Rights Vs. Morals

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319743904' post='2327814']
Would not the mental stability be a factor?
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure they take that into account, not with regards to being an adult but with regards to being a willing participant.
An intellectually handicap person may need special analysis with regards to government accepting them being in a sexual relationship or marriage. There are some people out there that could take advantage.
Govt tends to assume a person is mentally OK, unless they have prior mental record or if people protest on their behalf about a situation.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319706377' post='2327673']
I wouldn't consider the adulterer as necessarily the wrong doer and the faithful partner as necessarily the victim. Would need to look at each case on their own merits.
Adultery could merely be a symptom, not necessarily the cause of a bad relationship. Maybe the adultery was the wakeup call the marriage needed to make the ultimate decision to either sort themselves out or part ways.
Without knowing the details I would not dare make a judgement.
When I say I am OK with it, that is what I mean. Not that I would encourage it. I am just not judgmental. There are even some people that choose to live in an open relationship and have other sexual partners. This isn't my life choice, but I am not the right person to tell these people that they are making the wrong decisions. I have not walked in their shoes. They are best qualified to make their own decisions.
[/quote]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319738656' post='2327780']
My stance is not based on fear. I am genuine with regards to not wanting to judge others and to see the world as much more complex than the black and white of right and wrong. As long as society can function then the government has done its job.
[/quote]

By stating that adultery could be a symptom of other problems, you are defining it as negative. Whether or not you are "the right person to tell these people that they are making the wrong decisions" is not at question.

I am in no position to stand in judgment of anyone. This isn't about judging people, it's about judging actions. (I personally believe in God, I personally believe that God created us, I do not believe that God makes mistakes, so I can never believe that another person is bad.) A person may do something that I think is bad, but judging an action is different than judging a person. I believe that cheating on one's spouse is bad. That does not mean that I believe the person cheating is a generally bad person or that expressing my thoughts to them is the right thing to do.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1319748069' post='2327878']
By stating that adultery could be a symptom of other problems, you are defining it as negative.
[/quote]
No, I said "could" not "is". I am thinking about potential scenarios.
With regards to an open marriage, both partners exxpect this behavior, hence it is not cheating

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1319748069' post='2327878']



By stating that adultery could be a symptom of other problems, you are defining it as negative. Whether or not you are "the right person to tell these people that they are making the wrong decisions" is not at question.

I am in no position to stand in judgment of anyone. This isn't about judging people, it's about judging actions. (I personally believe in God, I personally believe that God created us, I do not believe that God makes mistakes, so I can never believe that another person is bad.) A person may do something that I think is bad, but judging an action is different than judging a person. I believe that cheating on one's spouse is bad. That does not mean that I believe the person cheating is a generally bad person or that expressing my thoughts to them is the right thing to do.
[/quote]

You can say that til you're blue in the face. Some people refuse to see that very important distinction.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319737862' post='2327776']
Careful. The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
[/quote]

Who said anything about a right to privacy? My argument is that the Constitution does not give the federal government authority over citizens' sex lives.

Edited October 28, 2011 by rizz_loves_jesus

[Papist]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1319764692' post='2327988']

Who said anything about a right to privacy? My argument is that the Constitution does not give the federal government authority over citizens' sex lives.
[/quote]
I am saying be careful b/c you are setting a precedent that if it is not in the Constitution alone, then it is not a right.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319255293' post='2325009']
We are all born with the right to do what so ever we choose.

An authority with dominion comes along and puts boundaries onto the way we behave and participate within our society, they do not give our rights, but instead restrict. In this way they start violating our rights.

In my opinion a good government understands that they are taking away its citizen's rights and treads carefully so as to minimalise this as much as possible.
Good governments, in my opinion, are focused on providing rules to encourage a functional society, whilst treating people's rights with the utmost of respect and not infringing on them unless absolutely necessary.

For example, governments tend to remove the right to kill people. When people go around killing each other we don't end up with a functional society, people become too focused on vendettas and vigilante behaviour rather than being productive and beneficial for society.
Governments also tend to remove the right to steal. A society does not perform well were people are stealing from each other. There are real social reasons driving governments to intervene and violate these rights.
[/quote]
If we define "rights" to mean absolutely anything and everything anybody wishes to do, they become practically meaningless, and discussion of them pointless.

