Teacher Arrested For Sexual Relationshp With Student

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332732967' post='2408549']
Right, which is why I said I suppose that there isn't really any reason why it shouldn't be allowed, provided all of the people involved agree to the contract.
[/quote]Not necessarily. I think current societies use logic/philosopy to determine basic human rights and then cultural mores influence how they get codified into laws. When I posted the UN's list of basic human's rights, I don't think "most" Americans woudl disagree with them. However, cultural traditions color how terms are defined and understood, and how the rights are protected with laws. For example, key is how a 'person' is defined. In this case, we arguing how a person and a marriage is being defined and how we want to define and apply the principle of Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, [u]everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society[/u].

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332763881' post='2408656']
Not necessarily. I think current societies use logic/philosopy to determine basic human rights and then cultural mores influence how they get codified into laws. When I posted the UN's list of basic human's rights, I don't think "most" Americans woudl disagree with them. However, cultural traditions color how terms are defined and understood, and how the rights are protected with laws. For example, key is how a 'person' is defined. In this case, we arguing how a person and a marriage is being defined and how we want to define and apply the principle of Article 29 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, [u]everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society[/u].
[/quote]

Good post.

I'd add to it that "culture" isn't some sort of monolithic, static unit. It's a dynamic, interconnected web of ever-changing ideas, attitudes, preferences and beliefs. Sure, there are staples that remain relatively the same within any group of people. But the manner through which we perceive what is "right" and "wrong," and the attitudes we have towards the attainment and enforcement of those beliefs, change with the current. It's all constructed AND constructive.

[Luigi]

All of us have the right to codify our beliefs into law. That's how all laws come into existence in a democracy - in other monarchies & dictatorships, it may be that only the top leader's beliefs are codified into law.

This was not a problem when the vast majority of the nation's people believed the same thing. And I would argue that the vast majority of the nation's people still believe the same thing - only a minority of people believe that X-LAW should be changed, but it gets argued before a court, and a judge or majority of judges (but still a tiny minority of the people) changes X-LAW.

My beliefs derive from my faith. Other people's beliefs derive from other sources. But in both cases, people are trying to codify their beliefs (religious, ethical, philosophical, or drug-induced) into law.

And I will not shut up and stand aside as if my beliefs are somehow less true or important than someone else's.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1332718668' post='2408331']
also, just because you may think something is demeaning, does not mean that 1) everyone else thinks so and 2)that means it should be illegal.
[/quote]

But I would also contend that [xyz] doesn't become OK because a person, group or society believes it is.

I know it's an overused argument, but that kind of mentality really could lead to anything -- the legalization of prostitution or pedophilia, for example. That's not to say it will. But if the majority of people decide it should be OK to have sex with children, does that make it right? Should we really allow it?

[kujo]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332804761' post='2408917']


But I would also contend that [xyz] doesn't become OK because a person, group or society believes it is.

I know it's an overused argument, but that kind of mentality really could lead to anything -- the legalization of prostitution or pedophilia, for example. That's not to say it will. But if the majority of people decide it should be OK to have sex with children, does that make it right? Should we really allow it?
[/quote]

No. Because that is a criminal offense. Two adults (or 3) of sound mind and willing heart that want to do something is none of anyone else's business.

[MissyP89]

But what makes it a criminal offense? Common agreement and cultural mores. An overwhelming majority believes it's wrong[i] now[/i], but the same majority shunned unwed mothers into silence 60 years ago.

That's why we need to pay more attention to natural law -- it protects society and common law from destructive social/ethical/moral decisions.

(Note: I'm not gonna be one of those people that argue people are going to marry cows. Just wanted to reaffirm my sanity.)

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1332804742' post='2408916']
All of us have the right to codify our beliefs into law. That's how all laws come into existence in a democracy - in other monarchies & dictatorships, it may be that only the top leader's beliefs are codified into law.

This was not a problem when the vast majority of the nation's people believed the same thing. And I would argue that the vast majority of the nation's people still believe the same thing - only a minority of people believe that X-LAW should be changed, but it gets argued before a court, and a judge or majority of judges (but still a tiny minority of the people) changes X-LAW.

My beliefs derive from my faith. Other people's beliefs derive from other sources. But in both cases, people are trying to codify their beliefs (religious, ethical, philosophical, or drug-induced) into law.

And I will not shut up and stand aside as if my beliefs are somehow less true or important than someone else's.
[/quote]We live in a democracy. There are lots of people, following their conscience of what is right or wrong, who make the same statement about their beliefs. Do you have the divine right to force your opinion because you think God is more on your side? There are differing opinions from other committed christians too. AFAIK, the Catholic Church preaches freedom of conscience too.
[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332804761' post='2408917']
But I would also contend that [xyz] doesn't become OK because a person, group or society believes it is.

I know it's an overused argument, but that kind of mentality really could lead to anything -- the legalization of prostitution or pedophilia, for example. That's not to say it will. But if the majority of people decide it should be OK to have sex with children, does that make it right? Should we really allow it?
[/quote]In theory, you're right. As you stated in your subsequent post, society now looks to natural law for fundamentals.

