The Law And Morals

[Traveler]

I was once told that morals cannot be legislated. I disagree. Not only can morals be legislated into law, the fact is that morals are the only things that can be legislated into law. We will not change the value of pi or universal gravitational constant through legislation. The legislation of law has never been weather or not we can legislate morals but who’s morals should become law.

I submit that more important than any law is of itself is the process in which we determine what is law. For example: it is not if there should be separation of church and state but the process that we decide if there should be separation of church and state and the process of how we determine what is the proper separation of church and state. It is not what we decide is a crime but the process that we follow to determine what is a crime.

I would also submit that law is not ever needed when there is complete agreement in a society what the law should be. The law is nothing more that one segment of the population forcing their morals on the rest of society. If everyone had the same morals there would be no need for law to in force how individuals behave.

The Traveler

[Guest Syble]

So are you saying there is no absolute right or wrong? That it is all subjective?

[Aristotle]

The problem is that while we listened to the liberals brainwashing us into "not legislating morality", they did just the opposite by legislating immorality.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." ~ James Madison

"Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants." ~ William Penn

[Traveler]

So are you saying there is no absolute right or wrong? That it is all subjective?

I am saying is that when there is not complete agreement on what is "absolute right" - whose opinion becomes law? What I am saying that the process that establishes how we agree upon "absolute right" is more impotant than what any single person or group thinks is "absolute right".

I may personally believe in "absolute right" - which is not the point I tried to make. But let us assume that there is "absolute right". How then does a society discover and agree upon that right and how is the law interperted and defined to reflect that. What is the social process to establish "absolute right"? Is it to be determined by who has the most guns and power? Who can make the best arguments? Who has the most money? Who is the smartest and got the best grades in school? Those that have attended church the longest? - Just a note - I have listed some of the processes that I personally believe have proved to be horrible failures.

The Traveler

[Snow]

On another thread Ari called for the Government to insert itself into the bedroom of consenting, even married adults, and legislate which sex practices they should be permitted to engage in.

Besides being creepy I can think of few things that are so opposed to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded. In a sense, since morality deals with the distinction between good and evil, such anti-liberty legislation would itself be immoral.

A moral government has the responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms from the abusive repression. Someone who seeks to impose their sexual preferences on others is immoral.

However, in a broader sense, the government has the responsibility to balances the rights of the individual againts the safety of or collective good of the whole. Some might think that consumption of alcohol and other mind-altering chemicals is either immoral or a personal liberty. It may be a liberty but unfettered use can damage the whole of society and so the individual rights of others. Thus the government must get involved and balance both interests.

I was once told that morals cannot be legislated. I disagree. Not only can morals be legislated into law, the fact is that morals are the only things that can be legislated into law.

I am scratching my head wondering what on earth you are talking about.

US Senators serve 4 years in office as a matter law. Limited partnerships have one or more general partners and one or more limited partners as a matter of law. California, as a matter of law, is an at-will employment state.

How is any of that an issue of morality?

[Traveler]

The problem is that while we listened to the liberals brainwashing us into "not legislating morality", they did just the opposite by legislating immorality.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." ~ James Madison

"Men will either be governed by God, or ruled by tyrants." ~ William Penn

These are wonderful opinions. But how do we determine from them what a specific law should be. For example - how do we decide from this what crimes (if any) should be punished by death or punished at all. I would assume that William Penn believed that if G-d did not strike any man down for their disobedience that just men have no cause to act - only tyrants? I am being sarcastic here but I hope through my sarcasism you see my point.

The Traveler

[Snow]

On another thread Ari called for the Government to insert itself into the bedroom of consenting, even married adults, and legislate which sex practices they should be permitted to engage in.

Besides being creepy I can think of few things that are so opposed to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded. In a sense, since morality deals with the distinction between good and evil, such anti-liberty legislation would itself be immoral.

A moral government has the responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of its constituents from the abusive repression. Someone who seeks to impose their sexual likes and dislikes on others is immoral.

