Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Easy question.
From MY perspective, morality is objective and defined scripturally. And we all fall short of the ideal.
Don't steal (not 'don't get caught'); don't murder; don't lie about others; don't get drunk (NOT 'dont't drink'); refrain from excess, keep to moderation in eating, drinking, etc.
The hardest part of freedom for most people seems to be allowing other people to do things that may be disgusting but that have no actual affect on them. How does any kind of sex between two consenting adults harm you? You might have all kinds of wierd sex going on right next door, but as long as they keep it private, you never know. And if you never know, that pretty much eliminates the idea that you are being harmed or wronged by their sex.
I think that gambling money is immoral, I don't do it, and the government should NEVER do it. But You will never find me saying that the the government should stop poker parties on private homes or clubs. Public gambling is another issue, as is public drinking.
Not by those who adocate libertarianism. It is unbalanced by those who hate it and misrepresent it. It is also unbalanced by the wackos who simply assume the label because they equate liberty with license.
Just go to the basic premises of not defrauding another or not initiating force or coersion against another. At that point, laws are in effect to define unacceptable behavior in those realms, since far too many cannot restrain themselves, and to provide a mechanism for punishment.
Contrary to what is represented, libertariansim works only for those responsible, mature and self disciplined enough not to harm others and to respect that others may do things that we don't like.
Just beacuse I don't gamble money doesn't mean I feel compelled to stop you from doing it even though you may throw away your life savings, may jeopardize your home and family and entire way of life. If, as a concerned friend, I see you doing anything that is harming you, I have an obligation to warn you, but no obligation or power to take away by force the free will that God Himself gave to you.
What is your definition of injured? The family is being torn apart by the agendas of the "hedonists". The so-called "blue laws" of each state, gave that state (the society within) the right to protect itself from what it saw as harmful to the overall community. Sodomy is not JUST an abomination to God. It is so unnatural as to affect the society as a whole. You named a few consequences of "gay" activity. I think you could expand this very easily and quickly see how public these so-called personal sins really are!
To a certain extent.
extra-marital sex,
Yes
group sex [etc.]
Yes
or anything above and beyond sex for the strict purpose of reproduction?
No - anything beyond sex for the strict purpose of creating a bond between a man and a woman for a lifetime. Of course, the concept of "criminalizing" needs some work, but your real question is do I believe society has a vested interest in the proper use and misuse of sex - similar to society's vested interest in the proper use and misuse of pharmaceuticals.
Who gest to define "sexual license",
I don't think anyone "defines" morality. I think we discover it. And I notice that you have completely ignored the issue of the millennia of historical precedent.
and last but not least, how will offending sexual activity be policed?
The same way it always has been - advertise and pay.
Or, don't ask - don't tell.
To emphasize a point you have not yet addressed (or are ignoring), prostitution has been illegal for as long as I have been alive. Yet I have never worried about an officer breaking in and asking me if the woman I was with was a prostitue. Isn't it odd that we have this sex-related crime, and yet it hasn't exploded into a bedroom police? How do you account for that?
Shalom.
It's such an odd question because it has no basis in the discussion at hand.
What two consenting adults (or even non-consenting) do in private is no harm to me whatsoever. And if queers had agreed to keep their sexual aberration to themselves there would be no discussion of the issue.
When they ask society for its blessing on their sexual aberration, and receive it, that degrades the society and every individual within it.
This is a public policy discussion about people's very public declarations about what kind of sex they like.
Shalom.
Of course not. There are all sorts of people who are denied their pursuit of happiness all the time. Of course there are reasonable and unreasonable pursuits of happiness. The idea that people might desire unreasonable pursuits probably never occurred to Jefferson or he might have qualified the phrase.
For example, I don't like cats. I might find it extremely pleasurable to spend my evenings hunting all the felines in my general area. Should I be allowed unqualified pursuit of that happiness?
I suspect (although I doubt you would admit it) that you consider the pursuit of sexual gratification an extremely important part of your life, one which would cause you great dispair to forgo. Unless you are an adolescent such an attitude is a problem. Sex is one aspect of your personality and sexual activity is one part of your life. One of the biggest evidences that queers have a mental illness is they actually define who they are by the sex they like to have. "Normal" people don't do this. In fact, the only time anyone would ever declare themselves to be heterosexual is in response to a challenge that they might be queer.
Shalom.
That is the definition that I say is unbalanced.
Shalom.
I thought not, considering the title of the thread. However, I may have misjudged your position.
I don't think that sex lives have any place in public policy. I'm not even in favor of sex ed outside of biology classes, let alone resrtrooms for his, hers, its, ustabees, wannabees, or undecideds.
What about the rest? Why aren't they against the law?
You missed my point. We have laws against prostitution. Yet we don't have bedroom police breaking into all sorts of bedrooms at all hours trying to ascertain if people are engaged in prostitution. Where does the idea come from that a law against buggery would create such bedroom police?
Shalom.
I'll put that strawman right back at you. Is that what they are asking for?
Shalom.
OK, or illegal? If you go down that road, I have a few instructions for you to follow from now on.
"Do what you want to, so long as it doesn't [apparently] hurt anyone [else] [immediately]."
Maybe you should keep to sex with your spouse only and you wouldn't have to worry about any chance of catching a disease.
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.