Rights Vs. Morals

[Lil Red]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319324229' post='2325322'] it's disgusting, and repetitive...and boring.[/quote]
yup.

[Clare~Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319245053' post='2324909']
What are rights and where do they come from?
If the state grants rights, it can just as easily take them away.
And by this logic, rights signify nothing objective, but only arbitrary desires.
[/quote]

IAABC because I read this and the first thing I thought was, 'Big Brother giveth and Big Brother taketh away.'

[Selah]

[quote]
You could try and convince your wife to watch one with you. Of course pick one with more romance and storyline that may appeal to her.
[/quote]

They have notoriously bad scripts.

"Oh, you ordered a pizza...SEX LOL! LOOK, WE ARE SO TOTALEE HAVING SHEX BECUZ DIS IS TOTALEE HAO PEPLEZ DO EEET EN REEL LIFEZ!!! DIS IZ NOT ABUSHIVE IN ANEE WAY!!11"

Repetitive, badly written, unrealistic and boring.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319036722' post='2323662']
Guns and gay marriage are a personal vice?

Are you saying if individuals engage in gay marriage, smoke, sex, drugs, porn, alcohol, guns that no one other than themselves are affected?. Personal vice or not, I disagree.
[/quote]


That depends on how liberal your use of the term 'affected' is. But there is no substantive impact that justifies impinging on another's freedom from any of these activities unless they are abused. If I want to have have Ecstasy fueled gay sex with my (hypothetical) husband while we smoke, watch gay porn, and drink followed by some target practice then that doesn't impact you. The fact that you decided that the same document that permits killing people for the crime of transvestism and sanctions slavery says that these things are naughty is your own business and shouldn't be used to impinge on my freedoms.

If these things lead me to things that substantively impact the public, like me neglecting a child in my care, then the state can and should step in.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319425647' post='2326037']


That depends on how liberal your use of the term 'affected' is. But there is no substantive impact that justifies impinging on another's freedom from any of these activities unless they are abused. If I want to have have [b]Ecstasy fueled gay sex with my (hypothetical) husband while we smoke, watch gay porn, and drink [/b]followed by some target practice then that doesn't impact you. The fact that you decided that the same document that permits killing people for the crime of transvestism and sanctions slavery says that these things are naughty is your own business and shouldn't be used to impinge on my freedoms.

If these things lead me to things that substantively impact the public, like me neglecting a child in my care, then the state can and should step in.
[/quote]
How has this attitude and behavior served our society in the past 40 years?

[dairygirl4u2c]

this stuff shouldn't be so controversial or complicated.

as long as they ain't hurtin other people, don't take away the liberties of others... yes, the 'rights'.

killing hurts others, stealing does, abortion arguably does.

gays having sex does not very directly at all without bein contrived about it, masturbation don't, cursing at one's house in private doesn't, immorality kept to oneself or themselves doesn't. etc.

it's outrageous and ridiculous to start banning things cause they are immoral, or sinful.

why don't we ban the seven sins? other than bein abstract sometimes, cause we recognize people's right to sin, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

you dont' go banning every other sin, there's nothing magical about these. you don't ban adultery, masturabtion (hard to implement if ya did, but that's beside the point), swearing, hitting your little brother as a kid, [color=#ff0000]gluttony[/color] etc.

there's in fact something very virtuous and right, about letting people do as they will, as God intended. in fact, banning every possible sin, is in fact the sinful thing to do.

what's of course ironic is when so many a conservative will rally cry about getting cigarettes banned, or transfat or whatever. then try to ban you from masturbating, by law, in your own home. way to be consistent there, ya'll.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319459851' post='2326193']
How has this attitude and behavior served our society in the past 40 years?
[/quote]


Well. America no longer has institutionalized Apartheid, interracial couples can marry, gay people are no longer arrested for being sexually active with consenting partners, and people who are qwerty are significantly less likely to be killed by vigilantes for expressing themselves in peaceful, non-violent ways. So I'd say pretty well.

Not that this attitude is a manifestation of the last 40 years. America is based on the idea of people having civil liberties, of a government of restrained, demarcated powers where the rights of the individual is preserved and if it must be infringed upon it is for a more substantive reason than the dictates of your unsubstantiated religious hopes/beliefs.

Your religion is based on faith, that is to say it is based on hope. You hope, despite anything approaching conclusive evidence, and in the face of a great deal of contradicting evidence, that your religious faith is founded on something solid and that it will in the end amount to more than a personal delusion you retain to cope with life. And that's fine. You have a freedom of religion that is sacrosanct in this country. As it should be. You can baselessly believe that Christ is the Son of God and you consume him weekly in the Eucharist. A Muslim can baselessly believe that angles rest on his shoulders and count his good and bad deeds. Et cetera. All those things are fine. What you do not have the right to do is decide that your unsupported metaphysical longings should be forcibly imposed by the rule of law on your fellow citizens.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Hasan