However, in a broader sense, the government has the responsibility to balances the rights of the individual againts the safety or collective good of the whole. Some might think that consumption of alcohol and other mind-altering chemicals is either immoral or a personal liberty. It may be a liberty but unfettered use can damage the whole of society and so the individual rights of others. Thus the government must get involved and balance both interests.

I was once told that morals cannot be legislated. I disagree. Not only can morals be legislated into law, the fact is that morals are the only things that can be legislated into law.

I am scratching my head wondering what on earth you are talking about.

US Senators serve 4 years in office as a matter law. Limited partnerships have one or more general partners and one or more limited partners as a matter of law. California, as a matter of law, is an at-will employment state.

How is any of that an issue of morality?

[Aristotle]

On another thread Ari called for the Government to insert itself into the bedroom of consenting, even married adults, and legislate which sex practices they should be permitted to engage in.

Correction: I called for the government's insertion into the bedroom of pedophiles, homosexuals (who sodomize minors), and child abusers/molesters (i.e., polygamists who marry child brides).

These are wonderful opinions. But how do we determine from them what a specific law should be. For example - how do we decide from this what crimes (if any) should be punished by death or punished at all. I would assume that William Penn believed that if G-d did not strike any man down for their disobedience that just men have no cause to act - only tyrants? I am being sarcastic here but I hope through my sarcasism you see my point.

The Traveler

This is the very reason that The Ten Commandments should be displayed on courtroom walls, so as not to forget what society's laws are predicated upon [God's Law]...which are absolutes.

God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah, but the homosexual lobby reversed the laws against sodomy, thereby "legislating immorality".

[sgallan]

This is the very reason that The Ten Commandments should be displayed on courtroom walls, so as not to forget what society's laws are predicated upon [God's Law]...which are absolutes.

I personally think if there is a god, then Islam is the correct religion (they are growing faster than Christianity) and the Wahabbi have the correct version of Islam, because their believers are among the most strident in the entire world, which means a female should wear a Burka and get beaten when breaking one of gods laws.

God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah, but the homosexual lobby reversed the laws against sodomy, thereby "legislating immorality".

And as a person who believes differently I am rather pleased that homosexuals and homosexuality is out of the closet, with the longterm trend being towards acceptance. Hence the point of Travelers thread.

[Snow]

Correction: I called for the government's insertion into the bedroom of pedophiles, homosexuals (who sodomize minors), and child abusers/molesters (i.e., polygamists who marry child brides).

That's a lie and hence immoral. You called for the government to prohibit certain sexual practice, period. Only later did you try and justify it by extending it to child abuse, You said:

"The laws repealing sodomy as a perversion should be reinstated, in my opinion."

Every fool knows that child abuse is still illegal and laws against it have never been repealed. If that isn't proof enough, just now in this thread you reapeated it:

God destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah, but the homosexual lobby reversed the laws against sodomy, thereby "legislating immorality".

Although I think senselessness ought probably be legislated, it is not and hence people are free to say whatever they want but removing a law that prohibits personal liberty is not legislating immorality.

Thank all that is holy that we live in a country where our rights are protected instead of under some evil oppressive regime where some few can forcibly compel others to share their sexual preferences.

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

So are you saying there is no absolute right or wrong? That it is all subjective?

I am saying is that when there is not complete agreement on what is "absolute right" - whose opinion becomes law? What I am saying that the process that establishes how we agree upon "absolute right" is more impotant than what any single person or group thinks is "absolute right".

I may personally believe in "absolute right" - which is not the point I tried to make. But let us assume that there is "absolute right". How then does a society discover and agree upon that right and how is the law interperted and defined to reflect that. What is the social process to establish "absolute right"? Is it to be determined by who has the most guns and power? Who can make the best arguments? Who has the most money? Who is the smartest and got the best grades in school? Those that have attended church the longest? - Just a note - I have listed some of the processes that I personally believe have proved to be horrible failures.

The Traveler

I guess we are left with the best, yet short lived theocratic government, established and run by and through God as found in 3 Nephi.

