Legislating Morality

[rkwright]

Today in class we were discussing a Texas law that banned homosexual acts that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The basic question is should we make immoral things illegal, and how far should we go? Here some scenarios; these are all immoral, should they be illegal?

Murder (seem obvious)?
Stealing?
Sex with minors?
Polygamy?
Homosexual acts?
'Private' Drug use in ones home?
Getting drunk in your own home?
Divorce?
Lying?


It seems there needs to be a line here somewhere; I guess the real question is where to draw that line and why?

[Archaeology cat]

Off the top of my head, it seems the ones that seem the most logical to legislate are those that affect another adversely, and without their consent. Drug use doesn't necessarily fall under that, though, unless others live there and it is affecting those people. Hmm.

[Autumn Dusk]

As arc cat pointed out consent of the other person has a lot to do with where we should legally draw the line.

The problem with legally drawing the line is the social stigma created towards persons when neither is a clearly defined victim. Should someone who is drunk in their own basement goofing at a party with their friends face the same kind of social reprimand as a murderer or a rapist?

[dustthouart]

I've always disliked the phrase "legislate morality"--as if anyone could! You can't [i]make[/i] someone be moral, because a decision made under duress isn't moral at all. Morality has to come from within a person, something a person chooses freely.

Government, to my understanding, should make laws not only based on immediate but also subsequent consequences. Some acts, like a heroin user shooting up, do not harm anyone else immediately. However, I think people can recognize the harm that comes from drug use to society--loss of economic value because the addict cannot work, violence committed under intoxication, using up health care resources, etc. You don't even need to enter into the fact that drug use is morally wrong, to argue that it should be illegal.

I think this kind of argument can be extended to many other "moral" issues of law, such as same-sex marriage. At first glance it doesn't harm anyone. But what is the overall affect on society?

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, fornication could be deemed illegal, and use of contraceptives. masturbation. etc

a kid calling his brother stupid
or list any sin.

these are not far fetched but states have indeed done them.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1483033' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:18 AM']Off the top of my head, it seems the ones that seem the most logical to legislate are those that affect another adversely, and without their consent. Drug use doesn't necessarily fall under that, though, unless others live there and it is affecting those people. Hmm.[/quote]

This is the problem, there are certainly many things that are immoral that involve 2 consenting adults (or 1). How about selling drugs? 2 consenting adults. Prostitution? Euthanasia?

To Dustthouart; I agree with you 100%. Morality is independent of government. Legislating morality just means should we put morality into the law, and how much of it?

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483019' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:02 AM']Today in class we were discussing a Texas law that banned homosexual acts that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The basic question is should we make immoral things illegal, and how far should we go? Here some scenarios; these are all immoral, should they be illegal?

Murder (seem obvious)?
Stealing?
Sex with minors?
Polygamy?
Homosexual acts?
'Private' Drug use in ones home?
Getting drunk in your own home?
Divorce?
Lying?
It seems there needs to be a line here somewhere; I guess the real question is where to draw that line and why?[/quote]
That tired "you can't legislate morality" line constantly used by liberals is pure bunkum.

All law by its very nature "legislates morality," i.e. enforces someone's standards of right and wrong on the public.
Even the principle that one's actions must not harm another person is a moral principle.

As I've said many times before, the only logically consistant conclusion to the idea that law can in no way legislate morality, or of absolute "freedom of choice" is absolute anarchy.
Yet most liberals are follow this through consistantly. In fact, your average liberal has absolutely problem with the law or government restricting what a person does with his property or money, what weapons he can choose to purchase, or even what he can eat and drink - yet any restrictions whatsoever on killing an unborn baby are shrilly denounced as contradicting some sacred "right to choose."

While law can't "make" anybody moral, it can impose punishments against acts which adversely effect the public. The question is whose "morality" is behind the laws, and how far the law should go.

As for the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas sodomy law, that is another prime example of unconstitutional federal judicial tyranny.
The federal government has absolutely no right to rule one way or the other on state sodomy laws. That power belongs to the states and the people respectively, as defined in the [b]10th Amendment fo the Constitution[/b]:
"[b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/b]"

Whether you agree or disagree with Texas' sodomy laws, whether to keep or change them is a power delegated to the state of Texas and its people, [b]not[/b] to the U.S. federal government.
The 10th Amendment has effectively been trashed by liberal activist judges, who wish to impose their own secularist leftist "morality" on everybody - Constitutional limits be damned.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Socrates

[rkwright]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1483469' date='Mar 24 2008, 09:34 PM']While law can't "make" anybody moral, it can impose punishments against acts which adversely effect the public. The question is whose "morality" is behind the laws, and how far the law should go.[/quote]

Well... for once I agree you with you 100%. But this is the key line, how far should they go?

Should divorce be outlawed since its immoral? Why or why not?

Some people have said we should only outlaw things that effect the public. Yet this leaves a lot of grey area; for starters nearly anything can be linked to the public somehow.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483572' date='Mar 25 2008, 12:50 AM']Well... for once I agree you with you 100%. But this is the key line, how far should they go?

Should divorce be outlawed since its immoral? Why or why not?

Some people have said we should only outlaw things that effect the public. Yet this leaves a lot of grey area; for starters nearly anything can be linked to the public somehow.[/quote]

Sounds like you need to read this book. Excellent book that answers all the questions you have in a very logical manner.

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41JRTAYHDTL._SS260_.jpg[/img]

[u]Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible?[/u]

Law goes beyond matters that just affect the public. One criteria is if the behavior has an adverse to cost to the "common good." This can include personal behavior. [url="http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/compare/isbn/1592441521"]Give the book a read[/url].