When you start discussing the "right" to murder and steal, we have indeed crossed the line from rational discussion into madness.

Of course, we as Christians believe that for something to be a right, it must be in itself good, rather than evil. Of course, for the atheist who denies objective good and evil, "rights" merely become arbitrary desires of individuals, which necessarily will conflict.

Appealing to a "functional society" as the basis for which government can act, without regard for morality, is weak. Plenty of governments have quite happily restricted perfectly legitimate rights, including the right to life, in order to keep society properly "functioning" as they see fit.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319480615' post='2326322']

I'm not saying it's right or wrong in a metaphysical sense. That can be considered separately. Legally it is impermissible because it is infringing on some very basic rights she is entitled too.
[/quote]
This talk of "rights" sounds to me like simply more of the same metaphysical mumbo-jumbo you're found of denouncing. And if rights are granted by the government or the law, then they are arbitrary, and the government or law can just as easily take them away.

Trying to talk of whether laws are good or bad without addressing morality is a futile task.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319511467' post='2326702']

yeah, i mean look at Texas, they implemented an abstinence only sex education, and it has made a HUGE difference for them. Obviously, the conservative way is the only way to see things like Teen Pregnancy decrease.
[url="http://www.ktxs.com/news/26781783/detail.html"]http://www.ktxs.com/...783/detail.html[/url]
[/quote]
[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319516874' post='2326723']

Generally, abstinence only sex education falls under that label? why am i telling you, aren't you the conservative in this conversation?
[/quote]
Whether or not people choose to heed what is right does not mean that it should not be taught.

Should we avoid teaching kids that they should not murder, steal, lie, do hard drugs, get drunk, or be racist bigots, just because there are plenty who will go ahead and do those things anyway?

Of course, there are more effective and less effective ways of teaching things, but that's another issue.

Personally, I feel that classroom-based "sex ed" tends to be rather ineffective and a waste of time, and that other factors, including the attitudes their parents taught them, are more effective in encouraging sexual morality. But if we've decided that we just absolutely must teach about sex in the classroom, the teaching should at least reinforce morality, rather than oppose it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1319734582' post='2327756']

No one is saying incest or homosexuality is "fine." We're saying it just shouldn't be illegal because it's a moral issue, not a legal one. Leave it to the church to deal with morality, and leave it to the government to deal with legality. Just because something is morally reprehensible doesn't mean it should be illegal.[/quote]
If you really want to "get the law out of morality" (or more accurately "get morality out of the law"), the you should be lobbying to repeal all laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, etc., etc.
Any law worth its salt deals with morality in some way.

And before you start countering with talk of "rights," remember that the whole idea that people have rights that others must not violate is itself a moral principle.

I'm not claiming that absolutely every immoral act must be made illegal (nor is anyone else here), but the whole idea that the law and morality must have nothing to do with one another is a lot of horse poo.


[quote]If it doesn't interfere with rights outlined in either the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of whichever state you live in, it's not the government's place to be dealing with it. Incest is absolutely disgusting and should be discouraged in society, I agree. But incest is not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore the government has no place making laws concerning it. It's pretty simple.[/quote]
Via the 10th Amendment, laws regarding issues not stated in the U.S. Constitution are to be decided by the respective states or by the people. Laws regarding legal recognition of marriage fall under that category. State and local laws have always addressed things not dealt with in the Constitution, and there is nothing wrong with that. Federal judges need to butt out.

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1319764692' post='2327988']

Who said anything about a right to privacy? My argument is that the Constitution does not give the federal government authority over citizens' sex lives.
[/quote]
Who said anything about the federal government?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319844374' post='2328369']
If you really want to "get the law out of morality" (or more accurately "get morality out of the law"), the you should be lobbying to repeal all laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, etc., etc.
Any law worth its salt deals with morality in some way.
[/quote]

wrong. All of the examples you listed are fundamentally different in one very simple way. They are not laws enforcing morality(although generally being against murder, theft rape, etc is totally moral), they are laws preventing you from removing or violating another person's rights, possessions, health or life. Or punishing you if you have committed those crimes.

