Originally posted by: mjrpes3
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Addressing the saying, "Government should not legislate morality":
If a government did not govern and form laws based on morality, we'd all be living in a state of anarchy. If you break it down, all laws are based on morality. Why are laws put into place? Generally to protect someone from 'getting harmed'. That's a moral judgment. Murder and stealing are illegal? Why? Because they're considered "wrong and harmful".
Saying, "The government shouldn't legislate morality." is just another cliche that people like to use in an attempt to oversimplify a complex issue or situation. Laws are based on morality and each law should require thought and debate before it is created or abolished.
Morality is a complex idea. In its general sense, yes, all laws are based on morality, since all laws are designed to, in some way, conduct and regulate human behavior. So you are correct.
However, when someone says "government should not legislate morality," in the way it is being used in this thread and specifically with the issue of incest, they aren't really talking about morality in its general sense. They are talking about certain moral attitudes that have a certain bearing on society. These are limited to moral beliefs that, if made into law, regulate human behavior but have no immediate effect on society. These could be call "intrapersonal" laws (I'm sure there's a better word for it), laws that only affect individuals (or consenting groups), versus "interpersonal" laws that immediately affect all of society.
Interpersonal laws including laws against murder, raping, theft, and going well over the speed limit. We have these laws so that people will not do things that could harm us or others, and that, as a whole, allow us to live in a peaceful society and not anarchy. Intrapersonal laws, the ones that make people cry that government shouldn't legislate morality, include laws against homosexuality, marijuana, abortion, listening to satanic music, watching porn, lots of things sexual, and even incest between consenting adults (if we leave it that there won't be offspring). These laws only affect the groups and individuals that engage in the acts that are being prohibited, and do not affect society as a whole.
The idea of incest to me is icky and creepy, so there's no issue about where I stand with it as an idea. But as for a law prohibiting it, what benefit is there to me and society by doing so? Is there some fear that if we allow it, people will be without a guide in their life and eventually society will be in ruins because our moral compass will have gone off kilter? I don't think this is likely. And by doing so, is it worth the downside of denying certain individuals a certain personal form of happiness and pleasure, even though we are disgusted by the idea?
Personally, the idea of incest is disgusting enough that, although I wouldn't be for a law prohibiting it, I'm not that vocal about a law de-prohibiting it.
Originally posted by: Zebo
One small point on abortion. There is no middle ground because of the fact we believe that the unborn are fully human persons. For the pro-lifer, an unborn child is no less a human person than you.... Pro-choicers ought to put at least some effort into understanding that position.
Think about it...If you believed that a class of innocent persons, say blacks, were being murdered wouldn't you be perplexed if someone tried to ease your outrage by telling you that you didn't have to participate in the murders if you didn't want to? After all it's "Intrapersonal "? "Don't like slavery? Don't own one" Intrapersonal .
Originally posted by: fisher
so a man can have sex with another man... but not with his sister? what a twisted world we live in!
Originally posted by: trmiv
I don't get why this is illegal. Yes it's gross, wrong, and a genetic problem, but it seems a strange thing for cops to have to enforce. Isn't there something better cops could be doing with their time than busting people for doing their siblings?
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
So how many ATOTers fooled around with their siblings while growing up? Is incest really best?
<--- Only child!
I have six brothers and two sisters.
now you are using my example of slavery to show that some laws can never be justified on "moral grounds"?Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: mjrpes3
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Addressing the saying, "Government should not legislate morality":
If a government did not govern and form laws based on morality, we'd all be living in a state of anarchy. If you break it down, all laws are based on morality. Why are laws put into place? Generally to protect someone from 'getting harmed'. That's a moral judgment. Murder and stealing are illegal? Why? Because they're considered "wrong and harmful".
Saying, "The government shouldn't legislate morality." is just another cliche that people like to use in an attempt to oversimplify a complex issue or situation. Laws are based on morality and each law should require thought and debate before it is created or abolished.
Morality is a complex idea. In its general sense, yes, all laws are based on morality, since all laws are designed to, in some way, conduct and regulate human behavior. So you are correct.