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483206' date='Mar 24 2008, 09:42 PM']This is the problem, there are certainly many things that are immoral that involve 2 consenting adults (or 1). How about selling drugs? 2 consenting adults. Prostitution? Euthanasia?

To Dustthouart; I agree with you 100%. Morality is independent of government. Legislating morality just means should we put morality into the law, and how much of it?[/quote]
I agree that that's where it gets hairy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1483469' date='Mar 24 2008, 09:34 PM']QUOTE(Socrates @ Mar 24 2008, 09:34 PM) *
While law can't "make" anybody moral, it can impose punishments against acts which adversely effect the public. The question is whose "morality" is behind the laws, and how far the law should go.[/quote]

I would agree with this statement.
I am curious to see soc write it, cause he's not shown any deferrence to allow people to fornicate, if they want, or to masturbate etc.

cause, while it's true that it's a tired phrase "you can't legislate morality", i think it's an even more tired phrase to say that because all laws are based on morality, htat we can legislate however we want. obviously, when people say "you can't legislate mrality" they are saying "as long as it's not hurting anyone, generally lay off". een if the people can't argue their point, or realize what they are saying.... to simply call it a tired phrase misses the point.

even if sodomy could be banned... that doesn't translate into us being able to legislate however we want. there are are fundamental rights to do what you want on your property genrelaly etc etc. even the framers would say you can't legislate whatever you want. and would give much deference to the idea that hurting others is the most paramount thing that should be regualted. and they'd agree with "generally lay off".

obviously saying "can't" instead of "gnerealy can't regulate morliaty" they are also being too simplistic, but that's just hte nautre of people. again, don't miss the point just because they speak carelessly/ignorantly when their main point has a lot of validity to it.
not that soc is, as he acknowleged it's just a matter of who does it etc, hte legislating.... but it'd be good and abalanced to say that the phrase has a lot of fundamental merit to it even if flawed in some pretty fundamental ways. cause it's mostly flawed as a techincality more than the substance of what is intended to be conveyed "generally lay off".

also, if you look at what's intended to be conveyed... "you can legislate morality" is more flawed than "you can't legislate morality". techically, of course, all laws are based on morality, but that is missing the main point.
the only true to the substance statement is "you can legislate some morality, other morality you can't legislate." a lotta help that does, but.

also, on that point specifically, things like sodomy... i used to thikn was judicial lawmaking, but since the 14th amendment was pass, establishing clearly fundamental rights and equal protection... i'm not so sure what was done early in our country should guide what is done since the passage of the 14th. i'd argue in fact what o'conner argued... that it'd be most consistent ot say... if you ban homosexual sodomy, you also have to ban heterosexual sodomy etc, to comply with equal protection. i wouldn't argue fundamental rights so much given that it was banned in most states at the beginning of our country but it is worth considering as a fundamental right since the 14th was later in time.

Edited March 25, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

people saying private sodomy hurts us all are simply trying to find a way to rationlize their preconceived position that sodomy should be banned.
or fornication, masturbation etc etc

the effects are too remote... and also to use that reasoning would allow you to start banning anything private related.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1483469' date='Mar 24 2008, 11:34 PM']While law can't "make" anybody moral, it can impose punishments against acts which adversely effect the public. The question is whose "morality" is behind the laws, and how far the law should go.

As for the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas sodomy law, that is another prime example of unconstitutional federal judicial tyranny.
The federal government has absolutely no right to rule one way or the other on state sodomy laws. That power belongs to the states and the people respectively, as defined in the [b]10th Amendment fo the Constitution[/b]:
"[b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/b]"

Whether you agree or disagree with Texas' sodomy laws, whether to keep or change them is a power delegated to the state of Texas and its people, [b]not[/b] to the U.S. federal government.
The 10th Amendment has effectively been trashed by liberal activist judges, who wish to impose their own secularist leftist "morality" on everybody - Constitutional limits be damned.[/quote]

I generally agree with you, Soc, especially the question of whose "morality" is behind the laws we pass and follow; however, I would put forth that most people would say that the state law banning sodomy violates the reasonable right to privacy that we all expect. My mother always told me that whatever happens in someone else's bedroom between 2 consenting adults is not the business of any government, federal, state or otherwise

[quote name='rkwright' post='1483572' date='Mar 25 2008, 01:50 AM']Well... for once I agree you with you 100%. But this is the key line, how far should they go?

Should divorce be outlawed since its immoral? Why or why not?[/quote]

Again, I think it's a balancing act between encouraging and enforcing moral behavior.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1483696' date='Mar 25 2008, 12:36 PM']people saying private sodomy hurts us all are simply trying to find a way to rationlize their preconceived position that sodomy should be banned.
or fornication, masturbation etc etc

the effects are too remote... and also to use that reasoning would allow you to start banning anything private related.[/quote]

Agreed. I think we should all worry more about tending to our own affairs instead of the inequities of others, and if we were less preoccupied with the morality of society and more concerned with encouraging the morality of our children, our country would be better off.

[kujo]

Our mission, as Catholics, is to be the salt of the earth and light of the world. On a private, personal level, we should be emissaries of Christ's Church at all times; however, we must recognize that we cannot expect everyone (including the governments of our states and our country) to agree with us. Only through intense prayer and mass conversion will these changes in attitudes change. Yet, the beauty of our country is that we have the true freedom of will and mind that God intended us to have.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]freedom of will and mind that God intended us to have.[/quote]

amen.
which is the tragedy of all those who want to ban sodomy, fornication, masturbation, anything sinful etc etc.

i'd also add freedom of action, not to split hairs but just stressing.