Anything Forums

Bookworm wrote: So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

This is an issue, and the way our founding fathers got past this is that they realized government is most effiecient when centralized yet localized. You break laws into their least common denominator. You start basic laws, laws that the nation is based on, these are applied across the whole system via federal government. The next division is state, they make laws the whole state is based on, then the next division, which typically becomes city. The people may not want gay marriage, and I happen to think it's their right not to have it, whatever, but they do not have the right to make it federal law, those are reserved for certain areas. I mean, come on, what else are state governments going to do, they need work! More jobs for everyone, yay!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19683

MrSelf wrote:

Bookworm wrote: So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

This is an issue, and the way our founding fathers got past this is that they realized government is most effiecient when centralized yet localized. You break laws into their least common denominator. You start basic laws, laws that the nation is based on, these are applied across the whole system via federal government. The next division is state, they make laws the whole state is based on, then the next division, which typically becomes city. The people may not want gay marriage, and I happen to think it's their right not to have it, whatever, but they do not have the right to make it federal law, those are reserved for certain areas. I mean, come on, what else are state governments going to do, they need work! More jobs for everyone, yay!

But because states normally recognize other state's marriages, it makes sense to have a federal consensus on the matter.

And Shenbaw, I don't think I will ever be in favor of legalizing gay marriages.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19690

Bookworm wrote: I do catch the point you are making, but I still believe homosexuality is Biblically wrong. As far as the harm it causes marriage, I believe adultery and divorce constitute a greater harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage does. I believe both adultery and divorce are Biblically wrong, but I wouldn't introduce laws to ban them.

shenbaw wrote: But you are in support of laws to ban gay marriage? Or?

Bookworm wrote: And Shenbaw, I don't think I will ever be in favor of legalizing gay marriages.

So what is it about gay marriage that makes it more of a "wrong" than adultery or divorce to the point where you are simply unable to tolerate it? You said that adultery and divorce are Biblical wrongs which pose a greater threat to the "institution" of marriage than does gay marriage, yet you would never think of introducing laws to ban them, but you want to ban gay marriage. Why? What part of your reasoning am I missing out on?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19692

shenbaw wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I do catch the point you are making, but I still believe homosexuality is Biblically wrong. As far as the harm it causes marriage, I believe adultery and divorce constitute a greater harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage does. I believe both adultery and divorce are Biblically wrong, but I wouldn't introduce laws to ban them.

shenbaw wrote: But you are in support of laws to ban gay marriage? Or?

Bookworm wrote: And Shenbaw, I don't think I will ever be in favor of legalizing gay marriages.

So what is it about gay marriage that makes it more of a "wrong" than adultery or divorce to the point where you are simply unable to tolerate it? You said that adultery and divorce are Biblical wrongs which pose a greater threat to the "institution" of marriage than does gay marriage, yet you would never think of introducing laws to ban them, but you want to ban gay marriage. Why? What part of your reasoning am I missing out on?

Adultery and divorce are already so much a part of our culture that laws against them would never be supported by the majority of Americans. Gay marriage is not a part of our culture, and in fact, the majority of Americans do not support it. I am just one of the majority on this issue.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19693

Bookworm wrote:

shenbaw wrote: So what is it about gay marriage that makes it more of a "wrong" than adultery or divorce to the point where you are simply unable to tolerate it? You said that adultery and divorce are Biblical wrongs which pose a greater threat to the "institution" of marriage than does gay marriage, yet you would never think of introducing laws to ban them, but you want to ban gay marriage. Why? What part of your reasoning am I missing out on?

Adultery and divorce are already so much a part of our culture that laws against them would never be supported by the majority of Americans. Gay marriage is not a part of our culture, and in fact, the majority of Americans do not support it. I am just one of the majority on this issue.

But you can't come up with any other reason for being opposed to it (as compared to divorce or adultery), other than it's not currently acceptable in our culture?

And that doesn't bother you?

So just to clarify, you are basically giving an affirmative response the question you posed earlier of...

So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

So again, just to clarify and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that the simple fact that a majority of the people in a country support a particular law, makes that law right or make it "make sense." Is that what you are saying?

Well, if that is what you are saying Bookworm, I'll just say right now, in case you hadn't already guessed,

"I whole-heartedly disagree with you."