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319477834' post='2326295']
Well. America no longer has institutionalized Apartheid, interracial couples can marry, gay people are no longer arrested for being sexually active with consenting partners, and people who are qwerty are significantly less likely to be killed by vigilantes for expressing themselves in peaceful, non-violent ways. So I'd say pretty well.
[/quote]
So you attribute this to the philosophy of anything and everything is a-okay as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. Seriously? I see it differently. I attribute the rapid increase in abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, addictions, STDs, etc. to this philosophy.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1319477834' post='2326295']
Your religion is based on faith, that is to say it is based on hope. You hope, despite anything approaching conclusive evidence, and in the face of a great deal of contradicting evidence, that your religious faith is founded on something solid and that it will in the end amount to more than a personal delusion you retain to cope with life. And that's fine. You have a freedom of religion that is sacrosanct in this country. As it should be. You can baselessly believe that Christ is the Son of God and you consume him weekly in the Eucharist. A Muslim can baselessly believe that angles rest on his shoulders and count his good and bad deeds. Et cetera. All those things are fine. What you do not have the right to do is decide that your unsupported metaphysical longings should be forcibly imposed by the rule of law on your fellow citizens.
[/quote]
If you say I can't do such, then you can't say me beating my wife is wrong nor should it be against the law. And don't say it is wrong b/c I am hurting someone that is not me. Where do you get that believe that it is wrong if someone else is hurt?

Why you bringing up religion and my faith? Very telling of you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319459851' post='2326193']
How has this attitude and behavior served our society in the past 40 years?
[/quote]
Homosexuality, promiscuity, AIDS, other venereal disease, drug addiction, sex and drug orgies, hard-core porn in all its disgusting varieties, prostitution, sex slavery and trafficking, sex addiction, rampant divorce, broken homes, children born out of wedlock without knowing a father, all the attendant problems that result from these home situations - it's all just part of our beautiful and diverse liberated modern society.

Don't be such a repressed judgmental prude.

[Papist]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319479583' post='2326312']
Homosexuality, promiscuity, AIDS, other venereal disease, drug addiction, sex and drug orgies, hard-core porn in all its disgusting varieties, prostitution, sex slavery and trafficking, sex addiction, rampant divorce, broken homes, children born out of wedlock without knowing a father, all the attendant problems that result from these home situations - it's all just part of our beautiful and diverse liberated modern society.

Don't be such a repressed judgmental prude.
[/quote]
You're right. I need to be more tolerant.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319478650' post='2326307']
So you attribute this to the philosophy of anything and everything is a-okay as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. Seriously? I see it differently. I attribute the rapid increase in abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, addictions, STDs, etc. to this philosophy.
[/quote]
A small price to pay for the all-important and all-trumping right to[color=#ff0000] [edited by prude police: engage in sexual activity with][/color] anyone and anything one wants to whenever and however one desires.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319479550' post='2326311']
If you say I can't do such, then you can't say me beating my wife is wrong nor should it be against the law. And don't say it is wrong b/c I am hurting someone that is not me. [b]Where do you get that belief that it is wrong if someone else is hurt?[/b]
[/quote]
A quaint archaic holdover from an outmoded and irrelevant Judeao-Christian moral code. The weak and unfit deserve to be smashed and crushed by the strong so that evolutionary progress may occur.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319479550' post='2326311']
If you say I can't do such, then you can't say me beating my wife is wrong nor should it be against the law. And don't say it is wrong b/c I am hurting someone that is not me. Where do you get that believe that it is wrong if someone else is hurt?[/QUOTE]

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. I think Western societies conceptualization of the inherent right to autonomy and personal discretion that each human being is entitled too is a good idea and creates a better society. I don't have to delve into moral absolutes to defend that.

That's not to say that the moral questions are not important. They are. But they can be discussed separately

[QUOTE]Why you bringing up religion and my faith? Very telling of you.
[/quote]

Because that is what motivates you. Unless there is some other reason that homosexual relationships would be wrong that you can think of.

[Oremoose]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1319476886' post='2326274']
this stuff shouldn't be so controversial or complicated.

as long as they ain't hurtin other people, don't take away the liberties of others... yes, the 'rights'.

killing hurts others, stealing does, abortion arguably does.

gays having sex does not very directly at all without bein contrived about it, masturbation don't, cursing at one's house in private doesn't, immorality kept to oneself or themselves doesn't. etc.

it's outrageous and ridiculous to start banning things cause they are immoral, or sinful.

why don't we ban the seven sins? other than bein abstract sometimes, cause we recognize people's right to sin, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
[/quote]
[size=4]As I see it ti is hurting others not[font=Times New Roman][color=#000000] p[/color][/font][color=#000000][font=Calibri]hysically but psychologically. Gays don't can't get married because the two cannot become one. As marrage used to be seen as. Now the damage comes as they strive to be considerd married. The young children of this day and age won't know the more spiritlal side will get confused and think that marrage has nothing to do with the procreation or healthy family life. Rather it means the satus of two adults that promise only to love and be with one another for life (hopefully).[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 24, 2011 by Oremoose