Three examples come to mind -
Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not 'legislating morality?' Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless 'moralists' who want a 'nanny state?'
Laws against polygamy (when it is non-violent and consensual). Should those laws be removed as they are 'moralist' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
Laws against homosexual marriage. Should those laws be eliminated as 'legislating morality' and promoting a 'nanny state?'
How far does your desire to protect pornography go? How far does your desire for license and not liberty take you? (Be careful with the third question, as this is still a conservative website, the presence of so many libertines, notwithstanding).
Thanks for any well-reasoned response to questions on those three kinds of laws which clearly, and unambiguously 'legislate morality.'
it's not a desire to "protect porn". It is simply the viewpoint that fighting porn is MUCH less important on the priority scales of most American voters than the economy, national security, crime, etc. A politician who does not recognize this and tailor his message to align with the priorities of the people he wants to vote for him, will lose.
Statutory rape exists because society has set the age of adulthood at 18. Which means that society believes that anyone under 18 is not fully capable of making decisions on their own.
That has nothing to do with G-d’s word or whether lawmakers heard the good word while crafting the legislation. If they had, then the age of consent would be 13... as that’s the age when the Lord considers you an adult (Bar Mitzvah).
As for polygamy and gay marriage... I’ve long argued that it’s wrong for the government to even be in the business of marriage. That is the realm of religion. The thought of dirty politicians telling religion was is/is not allowable in religion is wrong... and probably why Obama thinks he can tell the Catholic Church to violate it’s beliefs on health care and abortion.
And as a return challenge, what was the morality on these laws? (as you claim all law is based on morality)
1. What moral was used for the creation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005)
2. What moral was used for the enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_and_Harbors_Act_of_1965)
3. What moral was used for the Telecommunications Act of 1996? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)
Laws against statutory rape (when it is non-violent and consensual). Is that not ‘legislating morality?’ Should those laws be removed? Are those of us who believe in them mindless ‘moralists’ who want a “nanny state”.
In the case of statutory rape the victim is a minor, and unable to give consent. Stop being so silly.
Listen Ohio, any libertarian yoyo that claims morality isn’t or shouldn’t be legislated isn’t worth your time. Morality is always legislated and the only question is whose morality gets legislated. Anybody claiming differently is a very shallow thinker not worth your time or anybody elses for that matter.
There are no laws, I repeat NO LAWS, without somebody’s morality at their base. That includes traffic laws, property laws, tax laws and any other civil or criminal law on the books.