Fornication by consenting adults is not against the law here in Virginia.
Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?
- Thread starter Meriweather
- Start date
DGS49
Diamond Member
The Sovereign has a right and a duty to proscribe (criminalize) conduct that harms other people, their property, or society as a whole. It is not a coincidence that all of those are also immoral.
The question comes up when conduct is deemed by some to be immoral, but causes no apparent harm to anyone, anything, or society as a whole. "Thou shalt not covet..." your neighbor's spouse or his stuff. That is purely a moral matter and the Sovereign can take no position on the matter.
The problems come up in recent years when "immoral" conduct that has long been condemned and legally punished, but its harms are - let's say - debatable. Homosexual sodomy. Gambling. Prostitution. Pornography. Using and trafficking in "controlled substances." Usury. Hateful speech.
In each of these cases, an argument can be made that they harm society as a whole if not the individuals involved, or that it is only the excesses of conduct that manifest a measurable harm. It also appears to be the case that the criminalization of these conducts does more harm than the conduct itself. Consider the Volstead Act and its later repeal ("Prohibition"). It is often argued that Prohibition spawned the rapid growth of organized crime, a menace that we continue to deal with a hundred years later.
It's best if the Sovereign stays out of the morality business, even if it offends morally sensitive people.
Then you can look at a "quasi-Sovereign" like the Sharia courts, and their influence in specific communities. Can you outlaw Sharia Law when only "believers" are bound, and only to the extent that they choose to be bound? On what basis?
The question comes up when conduct is deemed by some to be immoral, but causes no apparent harm to anyone, anything, or society as a whole. "Thou shalt not covet..." your neighbor's spouse or his stuff. That is purely a moral matter and the Sovereign can take no position on the matter.
The problems come up in recent years when "immoral" conduct that has long been condemned and legally punished, but its harms are - let's say - debatable. Homosexual sodomy. Gambling. Prostitution. Pornography. Using and trafficking in "controlled substances." Usury. Hateful speech.
In each of these cases, an argument can be made that they harm society as a whole if not the individuals involved, or that it is only the excesses of conduct that manifest a measurable harm. It also appears to be the case that the criminalization of these conducts does more harm than the conduct itself. Consider the Volstead Act and its later repeal ("Prohibition"). It is often argued that Prohibition spawned the rapid growth of organized crime, a menace that we continue to deal with a hundred years later.
It's best if the Sovereign stays out of the morality business, even if it offends morally sensitive people.
Then you can look at a "quasi-Sovereign" like the Sharia courts, and their influence in specific communities. Can you outlaw Sharia Law when only "believers" are bound, and only to the extent that they choose to be bound? On what basis?
It was until recently, but who said manmade laws are always based in morality?
This one is based on the morality of the USA. Do we want laws that are not based on our morals?
We want them based on God’s moral law
Which God? Which law?
The God of Abraham, of course. The law against fornication.
One reason atheists have more fun.
You do realize we have free will, right?
Anyone that doesn't believe that all that matter in life is the satisfaction of material needs and primitive impulses. You pick.
Limited free will, right?
I did and I like the satisfaction of my material needs and my primitive impulses. Among other things.
How so?
Great. You won't hear me trying to convince you to believe or do otherwise. For the most part, I'm not here to criticize your choices. I'm here to defend mine from yours. You just won't admit that's why you are here.
Zincwarrior
Diamond Member
They're different?
consequences
How do consequences limit my free will. Let's say you put a gun too my head and tell me to kill a small child or you will kill me and then kill the child? That's a pretty severe consequence, right?
I'd tell you to go **** yourself and do your own dirty work. So tell me, how do consequences limit free will in that scenario?
But let's take fornication instead. And to make it interesting let's make it prolific fornication with any and as many different legal age women we can talk into having consenual adult sex; married, divorced, single, widowed, it don't matter. That's a much less severe consequences than being shot in the head, right? So can you tell me a few of the consequences for this and how that might limit my free will?
If I put a gun to your head and said give me your wallet, you might select a different answer.
Go for it, if you're not married or afraid of STDs.
Same God. You didn't know?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino, fired by the left….Are we better now?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 9
-
Barney Frank, entering hospice care, embarks on a final act: Taking on the left- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 5
-
Zone1 Are there really no limitations on us if we will listen to the Holy Spirit?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 3
