[Greg F]

That is the crux of my issue with many of these laws. They do not seem to fit the paradigm you have set up as a rational basis. Its not that they are nebulus, it is that they are totally based on the concept of sin or evil, and not on the harm they cause to society.
______________________________________________

I will disagree with you regarding the same arguments being made to control guns as opposed to outlawing drugs or pornography. From a Christian perspective, intoxication itself is a sin and an evil to be avoided. From a Christian perspective, even looking at pornography, much less producing it is sinful. That is not the case with owning a gun. It is not inherently sinful.

We will disagree if your standard is the greatest good for the greatest number or some such pragmatic and infinitely manipulable rule implied by judging by “harm to society.”

[microgood]

I will disagree with you regarding the same arguments being made to control guns as opposed to outlawing drugs or pornography. From a Christian perspective, intoxication itself is a sin and an evil to be avoided. From a Christian perspective, even looking at pornography, much less producing it is sinful. That is not the case with owning a gun. It is not inherently sinful.

Actually you are making my point. TCQ was stating that social conservatives make laws based on harm of individuals or society and I was disputing that in the sense that many seem to be made based on whether they are evil or sinful, not whether they show a demonstrable harm to society.

And although I agree with many of those points, rules prohibiting behavior based on sin is a matter more for the individual or Church rather than rules that should be enforced by government.

If one is trying to rationalize laws based on the greater good, however, the gun and pornography argument are or can be similar.