However, when someone says "government should not legislate morality," in the way it is being used in this thread and specifically with the issue of incest, they aren't really talking about morality in its general sense. They are talking about certain moral attitudes that have a certain bearing on society. These are limited to moral beliefs that, if made into law, regulate human behavior but have no immediate effect on society. These could be call "intrapersonal" laws (I'm sure there's a better word for it), laws that only affect individuals (or consenting groups), versus "interpersonal" laws that immediately affect all of society.
Interpersonal laws including laws against murder, raping, theft, and going well over the speed limit. We have these laws so that people will not do things that could harm us or others, and that, as a whole, allow us to live in a peaceful society and not anarchy. Intrapersonal laws, the ones that make people cry that government shouldn't legislate morality, include laws against homosexuality, marijuana, abortion, listening to satanic music, watching porn, lots of things sexual, and even incest between consenting adults (if we leave it that there won't be offspring). These laws only affect the groups and individuals that engage in the acts that are being prohibited, and do not affect society as a whole.
The idea of incest to me is icky and creepy, so there's no issue about where I stand with it as an idea. But as for a law prohibiting it, what benefit is there to me and society by doing so? Is there some fear that if we allow it, people will be without a guide in their life and eventually society will be in ruins because our moral compass will have gone off kilter? I don't think this is likely. And by doing so, is it worth the downside of denying certain individuals a certain personal form of happiness and pleasure, even though we are disgusted by the idea?
Personally, the idea of incest is disgusting enough that, although I wouldn't be for a law prohibiting it, I'm not that vocal about a law de-prohibiting it.
^^^High I.Q.
One small point on abortion. There is no middle ground because of the fact we believe that the unborn are fully human persons. For the pro-lifer, an unborn child is no less a human person than you.... Pro-choicers ought to put at least some effort into understanding that position.
Think about it...If you believed that a class of innocent persons, say blacks, were being murdered wouldn't you be perplexed if someone tried to ease your outrage by telling you that you didn't have to participate in the murders if you didn't want to? After all it's "Intrapersonal "? "Don't like slavery? Don't own one" Intrapersonal .
Every meaningful society in existence treats it as icky, even those that are not connected. It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc. all societies have legal or cultural rules against it.Why is incest "icky"? IF you believe the Bible, the human race is a product of the incestiouis relationship of Adam and Eve's children and Noah's grand children . . evedently all with your god's "approval".
Originally posted by: Zebo
Them are some ugly ass quotes above.
Illin, You're mumbo jumbo does'nt convince me. Every law we have has a moral basis for implementation.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every meaningful society in existence treats it as icky, even those that are not connected. It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc. all societies have legal or cultural rules against it.Why is incest "icky"? IF you believe the Bible, the human race is a product of the incestiouis relationship of Adam and Eve's children and Noah's grand children . . evedently all with your god's "approval".
In any case, as long as we could somehow ensure children were not created, it's ridiculous for the government to institute a law prohibiting two consenting, lucid individuals from doing something that does not affect anybody else.
I never equated it with incest or murder. They are examples of other moral abominations, and I can't think of any societies now that condone incest, can you?Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every meaningful society in existence treats it as icky, even those that are not connected. It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc. all societies have legal or cultural rules against it.Why is incest "icky"? IF you believe the Bible, the human race is a product of the incestiouis relationship of Adam and Eve's children and Noah's grand children . . evedently all with your god's "approval".
In any case, as long as we could somehow ensure children were not created, it's ridiculous for the government to institute a law prohibiting two consenting, lucid individuals from doing something that does not affect anybody else.
"every meaningful society"?
What about widely practiced incest of the past? including the Ancient Hebrews? including bible examples of "god-approved" incest in "supreme moral codes"?
Do NOT equate incest with rape and murder
If I'm not mistaken Alabama has laws against sex toys. Pathetic intrusion on people's lives.Many states still have antisodomy laws on the books, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alabama was one of them.
