[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The problem with your argument is that you think its the government's responsibilty to legislate morals. Its not. Its the job of the family and religious affiliation. To legislate morals is the same as legislating religion as that is where morals come from. Are there existing laws that are based very much on religious morals? Yes. There is also a law in a town in MD that no monsters are allowed in the city borders and another in MA that states that all women drivers are to have their husbands in front of the car waving a flag to warn other drivers and pedestrians. Just because the law is on the books doesn't mean its logical or even enforced.

I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this one; as I think our constitution (and ultimately the Declaration of Independence) is a supreme paradigm of liberal and utilitarianistic moral principles. If you have heard of John Locke, and his influence on our constitution through his ethical principles, I would HARDLY make a claim so as to assert: "it is not the government's responsibility to legislate morals." Unless you have an abnormally narrow definition of morals, I seriously cannot see your point (such as your examples of petty and needless ordinances and statutes). Why, your assertion that the government must treat its citizens equally in and of itself is an ethical principle. It is an ethical principle in that it emphasizes the dignity and individuality of human beings (hallmark of classic liberalism).

Also, deciding as a society the right of homosexuals to marry when we don't know for sure that it is intrinsic does not seem to be a strictly personal moral issue. Whether you like it or not, people's marriages have effects on other people. Case in point: divorces that ruin children, creating problems for the society. This is a socially-relevant issue. Therefore, the society must have a say.

Also, this is not about repealing laws, as right now its a state issue. This is about creating NEW FEDERAL laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. So no laws are being repealed, they are being created to deny rights and legislate morals that should be kept relative to religion and personal belief.

Well, the original topic pertained to gay marriages in general. And whether they should be allowed. Certainly, such a federal law should not be considered until there has been substantial amount of hard evidence.

And by the way, if brothers and sisters want to get married... more power to them. Incest between two people has nothing to do with me or anyone else besides them. After all, what right do we have to tell two grown people whats right or wrong if all they do affects only them? Thats for God and themselves to sort out.

Why do people delude themselves into thinking this way? Are people really disconnected from each other this way to have no effect on each other? Do you honestly think that a person's actions have no bearing on another?

It's like the argument with drug users. Right, they are only hurting themselves. Uh-huh. Suppose the addict OD's and requires medical attention but does not have the money to do so b/c he's spent it all on drugs. Who do you think will pay for his care? We, as a society, cannot look past him and merely say, "oh, it's all his fault so let him die."

This sort of assertion that the actions we take only affect ourselves is simply ludicrous. Unless you're living under a rock, everything that you do will have an affect on other people.

This is exactly why the government has limited rights to enact "moral legislations." I hate the idea of the government dictating our lives just as much as the next guy. But some people need guidance through laws.
Forsaking them in lieu of anarchistic privatism is an action of cowardice, not constitutionality.