California overturned gay-marriage ban today!
Ragtime wrote:
A red herring -- from what? "Red herring" have to distract from something.
But the subject of this thread is singular -- namely, addressing the question
of whether or not marriage is changing.
I said that in the opening post, that such was the only question I was asking.
To determine whether or not your car is rolling slowly or standing still,
you look out the window. This thread is only about looking out the window.
But the subject of this thread is singular -- namely, addressing the question
of whether or not marriage is changing.
I said that in the opening post, that such was the only question I was asking.
To determine whether or not your car is rolling slowly or standing still,
you look out the window. This thread is only about looking out the window.
No, actually, that was the subject of the other thread. This thread's OP announces a single change in legal marriage in the state of California.
Developing "strong individual consciousness" is good (I guess, depending on what you mean), but makes for incredibly invasive public policy. It's one thing to say "adultery is wrong," and quite another to decide what ought to be done about it. I think adultery is wrong, but I don't want the government getting involved and I don't want to engage in simplistic black/white distinctions between individuals. Real life is more complicated.
Averick wrote:
It's only a matter of time before "californiacation" effects us all.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.
Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.
We now have fifty-seven states, Averick. Barrack Obama said so. See? I can josh the guy. Anyway, only fifty of them are actually considered states. In fact, I think that at least one of those is actually considered a "commonwealth," so it's arguably less if you're keen on silly sophistry.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.
Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.
Now we've got our book-ends. It won't take long for the rest of the nation to follow. Hopefully, from here, the US will finally begin taking leadership on these issues again.
slowmutant wrote:
Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.
I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Orwell wrote:
I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.
I'm "sickened" by the Congressmen who say "Harsher Penalties! MORE MORE MORE!" for crimes, but when their own children/relatives are accused they are before the judge pleading "It was only a mistake. Please, just let him go!"
They always change their minds when it comes to relatives.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.
oscuria wrote:
Orwell wrote:
I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.
I'm "sickened" by the Congressmen who say "Harsher Penalties! MORE MORE MORE!" for crimes, but when their own children/relatives are accused they are before the judge pleading "It was only a mistake. Please, just let him go!"
They always change their minds when it comes to relatives.
Or themselves. My Governor a few years back broke a couple bribery laws that he had personally pushed through, and then argued that he had made a mistake because he didn't understand the law. He had forced other public officials to resign for similar offenses just prior to his crimes being discovered, but then retained his own office until the end of his term.
I hate Ohio.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
slowmutant wrote:
Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?
srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?
I would like to see this argument.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.
oscuria wrote:
srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?
I would like to see this argument.
i jerk off to porn. the morals of christianity say that's wrong but i harm no one, i am a tax-paying, productive member of society, i vote, i give money to charity, and jerking off is not a crime.
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).
oscuria wrote:
srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?
I would like to see this argument.
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.
I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.
skafather84 wrote:
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).
Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.
srriv345 wrote:
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.
A good counter-argument to this, as even though laws may be morality, how do we really come to the right choice on laws?
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.
Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.
skafather84 wrote:
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).
Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.
a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?
b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?
skafather84 wrote:
a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?
It could be. Egoism is a possibility for getting around the issue of morality as well, but then there is the issue of legislating for one's personal gain, but really, can you argue against an egoist?
Quote:
b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?
Well, I am talking about the entire legal system, from the police who we send out, to the courts we use to deal with these laws, the punishments for the laws that are broken, and the actual laws that exist to be enforced.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Harvey Weinstein’s NY rape conviction overturned |
Yesterday, 4:49 am |
California Teen killed by sheriff deputy |
13 Mar 2024, 3:10 pm |
What did you do today? |
19 minutes ago |
What did you guys do today instead of watching the game? |
13 Feb 2024, 11:54 pm |