Oh and just for the record, I don't think we've ever had an official Nationwide vote on how people feel about the issue of gay marriage, but you can go on pretending that we have.

But because states normally recognize other state's marriages, it makes sense to have a federal consensus on the matter.

States have never, in the history of this country, been compelled to acknowledge or recognize another state's marriage. A Federal Law or Constitutional Ammendment is not where this issue should be confronted. It should be dealt with at the state level.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19695

Individual people have their own set of personal values. That's a given. People are going to vote for legislators and support laws that most closely reflect their personal values. Is there anything wrong with that? At least in this case, the majority of people have the same values as I have, so of course I don't have a problem with it.

I'm just totally shocked to find out now that you disagree with me.

And I never said that states are compelled to recognize another state's marriage, but the fact remains that they do. Are you saying it would be acceptable to have a situation where someone gets married in Kansas, but if they decide to move to Ohio, they wouldn't be legally recognized anymore?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19705

You guys are great. I'm sorry if I haven't told you that latley.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19716

0 wrote:

You guys are great. I'm sorry if I haven't told you that latley.

Yeah, I'm pretty much thinking that. Stasi says I need to grow up, but...I really don't understand what I have to make these people pay attention to what I say. Guess I'll have to go to each of their house and scream my opinion in their ear before they get me point.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19717

Bookworm wrote: So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

*checks watch to see how long it takes someone to tell me that one law is about harm and the other one isn't*

I'm going to ignore that last sentence and NOT argue that point, both because I think Shenbaw gave a pretty good explanation and because I don't want to be predictable. And also because I know that the main reason you brought gay marriage into the argument was because you knew it would irritate me, and I'm therefore choosing to ignore it.

In a democracy, yes, the basic principle is that what the majority believes dictates the laws, and that people who don't like it have to deal with it. That may not be the best philosophy concerning some laws, but that's democracy. However, in the case of a public smoking ban, people are still allowed to smoke, just not in places where their doing so can affect other people. I'm assuming that San Franciscans are allowed to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, and while yes, this would still affect their wives/childen/family/whoever lives with them, banning something IN PUBLIC is still absolutely different from banning something altogether. Harm has nothing to do with it, and neither, for that matter, do gays or gay marriage, and from now on, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the issue I'm discussing instead of trying to hit me below the belt with unrelated issues.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19727

erolyn wrote:

Bookworm wrote: So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

*checks watch to see how long it takes someone to tell me that one law is about harm and the other one isn't*

I'm going to ignore that last sentence and NOT argue that point, both because I think Shenbaw gave a pretty good explanation and because I don't want to be predictable. And also because I know that the main reason you brought gay marriage into the argument was because you knew it would irritate me, and I'm therefore choosing to ignore it.

In a democracy, yes, the basic principle is that what the majority believes dictates the laws, and that people who don't like it have to deal with it. That may not be the best philosophy concerning some laws, but that's democracy. However, in the case of a public smoking ban, people are still allowed to smoke, just not in places where their doing so can affect other people. I'm assuming that San Franciscans are allowed to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, and while yes, this would still affect their wives/childen/family/whoever lives with them, banning something IN PUBLIC is still absolutely different from banning something altogether. Harm has nothing to do with it, and neither, for that matter, do gays or gay marriage, and from now on, I'd appreciate it if you'd stick to the issue I'm discussing instead of trying to hit me below the belt with unrelated issues.

I honestly didn't bring up gay marriage to irritate you or to hit you below the belt. YOU brought up the point about the majority wanting a certain law, and the first thing that struck my mind was the polls showing that a majority of people oppose gay marriage, and I wanted your opinion about what you are willing to let the majority decide and what you will not let the majority decide. Since this thread is about legislating morality, then my question was very much a related issue, but I am also really, really sorry if you felt personally attacked.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19731

Shenbaw, Stasi, if there is one thing you should know about me it is that I have no fuse. Unlike people who have a short fuse I have none. Therefore I do not have the patience to hold your hand and walk you through my opinion. Stasi, If you are just going to sit there and make unrelated comments, please leave. Thank you.

