[Sax]

You seem hellbent on trying to frame myself and others here as less than moral because we support individual free choice. Shame on you.

I am not dictating any laws to you. I am saying that the type of laws that you appear to support have no business being made.

I do not chose to lead an immoral life, but I believe that others should be allowed to. It is the choices that you make that define you, so you should be free to make them.

Simply not making orgies illegal does not sanction them. You seem to want to rely on our government into forcing everyone to be moral. Where is the beauty in that? That strips away the value from those chosing to be moral of their own free will.

If you consider yourself moral, as you appear to, you should consider being less ugly to those who disagree with you.

[Antoninus]

You seem hellbent on trying to frame myself and others here as less than moral because we support individual free choice. Shame on you.

No, shame on you for trying to impose your relativist immorality on the whole of society.

If you can get it passed in the legislature, then fine. If you have to force it through the deviant-riddled courts then you are nothing but a tyrant.

[IranIsNext]

"Simply not making orgies illegal does not sanction them. You seem to want to rely on our government into forcing everyone to be moral. Where is the beauty in that? That strips away the value from those chosing to be moral of their own free will.

If you consider yourself moral, as you appear to, you should consider being less ugly to those who disagree with you. "

Welcome to the world of collectivist thought my friend. Of course, is a society that forces its people to be "moral" at gunpoint really a moral society at all? Or is it just a facade? If you really wanted a society to be moral, perhaps doing so by persuasion instead of force is a better option?

[IranIsNext]

"Simply not making orgies illegal does not sanction them. You seem to want to rely on our government into forcing everyone to be moral. Where is the beauty in that? That strips away the value from those chosing to be moral of their own free will.

If you consider yourself moral, as you appear to, you should consider being less ugly to those who disagree with you. "

Welcome to the world of collectivist thought my friend. Of course, is a society that forces its people to be "moral" at gunpoint really a moral society at all? Or is it just a facade? If you really wanted a society to be moral, perhaps doing so by persuasion instead of force is a better option?

[Elpasser]

You say, "Shame on you"

But there is no such thing as shame without morality. And morality is the ultimate basis for good laws. Otherwise, we have no basis for criticizing a 1930's German law that divests Jews of their property, or orders them off to concentration camps, so long as that law is duly passed by the legislature.

Laws MUST have a moral basis, and a moral society must reflect its values in its laws. Otherwise, laws become but a labyrinthine of regulatory codes, as we see happening in California, New York, and other "enlightened" places.

[VeniVidiVici]

I do not chose to lead an immoral life, but I believe that others should be allowed to.

The privacy laws that protect AIDS patients to the detriment of society would seem to agree with you.

[steve-b]

Simply not making orgies illegal does not sanction them.

Precisely. See my previous message re Antoninus' vocabulary problem.