Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
Your thoughts on the matter are subjective, not objective.
As I previously stated, all laws are based on someone's morals.
You keep repeating that, but you don't offer any evidence at all. Some historical citations, please?
I asked you two posts back to offer an example of a law based solely on objective criteria. Are you conceding that you cannot do so? If you are, then you've made my point for me. If you are not, then I will answer your question, once you've answered mine.
Sure I can. I did it earlier - the objective criteria used when prohibiting this activity is "how are people genuinely harmed by the activity?" Not "offended," but harmed. Violence harms a person. So does theft and rape. These crimes all involve tangible harm to a person or that person's property. That's an objective criteria.
Now, if you could kindly provide citations of your claim, as well as the section of the Constitution that authorizes the government to involve itself in private relationships between consenting adults on their own property, I'd be in your debt.
That is quite subjective.
Some believe that people are genuinely harmed by taking part in sin, while others don't believe in sin.
Some believe that people engaging in unnecessarily risky behaviors (e.g. homosexual sex) are harming themselves. Others think it is perfectly okay as long as they are only harming themselves.
Some believe that allowing people to engage in perversion affects all of society, so such behavior should not be permitted. Other people believe that what one individual does to themselves (or with a consenting partner) has no impact on society.
So you see, your 'objective' criteria is not so objective.
Fine, then.
*Demonstrably* harmed by the activity. Not having their delicate sensibilities "offended" (which is nothing more than social conservative Political Correctness), but demonstrably harmed.
Why do you want to give the government so much power? When you're asking them to patrol men's hearts, that's exactly what you're doing. Myself, I don't trust the government enough to advocate that.
LOL Now you've qualified your 'objective' standard a bit further.
"Demonstrated" according to whom? To me, same gender sex is 'demonstrably' harmful to the mental health of those participating in same. This is evidenced by the unbalanced behavior of the homosexuals involved in this incident. Further, their behavior shows that they will and do affect those around them in a negative way. Therefore, I would conclude there is demonstrable harm to both the individuals participating and to 'innocent bystanders'.
Why do you want to give the government so much power?
The issue we have been discussing is not giving or taking away power from the government. The issue is whether morality can be legistlated. My stance is that all laws are about someone's morality. Although you've disagreed, you've yet to give me a single example of a law that is based on purely objective criteria.
My point is made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.