Shenbaw, my basic point is, why should the free peoples, the society have the babysit your child? If you need for people to behave as if they are at church or temple in public, you are a bad parent, to put it bluntly. If you do not want your child to see bad naughty things, keep them at home, homeschool them, use the V-Chip, install Parental Controls on your computer. Sure there are Parents Rights, that is what has given rise to the V-Chip and the blocking software. If someone wants to jump up in a booth and scream "fudge YOU, fudge THE WORLD, fudge YOU ALL" it is their business to do so. If someone puts up a billboard with an enormous finger on it, it's their business. No one is forcing you or your child to look at it. No one at all. And if you take away one of our basic rights, such as freedom of speech, all the rest will be taken away by some other mad fool and we'll be FSCKED. "It's for the children" has been the excuse of even Hitler. Just look up "Hitler Youth" on google. If you feel you should take away our rights for the children, so be it, but this is obviously the most treacherous and unconstitutional thing you may do. and don't even talk to me about adults who are easily offended. It's like me putting in the magic word "breasts" in Google Image Search then yelling "OMG! THIS IS OFFENSIVE!" and suing people. It's not the sitemaker's fault I'm there. It was my choice to search for it.

As for gay marriage, it's another weak attempt to control people's bodies. Do I tell you what to do with your d!ck? Then don't tell anyone else what to do with it. If gays want to be married then let them! They're not harming anybody by doing that! God, sometimes it amazes me how closeminded people are!

Again, shenbaw, you are a weak and bad parent if you need society to babysit your child. You need to grow up, not me, if you insist on this naivete of the children.

I am a extremist Humanitarian and all I have to say is: Don't fsck with my rights, my body or my life.

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is stupid but the things you people say to me are so hilariously stupid it's amazing. Listen to yourself, Shenbaw. You're advocating removing our basic rights for the children! It's just so...goddamn..funny!

If you think I"m an immature little boy for losing my temper with you, fine. Let it be so. Just as long as none of you become President of the United States.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19737

Bookworm wrote: Individual people have their own set of personal values. That's a given. People are going to vote for legislators and support laws that most closely reflect their personal values. Is there anything wrong with that? At least in this case, the majority of people have the same values as I have, so of course I don't have a problem with it.

I love how people use the belief that "the majority of Americans" are against gay marriage as a justification for being against gay marriage. So What? It should come as no surprise to you that at one point in time, "the majority of Americans" were against interracial marriages. Does that mean that banning interracial marriages was "right?" Not too long ago, and perhaps even still today, "the majority of Americans" thought/think that homosexuality is wrong. Does that mean that laws banning the act or practice of being a homosexual are "right" or "okay?" At one time, "the majority of Americans" believed that complete segragation was a good idea. Did that make segragation "right" or "okay?" "The majority of Americans" used to think that women should not have the right to vote because they are inferior to men and don't belong in the political process. Did that mean that women were in fact inferior to men and did not deserve the right to vote? The answer to all these questions is NO. Similarly, just because "the majority of Americans" think that a life-long commitment between two men or two women should not be recognized by our government as a ligitimate, meaningful relationship and that they should not be able to enjoy the same privileges and benefits as a straight married couple, does not make laws banning such marriages or the relationship in the first place "right." Consequently I was hoping you would feel obligated to provide some kind of an argument or justification for being in favor of banning gay marriage other than, "the majority of Americans" are against it. But if that's all you need, then that's all you need.

Bookworm wrote: I'm just totally shocked to find out now that you disagree with me.

Yes, shocking I know. But you never told me if that is in fact what you were saying.

shenbaw wrote: just to clarify and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that the simple fact that a majority of the people in a country support a particular law, makes that law right or make it "make sense." Is that what you are saying?

Bookworm wrote: And I never said that states are compelled to recognize another state's marriage, but the fact remains that they do. Are you saying it would be acceptable to have a situation where someone gets married in Kansas, but if they decide to move to Ohio, they wouldn't be legally recognized anymore?

This situation, in my opinion, would be much more workable, if you will, then forcing every state in the union to recognize or to not recognize marriages that they do or do not agree with. If a gay couple gets married in California, and they want to enjoy the benefits of being a married couple, then they must reside in the state where they were married or in another state that recognizes marriages in California. That way, let's just say that Minnesota makes gay marriage legal, and someone like you doesn't like it, they can move to North Dakota or Iowa. Or if someone like me were living in North Dakota and didn't like the idea of living in a state that officially endorses discrimination against homosexuals, I could move some place else. Essentially it would create "Gay friendly" and "Not Gay friendly" states, but isn't that the way the conservative right wants this country anyway? Black and White? Completely polarized from sea to shining sea? After all, "If you're not for us, you're against us," right?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19749

William Wallace wrote: my basic point is, why should the free peoples, the society have the babysit your child?  If you need for people to behave as if they are at church or temple in public, you are a bad parent, to put it bluntly.