[puterguy01]

I personally think if there is a god, then Islam is the correct religion (they are growing faster than Christianity) and the Wahabbi have the correct version of Islam, because their believers are among the most strident in the entire world, which means a female should wear a Burka and get beaten when breaking one of gods laws.

So you're saying that since Islam is growing faster than Christianity it's therefore the only correct religion? That makes absolutely no sense. Oranges ripen faster than bananas, so does that make oranges automatically better?

Okay, so if you were beaten every time you broke a rule or made a mistake, I guess that since you think this is the best for everyone, then you wouldn't harbor any feelings of bitterness or resentment to those that hurt you. Mindless beatings don't teach people to obey the rules because it's right, it only teaches people to obey the rules because if they don't, they'll receive pain. Hence they are not conforming to the rule, they are conforming to the person delivering the pain, the oppressor.

[sgallan]

So you're saying that since Islam is growing faster than Christianity it's therefore the only correct religion? That makes absolutely no sense. Oranges ripen faster than bananas, so does that make oranges automatically better?

Indeed. I was being ironic. When replying to the poster in question, that poster was suggesting a conservative Christian version of 'black/white' version of what is right or wrong. I was just doing a little example of another even more conservative version, with a strongly faith based religion.

Okay, so if you were beaten every time you broke a rule or made a mistake, I guess that since you think this is the best for everyone, then you wouldn't harbor any feelings of bitterness or resentment to those that hurt you. Mindless beatings don't teach people to obey the rules because it's right, it only teaches people to obey the rules because if they don't, they'll receive pain. Hence they are not conforming to the rule, they are conforming to the person delivering the pain, the oppressor.

I agree. It is a pretty good argument against those who would attempt to hurt homosexuals in a societal way. Those hurts are every bit as bad as the physical ones. Often worse because they insult the very essense of a person.

[Guest Syble]

It is sensually abusive to have to read snow once every now and then but doubled posts is absolutely criminal!!! This is how I would decide to make the laws. Start by outlawing double posts by snow.

[sgallan]

Essence? Homosexuality is not part of anyone's essense. We are not born with it and it is not natural. It is Satan whispering into our ears. It is the world telling us that we have to be tolerant of every single thing that God has forbidden.

Prove it (and I realize I cannot scientifically prove it otherwise). If you cannot, do you understand why I might consider you a religious based bigot when it comes to homosexuality? Furthermore understand why I would not want my daughter raised in an atmosphere that leads to the sort of beliefs you have, especially considering that her favorite Uncle is gay? She has been raised from birth understanding that people who are gay are just people living their lives like tha rest of us. With a (short) lifetime of experiences to back it up. You are a reason why this is a secular household. You can thenk less of me for my beliefs if you'd like. But I feel justified in protecting my child from your beliefs because of your religious based beliefs..... espcecially since it is a family thing.

FWIW, your sort of religious based bigotry is about a generation away from being about as relavent as racism was in the sixties. Think not? Heck just 25 years ago even the concept of gay marriage would have been considered ludricrous. And coming out of the closet could be career suicide in many career paths. Deadly in some areas. Now a days.... save for some religious cultures..... it is not nearly the issue... and gay marraige is (slowly) becoming a reality.

[puterguy01]

Your right, I am a religious based bigot because I have been raised with those standards and I do not believe that homesuality or gay marriage could ever lead to happiness.

I don't care how many people accept it or say that I should just turn a blind eye. What is wrong is wrong, and that's all there is to it.

[sgallan]

I don't care how many people accept it or say that I should just turn a blind eye. What is wrong is wrong, and that's all there is to it.

And to bring it back around to what you commented on originally..... those people in Islam think pretty much the same about some of the things women do, and therefore think, as commanded by god, they are justified in beating their women. And that you don't agree.... well they would just say....

"I don't care how many people accept it or say that I should just turn a blind eye. What is wrong is wrong, and that's all there is to it."

You are just like they are it would appear....

[Traveler]

Take a look at the post on this thread and ask which poster should be making the laws by which we are all governed? Everyone seems to have their idea of what is right and what is wrong. This is the essence of morals. (I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)

Mostly we are talking about moral behavior. As we can all see there is a great deal and passion about what behaviors are acceptable in society. I want to thank you all for offering your opinions about what kind of behavior should be acceptable (lawful) and what behaviors should be punished under the law.

