doesn't apply to everyone... but I think its fair to say that there are a lot of people this applies to... particularly in the circles that tend to be heavy activists... i think both sides care so much about this issue, because they are living in fear. For the left, there is the fear of being ejected, fear of being ignored, fear of not being loved or belonging...

For the homosexual population: there's the reality (not fear, as it's actually going on) of being denied equal rights with their heterosexual counterparts... of being second-class citizens.

I think for a lot of Christian conservative republicans, there is this underlining fear that the sin of the people around us, is going to harm us, or our children or grand children. We fear it will take our loved ones away from Jesus... or we fear that it will negatively effect our way of life. It will turn God's wrath on the nation as a whole, and we'll get sucked in with it.

But is there any real rationality to that fear?

I notice that Jesus didn't dodge the adulterers and theives and prostitutes... He sought them out.

More to the point: the two girls living next-door are doing so whether they are married or not. What new risk does them having spousal rights (like the ability to see their partner in the hospital) pose to your children?