I personally don't think people should behave as if they are in church or temple but they should use some common sense.

William Wallace wrote: If someone wants to jump up in a booth and scream "fudge YOU, fudge THE WORLD, fudge YOU ALL" it is their business to do so.

If you were in the same restaurant that my family and myself were having dinner and you did something like this, I would express my opinion that you shouldn't do that in a restaurant. If you did it again, I'd plant my foot in your azz. If you have the freedom to do that, then I have the freedom to react.
It shouldn't be outlawed. But you should use common sense.
I do believe that if you did keep doing that, that you could be arrested for disorderly conduct. Not sure.

William Wallace wrote: If you do not want your child to see bad naughty things, keep them at home, homeschool them, use the V-Chip, install Parental Controls on your computer.  Sure there are Parents Rights, that is what has given rise to the V-Chip and the blocking software.

Keep your children at home to protect them from bad naughty things. If you are exposing your child to bad naughty things, then you are a bad parent. Just my opinion.
It shouldn't the wild wild west/anything goes out on the street. There are certain rules that everyone or at least the majority has to agree to. If these rules are not agreed to, followed and enforced, then all you have is anarchy.

WW, you seem to be very intelligent and well spoken for your age but you are showing your age with alot of your ideas/posts. Someday you will make a great politician.
I'm sure you will give your college professors hell someday.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19754

0 wrote: WW, you seem to be very intelligent and well spoken for your age but you are showing your age with alot of you ideas/posts.  Someday you will make a great politician. 

Yeah, his platform will be "It's free country, I'll do what I want!"


You're right 0, if someone stood up in a booth and sceamed "Fsck you!" at everyone in a restaurant and refused to stop, they would indeed be arrested for "Disorderly Conduct" or "Disturbing the Peace." And they should be. If I can't enjoy a meal in a public place without being verbally assaulted, then I have lost all and any right I ever had to enjoy that public space peacefully.

WW wrote: If you do not want your child to see bad naughty things, keep them at home

That's absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So I shoudn't be able to walk down the street with my niece or nephew without them being exposed to "bad naughty" things? Simply because these little kids and I are in a public space does not mean that we are fair game to be verbally or physically assaulted. Even in the public rhelm, individuals still have rights. One of these basic rights is the right to enjoy public space. If you want to be vulgar or offensive, that's fine, but do it privately. (Note: I said "privately," not "in private." There's a difference. A private conversation can still take place in a public space, but doing something "publicly" means that it is intended for the public to witness and is in effect directed at the public.) When you are "publicly" vulgar or offensive it effects and often offends other people and consequently diminishes their ability to enjoy the public space, which is their right just as much as it is yours.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19756

shenbaw wrote: That's absolutely one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So I shoudn't be able to walk down the street with my niece or nephew without them being exposed to "bad naughty" things? Simply because these little kids and I are in a public space does not mean that we are fair game to be verbally or physically assaulted. Even in the public rhelm, individuals still have rights. One of these basic rights is the right to enjoy public space. If you want to be vulgar or offensive, that's fine, but do it privately. (Note: I said "privately," not "in private." There's a difference. A private conversation can still take place in a public space, but doing something "publicly" means that it is intended for the public to witness and is in effect directed at the public.) When you are "publicly" vulgar or offensive it effects and often offends other people and consequently diminishes their ability to enjoy the public space, which is their right just as much as it is yours.

You just admitted what I am saying is right. I never said you should beat up a little kid whilst screaming profanity in his face, but if you strike your foot against something and scream "FLICKING HELL" you have the right to do so.

Secondly, I DON'T think you should get in a booth and scream FSCK YOU over and over at people. I think you should do this at a street corner.