The boon and bane of modern society is more educated and better informed peope. If Christians want to be relevant in public discourse, they can't just use biblical, magestarial, or traditional beliefs and expect the rest of the population to cave in. They have to argue from the stand point of natural law, fundamental right or wrong, and engage in practical analysis for what is good or bad in general, for society. Like others posted here, it's clear we can argue that we need to protect children from undue influence from sexual predators. It's harder to prove an arguement that a same sex couple is worse for raising kids than growing up in foster care or an orphanage.

[FutureSister2009]

This just happens way too frequently nowadays.

[kujo]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332762952' post='2408647']
What if I told you he was Canadian?
[/quote]

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this post...I was vomiting after reading it...

[quote name='FutureSister2009' timestamp='1332810165' post='2408944']
This just happens way too frequently nowadays.
[/quote]

Really? Or do we just hear about it more than we used to?

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332809297' post='2408941']
They have to argue from the stand point of natural law, fundamental right or wrong, and engage in practical analysis for what is good or bad in general, for society. Like others posted here, it's clear we can argue that we need to protect children from undue influence from sexual predators. It's harder to prove an arguement that a same sex couple is worse for raising kids than growing up in foster care or an orphanage.
[/quote]

Harder to prove, yes, but what does that mean for Christians (forgive me, Anomaly; I don't know what your religion is)? Do we give up trying because it's difficult?

[kujo]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332810764' post='2408947']
Harder to prove, yes, but what does that mean for Christians (forgive me, Anomaly; I don't know what your religion is)? Do we give up trying because it's difficult?
[/quote]

You should use the best tool for the situation. A sledge hammer could be used to put a nail in the wall to hang a picture on, but is it the best way to accomplish that goal?

[MissyP89]

Point taken. Do you think that Christians are bludgeoning the rest of society with our opinions, then? Making sure I follow, here.

[kujo]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332810998' post='2408949']
Point taken. Do you think that Christians are bludgeoning the rest of society with our opinions, then? Making sure I follow, here.
[/quote]

I think that some Christians relish the opportunity to be bold and bring the "speak the truth" thing, when a little moderation and a conciliatory attitude might serve them--and God--better. Wanting to be a martyr is kind of woven into our tradition, but I think a lot of times people provoke or involve themselves in fights that could easily be allayed with a self-effacing joke, a smile or a cup of coffee.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1332810764' post='2408947']
Harder to prove, yes, but what does that mean for Christians (forgive me, Anomaly; I don't know what your religion is)? Do we give up trying because it's difficult?
[/quote]I'm a mileu of non-religious quasi-axiological atheist with a solid Catholic upbringing with as good helping of hubris to believe what I tell myself simmered withthea belief I try to be open minded.

Catholics and other christians shouldn't ever give up because it's hard. There is little fundamental disagreement with natural laws whether it's arrived at from theological, philosophical, or the product of social inertia. I think humanity slowly develops understanding of ourselves and our place in society because we self aware and social beings. We could argue for eons about why we are that way (of if we are) but it works for me. Just as Catholics argue that their understanding of faith develops and grows but doesn't change the fundamentals, the body of human philosphy, knowledge, and thought has developed our understanding over the eons.

If humans were prodominately selfish, we wouldn't be able to live in a large community and anarchy would have killed ourselves off before we built the first group of hovels.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1332695598' post='2408023']
I understand what you're saying here.[/quote]

Well then I hope you realize that I'm not talking about a slippery slope, because then I don't think there is understanding between the two of us.

[quote]But my point is that there are certain outcomes that are demonstratively worse than others. Letting gay people get married isn't logically connected with rescinding laws preventing child abuse, rape, polygamy, bestiality and other criminal forms of sexual perversion[/quote]

Here you're setting up gay marriage as the impetus for all of these things.you specificially say "letting" gay people get married, which is indicitive of a slippery slope argument that I'm not making (i.e. if little x happens then y will happen then the big horrifying z will result, with x being "allowing" gay marriage). think the idea of gay marriage is only a symptom of a flawed logical system that precedes it, yet you're talking as though I'm saying "if gay marriage happens becomes a part of our culture, then so will polygammy and beastiality in the later future" which is NOT what I'm saying at all. Maybe I'm not being clear enough.

[quote]Again, though. Look at my analogy.[/quote]

I don't really feel comfortable with your analogy of a complex mechanism with which to observe the world to a static, linear thing. I haven't yet thought of a better one, but I'm trying and I'll get back to you when I do.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1332811848' post='2408958']
I'm a mileu of non-religious quasi-axiological atheist with a solid Catholic upbringing with as good helping of hubris to believe what I tell myself simmered withthea belief I try to be open minded.

Catholics and other christians shouldn't ever give up because it's hard. There is little fundamental disagreement with natural laws whether it's arrived at from theological, philosophical, or the product of social inertia. I think humanity slowly develops understanding of ourselves and our place in society because we self aware and social beings. We could argue for eons about why we are that way (of if we are) but it works for me. Just as Catholics argue that their understanding of faith develops and grows but doesn't change the fundamentals, the body of human philosphy, knowledge, and thought has developed our understanding over the eons.

If humans were prodominately selfish, we wouldn't be able to live in a large community and anarchy would have killed ourselves off before we built the first group of hovels.
[/quote]

i love you