This is why the government has a right to enforce a law against drinking and driving, but doesnt have the right to enforce a law against getting drunk.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319846755' post='2328379']

wrong. All of the examples you listed are fundamentally different in one very simple way. They are not laws enforcing morality(although generally being against murder, theft rape, etc is totally moral), they are laws preventing you from removing or violating another person's rights, possessions, health or life. Or punishing you if you have committed those crimes.[/quote]
The idea that removing or violating another person's rights, possessions, health or life is wrong and deserving of punishment is itself a moral principle.

[quote]This is why the government has a right to enforce a law against drinking and driving, but doesnt have the right to enforce a law against getting drunk.[/quote]
If your drunkenness becomes public, it can become subject to the law. In plenty of places, public drunkenness can land you a night in the slammer.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319844374' post='2328369']
If you really want to "get the law out of morality" (or more accurately "get morality out of the law"), the you should be lobbying to repeal all laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, perjury, etc., etc.
Any law worth its salt deals with morality in some way.[/quote]

No. No I should not.

[quote]And before you start countering with talk of "rights," remember that the whole idea that people have rights that others must not violate is itself a moral principle.[/quote]

Sure, but people respecting others' natural rights doesn't necessarily have to be done within the realms of a government. Actually, in a perfect world without sin, there would be no government because we wouldn't need it. Government itself is just a contract between the people and a ruling party.

People respecting other people's rights is moral. A government protecting citizens' rights is simply a social contract.

[quote]I'm not claiming that absolutely every immoral act must be made illegal (nor is anyone else here), but the whole idea that the law and morality must have nothing to do with one another is a lot of horse poo.[/quote]

Why not make every immoral act illegal?

[quote]Via the 10th Amendment, laws regarding issues not stated in the U.S. Constitution are to be decided by the respective states or by the people. Laws regarding legal recognition of marriage fall under that category. State and local laws have always addressed things not dealt with in the Constitution, and there is nothing wrong with that. Federal judges need to butt out.[/quote]

Agreed. I am talking about the federal government.

[quote]Who said anything about the federal government?
[/quote]

The 99.999% people on here who wish to see a nationwide ban on homosexual marriage.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319805183' post='2328148']
I am saying be careful b/c you are setting a precedent that if it is not in the Constitution alone, then it is not a right.
[/quote]

... A right of the government, that is.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319850355' post='2328397']
The idea that removing or violating another person's rights, possessions, health or life is wrong and deserving of punishment is itself a moral principle.
[/quote]

uggg, im really not sure what you are getting at. because this is hardly a response of any kind other than semantics. It should be fairly easy for someone of moderate brainpower(especially one who favours a smaller government) to recognize the difference between a moral action that affects other members of society and a moral action that only affects ones self, and the government's role in controlling ones own life and mistakes.
The government can feasibly have the right to intervene for stuff that disrupts social order, and the rights of other citizens. To say that the government has the right to enforce morality, especially ones in line with a particular religion, is to support a theocratic police state, much like that of saudi arabia.


And before you say that individual actions are a societal issue, affecting others, people do not have the right to not be offended. Stating your religion's views on homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc offends a lot of people, and that is totally ok. people can be offended as much as they want, they dont have a right to remove you from protesting just because they are offended.

Personally, i wouldnt want to give the government power to say that something like owning knives or guns is immoral and then take mine. i wouldnt want them to say drinking alcohol is immoral(the bible spells it out clearly) and prevent me from having a drink. I guess i just dont want to give the government power that they will never give back, power that it can build on and abuse. i dont want to give the government power to go after the sins of my neighbor, while foolishly hoping it wont start going after mine.


[quote]
If your drunkenness becomes public, it can become subject to the law. In plenty of places, public drunkenness can land you a night in the slammer.
[/quote]

Again, this is a case of your private actions spilling out into public sphere, and thus not really related. the fact that owning and shooting a gun is legal does not mean that brandishing it and shooting it in a public space cannot earn you some attention from the law.

Also, since you brought it up. since you can be arrested for being publicly drunk, would you be ok with the government being able to arrest you for being drunk in your own home? they are one and the same right? and the bible says plenty of times that drunkenness is a sin. so why not that too?

for what its worth, i dont think public drunkeness should earn you any criminal charges unless it is in conjunction with something like an assault.the police taking you off the street for the night is not the same as being criminally charged