have staked out their positions!
Posted on 03/19/2003 12:48:02 AM PST by RJCogburn
You lie.
Obviously homosexual activity opposes the common good or the common welfare. Well, it used to be obvious, anyway.
Lack of leaving your valuables on the curb invites burglary.
Unlike homosexual activity, aging isn't willed and, therefore, cannot be immoral.
Aquinas didn't advocate bearing false witness.
The question isn't whether it is moral to criminalize intrinsically evil acts, the question is whether it is prudent to criminalize particular evil acts.
It isn't moral nor prudent.
Neither can heterosexuals so I'm not sure what your point is.
So then you agree is not about the money, then but about behavior. You are trying to regulate behavior - at least I know where you're coming from
All laws regulate behavior.
I never said it was "immoral". Let try not to argue against position I've never taken, m'kay, it's counter-productive.
I was merely exploring the logical consistancies with the "I'm paying for it, blah, blah, blah . . ." argument.
It would not be immoral to suppress racist speech, but it might be imprudent.
Racist speech is immoral, just as murder is immoral. However, for prudential reasons, we tolerate this evil because we, as a society, judge the cost to society of supressing this evil to be greater than the evil itself.
One cost of this approach, however, is the promulgation of indifferentism throughout society regarding evil speech. "Hey, I can say whatever I want!"
We have a fundamental disagreement on this.
Huh?
The question isn't whether it is moral to criminalize intrinsically evil acts, the question is whether it is prudent to criminalize particular evil acts.
It isn't moral nor prudent.
What? Homosexuality? How can homosexual activity be considered moral? It is obviously an unnatural act, opposed to the natural law and nature's God.
have staked out their positions!
I understood that. Yes, society pays for the needs of both. The difference between these cases is that aging isn't voluntary while homosexuality is.
Ridiculous. If I am more comfortable driving on the left side of the road, shouldn't we regulate my "behavior" because my "behavior" puts myself and others at risk?
OK... Why?
Is there nothing intrinsically evil about racist speech?
If racist speech is evil, then why would it be intrinsically immoral to criminalize it?
You did that, hit your knees.
How can homosexual activity be considered moral?
It is not, which of course wasn't the question. But you knew that, hit your knees.
"The question isn't whether it is moral to criminalize intrinsically evil acts, the question is whether it is prudent to criminalize particular evil acts.
That was the question.
That was the question.
I understand this point, anyway. Now, why would it be imprudent to criminalize sodomy?
Some are legitimate, some are not.
Many reasons, among them;
Consensual sex between adults does not violate the rights of other people.
It is unenforcable and such laws breed contempt for legitimate laws.
The term sodomy and the behavior it describes, are open to interpretation. (Like pornography)
Oral sex with your wife would be defined as sodomy and if you think that it should be criminalized you are on a different level than me.
God will deal with sinners at the judgement, he does not require your puny efforts to deal with it by violence or the threat thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.