And whilst we are talking about individual rights, I had best put up a list of things that I am pushing for:

-Right to Freedom of Speech, but not to the extent of Disturbing the Peace
-Right to Criticize the Government
-Right to Gay Marriage
-Right to Freedom of Sexuality(so that right wing extremists cannot argue with above right)

And one last thing:

I wish to lower the drinking age in the Colonies equal to the one in Britain, which is 4(with parental consent , you can drink freely at 18.) Yeah, I drink. I'm healthy as a horse. I can bench press 100 pounds now, since I've started exercising. And I'm still smart enough to argue with "eddyookayted" folk like you, Mr. Shenbaw.

I didn't mean to come one here today to debate, so I'm going to go play some Counter-Strike Source and relax.




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19805

shenbaw wrote:

Bookworm wrote: I'm just totally shocked to find out now that you disagree with me.

Yes, shocking I know. But you never told me if that is in fact what you were saying.

shenbaw wrote: just to clarify and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that the simple fact that a majority of the people in a country support a particular law, makes that law right or make it "make sense." Is that what you are saying?

This question could really be up for anyone to answer. Does the fact that a majority of people support a law make that law right?

It's not a trick question either. It really depends on what you're definition of "right" is. If to you, "right" means "socially exceptable" then I would think the only measurement of "rightness" we would have, would be the majority's opinion. But if to you, the term "right" has some sort of higher standard to meet, then don't you think it would be worth while to figure out what that higher standard is?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19879

shenbaw wrote: Does the fact that a majority of people support a law make that law right?

In my opinion, No.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19880

0 wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Does the fact that a majority of people support a law make that law right?

In my opinion, No.

So what does?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19881

shenbaw wrote: Essentially it would create "Gay friendly" and "Not Gay friendly" states, but isn't that the way the conservative right wants this country anyway? Black and White?   Completely polarized from sea to shining sea? After all, "If you're not for us, you're against us," right?

A lot of America's still polarized that way even over issues that have long been decided by the government...if you drive about an hour south of where I live, you can still find plenty of "sundown" towns, places where they'll still shoot you for being black, even in a country that claims to be striving so hard for racial equality.

Not trying to bring up a new point or anything, that was just an example.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19912

erolyn wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Essentially it would create "Gay friendly" and "Not Gay friendly" states, but isn't that the way the conservative right wants this country anyway? Black and White?   Completely polarized from sea to shining sea? After all, "If you're not for us, you're against us," right?

A lot of America's still polarized that way even over issues that have long been decided by the government...if you drive about an hour south of where I live, you can still find plenty of "sundown" towns, places where they'll still shoot you for being black, even in a country that claims to be striving so hard for racial equality.

Not trying to bring up a new point or anything, that was just an example.

Hon, I grew up in conservative Texas, born in conservative North Carolina, and have made the trip through that polarized section of the southeast for most of my life. The one constant from these polarize people who would shoot you for being black(or any different aspect, or because you said something that didn't make sense, or because the moon was just right...), is uneducation and disrespect for fellow man. It always seems to come back to education, for respect seems to come with education, and I'm not talking master's or anything, but someone who values education over regional common sense.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19916

shenbaw wrote:

0 wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Does the fact that a majority of people support a law make that law right?

In my opinion, No.

So what does?

Not sure.
I reckon that's why this thread is so long.....


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19921

Okay, this is pretty off topic. But that seems to be a common theme around here.

So I don't remember the exact details or in what book I read this, but Socrates (and Plato) used to entertain the idea of having the decision makers in society be an isolated group of people who are determined to be the most knowledgable of the things for which decisions need to be made. Of course, to him, these people were the people known as "Philosophers" since they were the ones who supposedly desired knowledge, wisdom, and the truth of all things above all else. This group would live isolated from society so as not to taint or dilute their wisdom with the ignorance of the masses and so that their decisions would not risk being influenced by the people it effects. No lobbying, no bribary, no influences other than their well trained rational thought. Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't such a bad idea.

In some ways I think we do employ this idea today in that we vote for and elect the people who do the best job of demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the issues at hand, but most of their trust is gained by their rhetoric, not necessarily their knowledge. (I know this is very disconnected, but I've kind of been in a rambling mood lately) After all, we have a straight "C" student as our President don't we?

