I pointed out that is was highly unlikely that those laws were passed by lawmakers that believed that the law was needed for morality's sake. That they were passed simply because you cannot have a society grow and prosper without them.
To wit, she claimed that they were all laws that 'legislate morality.'
My rebuttal was that"they are laws that regulate behavior. and that "Morality is the intentions and decisions a person both holds and makes prior to their actions."
Therefore, as she's shown that behavior and morality are the same thing in her view... I gave an example. I took a shower today. As she's on record with this, she will have to say that my shower is moral or amoral. Or else rethink her line of reasoning.
And then she's got the gall to post to trappedincanuckistan about how he can't win an argument over this issue because she's all that and a box of Pocky sticks.
---
I agree that morality governs behavior in individuals. I find that making laws to enforce morality, however, is a bad idea. It means that government has the right and the power to change what you believe.
And that is appalling to any free man.
You can make up all the nonsense you want about showers and 'pocky sticks,' but it doesn't change the fact that we have always had laws to legislate morality, and the argument against them comes from the hard left.
Freedom is not the same as license, zilla. The arguments you're putting forward aren't about freedom, as understood by the Founders. They're about your wanting your own way, and your definition of morality reflects the reasoning of the age-level that can't think beyond their own personal desires.
Very well said godzilla. I wish I had come up with that answer re behavior and morality. I’m off to grab a green beer. Enjoy your day.