Martin Luther King Day

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]And that is the whole point of separation of Church and State - to help stop people from introducing constitution clauses that force their ideas of morality on others.

Name one law that is devoid of morality. Name anything in the Constitution that is devoid of morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
.
When you refer to 'fighting for morals' do you mean for example that you would want to introduce laws that ban behavior you believe to be immoral?[/b]

Yes.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Are you really as rude and condescending as you pretend to be, or is that just an act? You don't really help your argument by acting like an a**hole.

Funny how those who lecture others on manners have no problems breaking out the insults themselves. 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
Name anything in the Constitution that is devoid of morality.

The Three-fifths Compromise.

Originally posted by darthmix
If you can't justify your beliefs without invoking your religion, then you have absolutely no business trying to legislate those beliefs. Simple as that.

This is a point I would like to tackle. Namely, are my reasons for my beliefs soley because it is in the Bible? The answer to this is no. For example, where is abortion written about in the Bible? The answer is no where that I am aware of yet those on the Christian right oppose it dogmatically. Why? Is it merely a "religous issue"? I would say no. It is a question of science and general human compassion. Is the unborn a human being? I would say it is and should be treated as such. Unfortunatly, the unborn have no voice as the late Martin Luther King. Make no mistake, had Dr. King had no voice as the unborn do today, the US would not have moved to endorse civil rights in the way they ended up doing.

I think the problem is that the unborn should be viewed as an asset instead of a liability. Really if we lived a couple of hundred years ago, having children would be viewed as a vital means for survival. Who is going to help harvest the crops and who is going to help with the household chores etc. Today, however, we view children as an economic liability. No longer are they vital for our economic survival, rather, they can become an even greater economic liability once they reach college age and need untold amounts of money for higher education. Unfortunatly man far to often equates human worth in financial terms. This happened with the slaves back in the 1800's. They were needed for financial viablity so it behooved them to dehumanize them and refer to them as monkeys so that they could morally justify exploiting them. This is because it is innately morally reprehensible to not do unto others as they would do unto you. To mistreat your equal is innately viewed as "wrong", therefore, one must then go about putting themselves upon a pedistle in order to justify such mistreatment by either elevating themselves and/or trashing their opponents. They might even call you stupid and ignorant in order to achieve this percieved superiority. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Name one law that is devoid of morality.

In South Carolina, people convicted of having engaged in homosexual acts with a consenting adult are required to register with the county as sex offenders. Additionally, the law provides for them to be incarcerated for 10 years if the act occurs in a private home sufficiently near a day care facility.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/south_carolina.htm

http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c015.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Three-fifths Compromise.

The Three-Fifths compromise was reached because the Southern states wanted the slaves counted as the general population which, in turn, bolstered their political sway in Congress and the Northerners did not want the counted at all. Therefore, a compromise was reached to try and make both sides happy. It seems to me that the morality in question was keeping the peace. Was keeping the peace a greater priority than addressing the morality of the slave situation? I think Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying that the most important job he had was to keep the peace. I think he would have gladly let slavery continue if it ment avoiding a Civil War and the hundreds of thousands of people that would die as a consequence. Was this the correct moral stance? You tell me?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In South Carolina, people convicted of having engaged in homosexual acts with a consenting adult are required to register with the county as sex offenders. Additionally, the law provides for them to be incarcerated for 10 years if the act occurs in a private home sufficiently near a day care facility.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/south_carolina.htm

http://www.scstatehouse.net/CODE/t16c015.htm

These laws were introduced with the moral stance that homosexual relations were morally "wrong". Why else would they have made these laws in the first place? Are you suggesting that these laws were made devoid of morality? I am looking for laws that are devoid of morality but have, as yet, not been provided with any.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you suggesting that these laws were made devoid of morality?

Yes.

Originally posted by whodey
I think he would have gladly let slavery continue if it ment avoiding a Civil War and the hundreds of thousands of people that would die as a consequence.. Was this the correct moral stance?

No.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes.

How so?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the morality was "correct", rather, I am merely pointing out that morality played a role. I would agree that ending the slavery issue should have played a greater emphasis in terms of legislation.

Originally posted by whodey
These laws were introduced with the moral stance that homosexual relations were morally "wrong". Why else would they have made these laws in the first place? Are you suggesting that these laws were made devoid of morality? I am looking for laws that are devoid of morality but have, as yet, not been provided with any.

I would suggest that homosexuality is biblically wrong, but not morally so. Any law to ban homosexuality would thus be morally bankrupt.

Originally posted by whodey
How so?

Come on, don't be naive.

Do you really believe that

1) the South Carolinian aristocrat and good ol' boy legislators sat around deliberating about what laws could be enacted in order to minimize people's suffering and enforce societal regulations that rational people would consent to; and
2) out of such deliberation sprang the idea that consensual homosexuality ought to be criminalized


Don't you think it's really more likely that the law came to be out of tradition coupled with bigotry?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't you think it's really more likely that the law came to be out of tradition coupled with bigotry?[/b]

Maybe, but do you really think that tradition and bigotry are devoid of morality?