I guess what I'm trying to get at deals both with the question I asked earlier of "What determines what laws we make are right?" as well as what you guys are talking about (dumb people), and that is, Who in our society would be most knowledgable of and most able to tell what laws to make, and more importantly, what laws are "right?" Would it be the people we currently tend to elect, the rich, the elite, the privileged? Without $ you don't stand a chance running for office. Or would it be the poor since they are the ones who are most able to see the injustices in our society? Or would it be the most educated people because as Mrself was saying, with education not only comes knowledge, but also respect for your fellow man?

Like I said, I know this sounds disconnected, but I'm just trying to tie some of these different points that have been made together. If anyone could help or thinks they have an idea of what I just did a really bad job of saying, it would be appreciated.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19924

-> Like I said, I know this sounds disconnected, but I'm just trying to tie some of these different points that have been made together. If anyone could help or thinks they have an idea of what I just did a really bad job of saying, it would be appreciated.[/quote wrote:
Actually, thanks for trying to keep this on track and tying things together.

<!--QuoteBegin-0]

shenbaw wrote:

0 wrote: In my opinion, No.

So what does?

Not sure.
I reckon that's why this thread is so long.....

Well, I believe causing direct harm (punching you, stabbing you, taking objects) to physical objects (property, objects, people) is a good place to start. That is never justified, and federal laws (laws dealing with the entire country) should probably limit itself to this area.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19928

MrSelf wrote: Well, I believe causing direct harm (punching you, stabbing you, taking objects) to physical objects (property, objects, people) is a good place to start. That is never justified, and federal laws (laws dealing with the entire country) should probably limit itself to this area.

I think you're right, but here we are again back where we were before. Stating what laws are "right," but not addressing the issue of why they are "right." Many posts ago I offered the suggestion the laws which outlaw causing direct harm to individuals are always "right," because they infringe on a person's human or basic rights and thus harm or damage the very thing that makes us human. This was whole-heartedly rejected by people like Bookworm who stated that things can still be "wrong" even if it doesn't harm or violate a person's rights. For him, such a thing would be divorce. Even though it has the potential to harm no one, especially when no kids are involved, he still considers it to be "wrong." So here, the majority of Americans has condoned something that he believes is wrong. Earlier, I listed several laws that, at the time they were made and enforced, were considered "right" by the majority of Americans. Such as banning interracial marriage, or banning women from voting, which later came to be considered laws that were indeed "wrong." To me, this is the very essence of "Legislating Morality." Morality, does not mean right and wrong. 50 years ago a person's morals told them that a black man walking into a whites' restroom was wrong. Does that mean it was "wrong." No. It means that people thought it was wrong. So what? 100 years ago a person's morals told them that it was wrong for a woman to have a job other than taking care of the house while the men are away. Does that mean that a woman having an out-of-home job was wrong? No. It just means people thought it was wrong.

So how do we see through the opinion of the majority? How do we know when they're right and when they're wrong? Should the opinion of the majority even matter at all?

It would seem to me that if we start with the initial premise that all people are created equal and that every person deserves the same basic rights and liberties, it would give us something substantial to base our laws and our beliefs on, other than our feelings or our morals.

Another thing I've thought about (again very disconnected) is that maybe our judges are our modern day "Philosophers." They sit isolate atop their benches making decision about what's "right" and what's "wrong." Maybe we should require legislators to interpret laws before they are able to make them? Maybe then they'd be more able to see which ones are "right" and which ones are "wrong."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19949

I figured I'd better post again in order to admit that my "majority of Americans" argument was a bit weak, but hey, you don't seem to care for my primary "because God says so" argument either. You mentioned judges being our modern-day "philosophers," but didn't the Supreme Court justices during slavery times uphold the institution of slavery. Anytime you have humans involved in deciding what is right or wrong, there are going to be mistakes. I personally would much rather follow God's guidelines as declared in the Bible, but before you jump on that statement, notice that I said "personally." Someone stated earlier (and I know I'm not saying it exactly, but it's not necessary for me to go back and get the exact words) that I could have all the personal beliefs about right and wrong that I want, but when it comes to making things legally wrong for all Americans, then we cannot just go by one person's opinion of right and wrong. After all, that one person may be even more strict than I am, and I wouldn't like that. I think here in America we do the best that we can to achieve a balance between the majority's opinions and the minority's opinions, and our grandkids are going to be making judgments about our current laws that may be different from the way we view them today.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19963