Replies

You'll never convince me that you want the laws on murder and child molestation removed, so your 'legislating morality' bunk falls flat on its immoral face.

When you get down to it, laws determine the set of offenses that you are willing to kill over, that you are willing to use men with guns to prevent.

I am willing to kill in order to prevent my loved ones from being murdered. I am willing to kill in order to not have my children be molested. I am not willing to kill in order to stop somebody from looking at some woman's breasts.

Wow. That's an odd definition of laws.

I don't think you picked that pov up from the Federalist Papers or the Constitution, but what the hey? You believe what you believe, and that's what drives your very strange perspective on right and wrong.

Nothing absolute. Nothing Judeo-Christian. Nothing the Founders said. Just what you FEEL like you are willing to do.

At least I know now where you're coming from, PapaBear. It's weird, but now your posts make more sense.

I am not willing to kill in order to stop somebody from looking at some woman's breasts.

But breasts are a marxist plot! Haven't you learned that by reading this thread by now? In the name of freedom, liberty and the American way we need to censor and regulate the internet to prevent citizens from seeing boobs. You know, kinda like the actual communist countries do now. I'm sure you'll agree that Santorum will know what is best for us, what qualifies as "obscene" and "hardcore" and what doesn't. We can all count on Rick to know what amount skin one can view online without suffering eternal damnation!

I have a belated response to those who were mocking my 'our laws have always been about legislating morality' position, and the response that I was 'clueless' about the difference between protecting against violence and some sort of Puritanical morality about 'behavior'....

Three examples come to mind -

Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not 'legislating morality?' Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless 'moralists' who want a 'nanny state?'

Laws against polygamy (when it is non-violent and consensual). Should those laws be removed as they are 'moralist' and promoting a 'nanny state?'

Laws against homosexual marriage. Should those laws be eliminated as 'legislating morality' and promoting a 'nanny state?'

How far does your desire to protect pornography go? How far does your desire for license and not liberty take you? (Be careful with the third question, as this is still a conservative website, the presence of so many libertines, notwithstanding).

Thanks for any well-reasoned response to questions on those three kinds of laws which clearly, and unambiguously 'legislate morality.'