Well, show me the way
To the next whiskey bar
Oh, don?t ask why
Oh, don?t ask why
Show me the way
To the next whiskey bar
Oh, don?t ask why
Oh, don?t ask why
For if we don?t find
The next whiskey bar
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you, I tell you I tell you we must die
Oh, moon of alabama
We now must say goodbye
We?ve lost our good old mama
And must have whiskey, oh, you know why
Oh, moon of alabama
We now must say goodbye
We?ve lost our good old mama
And must have whiskey, oh, you know why
Well, show me the way
To the next little girl
Oh, don?t ask why
Oh, don?t ask why
Show me the way
To the next little girl
Oh, don?t ask why oh, don?t ask why
For if we don?t find
The next little girl
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you, I tell you I tell you we must die
Oh, moon of alabama
We now must say goodbye
We?ve lost our good old mama
And must have whiskey, oh, you know why
put your sister to the test. (actually true in this case! haha)Originally posted by: CRXican
Incest is Best
then what does this mean?: "It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc."Originally posted by: Skoorb
I never equated it with incest or murder. They are examples of other moral abominations, and I can't think of any societies now that condone incest, can you?Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Every meaningful society in existence treats it as icky, even those that are not connected. It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc. all societies have legal or cultural rules against it.Why is incest "icky"? IF you believe the Bible, the human race is a product of the incestiouis relationship of Adam and Eve's children and Noah's grand children . . evedently all with your god's "approval".
In any case, as long as we could somehow ensure children were not created, it's ridiculous for the government to institute a law prohibiting two consenting, lucid individuals from doing something that does not affect anybody else.
"every meaningful society"?
What about widely practiced incest of the past? including the Ancient Hebrews? including bible examples of "god-approved" incest in "supreme moral codes"?
Do NOT equate incest with rape and murderIf I'm not mistaken Alabama has laws against sex toys. Pathetic intrusion on people's lives.Many states still have antisodomy laws on the books, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alabama was one of them.
OK, yeah I am considering it a moral abomination like them, but it's not as bad as rape or murder, but it is by 99% of people's standards a moral abomination.then what does this mean?: "It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc."
and you are still classing incest in with rape and murder - "other moral abominations"
condone/allow, basically the same thing in this context. Our society should allow it, but obviously not encourage it.modern societies that"condone incest"? . . . you mean "allow incest" . . . probably more than you imagine.
Societies not under the influence of christianity have a great number of moral similarities between christian ones. There are natural, common sense moral guidelines that the majority of humans naturally tend towards, even if they don't all necessarily follow them (we all know murder is bad, but sometimes we do it).And the Bible - the "supreme moral code" - clearly gives examples of "god approved" incest
Originally posted by: Skoorb
OK, yeah I am considering it a moral abomination like them, but it's not as bad as rape or murder, but it is by 99% of people's standards a moral abomination.then what does this mean?: "It's just one of those supreme moral codes that most people adhere to. Another would be rape, murder, etc."
and you are still classing incest in with rape and murder - "other moral abominations"condone/allow, basically the same thing in this context. Our society should allow it, but obviously not encourage it.modern societies that"condone incest"? . . . you mean "allow incest" . . . probably more than you imagine.Societies not under the influence of christianity have a great number of moral similarities between christian ones. There are natural, common sense moral guidelines that the majority of humans naturally tend towards, even if they don't all necessarily follow them (we all know murder is bad, but sometimes we do it).And the Bible - the "supreme moral code" - clearly gives examples of "god approved" incest
Like I said, we should not have laws against what consenting, lucid adults do with one anotherMany of these same societies persecute and even execute gays as "abominations".
Just my opinion but I think most come from societies that pre-date the bible. Whether they have some basis in what effects they may have had on an ancient society I don't know. I doubt they are just completely thought based though.Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: Zebo
Them are some ugly ass quotes above.
Illin, You're mumbo jumbo does'nt convince me. Every law we have has a moral basis for implementation.
Where did the moral basis for law ultimately come from? Did it come from a bunch of individuals saying "these things make sense for our culture" or did they come from a bunch of people saying "gross, murder is wrong".