So, you have no problems intruding into the private sexual lives of consenting adults? That type of love of government intrusiveness is not a conservative position. In any event, whether you like it or not, the courts of this great nation have ruled that consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever private sexual activity they desire. If you don't like it, you can always move to Iran.
Since a pervert is a member of society, his diminishment directly diminishes society
Seeing as the vast majority of Americans engage or have engaged in some form of sodomy, it seems that those who do not are the perverts.
(society is simply a collection of individuals, the welfare of which is more important than the welfare of a single individual)
Thank you, Chairman Mao. The inalienable rights of the individual trump the welfare of society.
Certainly, single people aren't obligated to procreate, since fornication is an evil.
No, it isn't. Enforcing outdated notions of morality on unwilling adults is evil. But thank you for bringing us a dash of the 12th century. Maybe stonings for fornicators would be something you support?
But married people are obligated to procreate, within reason.
Would you sanction enforcing this at gunpoint? Because, at the end of the day, that is what laws do. How many children should each married couple be forced to have, in your theocratic regime?
Damn Ten Commandments! Adultery is cool... todays thing... happening... right? Hey, the impeached ex-president Bill did it. Moral notions against must be outdated!
What an idiot... There is no morality in your world because it's always open to change based on human desire. The Ten Commandments are from God, not man. You have a lot of Christians and Jews to argue with if you don't think so.
Did I say that?
Since a pervert is a member of society, his diminishment directly diminishes society
Seeing as the vast majority of Americans engage or have engaged in some form of sodomy,
So you judge the morality of particular actions by whether or not the majority of people engage in them?
... it seems that those who do not are the perverts.
So people who use their bodies according to their natural functions are "perverts"? Your reasoning is confused, to say the least.
per·vert ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrt) tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts(society is simply a collection of individuals, the welfare of which is more important than the welfare of a single individual) Thank you, Chairman Mao. The inalienable rights of the individual trump the welfare of society.1) To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2) To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.
Then why do we send people to die in war? Because the good of the society comes before the good of the individual.
The preamble to the Constitution reads as follows (the preamble states the purpose of the document):
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The "general welfare" is another term for the "common good."
Certainly, single people aren't obligated to procreate, since fornication is an evil.
No, it isn't.
And you know this how? Tell it to children of single mothers.
Enforcing outdated notions of morality on unwilling adults is evil.
Is morality time dependent? How do you know that your assertion isn't "outdated?" In fact, your moralizing is evil. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." You're indifferent to the people harmed by fornication and the children created by these liaisons.
But thank you for bringing us a dash of the 12th century.
You're welcome.
Maybe stonings for fornicators would be something you support?
Why would you think that?
But married people are obligated to procreate, within reason.
Would you sanction enforcing this at gunpoint?
No. It would be imprudent.
Because, at the end of the day, that is what laws do.
Thank you for enlightening me.
How many children should each married couple be forced to have, in your theocratic regime?
Do you understand the difference between immorality and criminality? Not everything that is immoral should be criminalized, as I said before. Since you keep ignoring this distinction, I'll say it again. Not everything that is immoral should be criminalized. Why? Because the vice caused by criminalization can exceed the orignal vice.
The conjugal act has two purposes, procreation and the union of husband and wife. Absolutely considered, every act of intercourse between a husband and wife should be open to life. Use of withdrawal or artificial birth control is a perversion of the natural use of the body, and is an evil. However, intelligent use of the body's natural fertility cycle is permissible for the regulation of birth, for grave reasons. For example, if the potential birth of a child could be reasonably forseen to present such a hardship that the couple's relationship could be destroyed, then couples are permitted to regulate birth by using natural means. However, the couple should be careful to avoid adopting a "contraceptive mentality."
Now, again, should this be made a matter of law? Obviously not, since more problems would be created by policing something like this than otherwise.
Preventing sodomites from legally marrying, OTOH, is a no brainer. There is no downside.