It is my general impression that many people think that if you think you are right then you pass laws that support your morality. If you are stopped by someone or group then what you should do is seek more power and force you morality on everybody else that disagrees with your kind of thinking. What I am trying to say is that I think this is a problem even if on some important point we now agree.

It does not matter if you are conservative or liberal the thought is that if you think you are right you have an obligation and duty to force your morals on everyone else. This is a problem. This cannot end in any other way than civil war - forever. You can be dead right (at least in your mind) but is this the process you want to live under, kill or be killed. Dumb animals can do that - are we no better? Is there no possible process that can be trusted to generate laws we can live with, even if we don't like them all that much.

Everyone has ideas about what is right and wrong but no one has any idea how to settle the problem of who gets to say what is law, other then forcing their ideas on every one else. I have wondered how society moves backwards - is there no idea of any good way to move forward? So if you think you are right force is okay for you but even if someone else thinks they are right force is wicked? BTW - I do not think even G-d is that controlling and power hungry.

The Traveler

[sgallan]

Is there no possible process that can be trusted to generate laws we can live with, even if we don't like them all that much.

I tend to think most modern socities do this now. It's not often pretty.... because of the differences. But it seems to work.

[Snow]

(I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)

You said that all laws are based in morality. Nonsense. Some laws are but by no means all. There are laws that govern businesses like limited partnerships. Those laws are not based on ideas of "good" and evil. A Senator serves 4 years per term. It is not that a 3 year term is evil while a 4 year term is "good." Obiviously something beside good and evil is behind such laws. One of the reasons could be that having 3 year terms is too expensive in running too frequent elections and hiring and training new staff. Being cost effective is not the opposite of evil.

[puterguy01]

<div class='quotemain'>

(I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)

You said that all laws are based in morality. Nonsense. Some laws are but by no means all. There are laws that govern businesses like limited partnerships. Those laws are not based on ideas of "good" and evil. A Senator serves 4 years per term. It is not that a 3 year term is evil while a 4 year term is "good." Obiviously something beside good and evil is behind such laws. One of the reasons could be that having 3 year terms is too expensive in running too frequent elections and hiring and training new staff. Being cost effective is not the opposite of evil.

Good point, Snow.

[Snow]

... and I do not believe that homesuality or gay marriage could ever lead to happiness.

Of course you belief is completely irrelevant. Just as it is impossible for me to say whether you are happy, or what makes you happy, it is impossible for you to tell homosexuals what makes them happy or not happy.

I don't care how many people accept it or say that I should just turn a blind eye. What is wrong is wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Sure, go ahead and believe it wrong. I believe it is wrong too. However, legislating it's wrongness, like Ari proposes sure sounds like Satan's plan of salvation... forced morality/obedience.

[LionHeart]

Here's something I read that I thought was amusing: Larry H. Miller, a wealthy man in Salt Lake City, owns some car dealerships and some movie theatres and probably more. So he finds out that this new movie, 'Brokeback Mountain' (a movie about two gay cowboys) is going to be playing in one of his theatres. He immediately took action and banned it from all of his theatres. There were many gays who were upset. Their argument was "How could someone be so opposed to such a beautiful film?"

Beautiful???? Ohhh the mental picture!!! Someone please kill me.

[BenRaines]

Lionheart, while I would agree with your sentiment about the idea of a movie about two gay cowboys, I would not see it. I am curious about how many are many gays were unhappy? From what I have heard and read it was mostly the media that made a big thing about it and there was little or no support to oppose what Larry Miller did with the theaters that he owns. I doubt he gets gov't subsidies to run his movie theater business so I guess he can show what he wants unless he has a contract the requires that he run what they send him.

I guess it is good to be able to do with your own property what you want and when you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

[CharlieDesRosiers]

Oh, I can't wait for the Academy Awards!

There's this really beautiful film I'll be cheering for.

Perhaps you've heard of it? It's about two human beings who fall in love.