Same with other legislated morality. Drugs, abortion, alchohol, sodomy, prostitution, etc. Anything that is a "moral" crime. Usually referred to as "victimless" crimes.
Yes, they're referred to as victimless crimes, which isn't to say that they don't have social consequances.
Some people apparently yearn for a "hands off" approach to the kind of shape future society takes -- yet they're ever certain that such a society would be "better" -- whilst others, like me, think that in many ways we have a good thing going and would like to take steps to "preserve" (loosely) some of it and have an active hand in shaping the changes that are to (surely) come.
Same with drugs, same with suicide, same with prostitution and sodomy. None of which I want anything to do with , but none of which affect me if someone else is involved in these acts. I see these things as not being criminal acts.
Answer? In most cases organized religion. Plain and simple.
Well, it's never really so "plain and simple", but let's look at it from a purely secular point of view; no "god" legislated morality, humans invented it.
Ok, so then why invent it?
Think about it.
Because the previously permissable behaviours were causing problems. So what better way to ensure that everyone toes the line than to give your "rules" divine authority?
It still doesn't change a damn thing as to whether the behaviour in question is socially desirable or not.
Look at it, you say you'd like prostitution "decriminalized". Okay, so what to expect then? Well, probably nothing for the first generation or two, but, in time, don't you think it's likely that such attitudes towards sex that are likely to be the result are going to have an effect on the kind of society people will live in?
If the message -- eventually -- is going to be, "sure, go ahead and screw around to your heart's content. geez, why wouldn't you, it's THE BEST!", you don't think is going to have an effect, for example, on attitudes towards marriage and to family? I sure as hell do, and, to be perfectly frank, I think the implications would be disastrous.*
Sorry rs7, I know guys like you must wretch every time someone brings up "family values", but I just happen to think they're damn important and I'd rather have a say in what goes into shaping them, rather than just sitting back and allowing "nature to take its course".
*As a side note, those attitudes are already present, and people certainly already do act that way. But there's also still something of a "stigma" attached to such "naughty" behaviour that probably does go a long way to keeping our social fabric intact.
All of this means what? That religions dictate our laws? Obviously they do. Which means our separation of church and state is not a concept that has held up very well. And worse more recently as the nation drifts to the right.
Well, obviously an atheist would say something like that, especially a Democrat. Still, facts are facts, and I challenge you present to me any evidence that this "separation of church and state" was EVER intended to be anything more than a prevention on government establishing a state religion. You live in a country where the people are religious. That is something that is truly, as you put it, "plain and simple". So, unless they're formulating laws directly off some holy writ, then they are quite FREE to have their value systems, no matter how inspired by religion such value systems may be, influence their legislative decisions.
OK, he puts his personal beliefs into his work, which while not in the spirit of the Constitution is fine with most people.
Prove it.
But when he has the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with Justices who will do the same, (and he will if given the chance), then we will be in for a serious and essentially permanent problem. We will be stuck with any new appointments for a very very long time.
Oh, but a Democratic president would never dream of appoint justices that share his socio-political views, no sir. Lol. What, are you "Bizarro" AAA? (if you've seen the Seinfeld episode you'll get it)
Yes, they're referred to as victimless crimes, which isn't to say that they don't have social consequances.
Some people apparently yearn for a "hands off" approach to the kind of shape future society takes -- yet they're ever certain that such a society would be "better" -- whilst others, like me, think that in many ways we have a good thing going and would like to take steps to "preserve" (loosely) some of it and have an active hand in shaping the changes that are to (surely) come.
Same with drugs, same with suicide, same with prostitution and sodomy. None of which I want anything to do with , but none of which affect me if someone else is involved in these acts. I see these things as not being criminal acts.
Answer? In most cases organized religion. Plain and simple.
Well, it's never really so "plain and simple", but let's look at it from a purely secular point of view; no "god" legislated morality, humans invented it.
Ok, so then why invent it?
Think about it.
Because the previously permissable behaviours were causing problems. So what better way to ensure that everyone toes the line than to give your "rules" divine authority?
It still doesn't change a damn thing as to whether the behaviour in question is socially desirable or not.
Look at it, you say you'd like prostitution "decriminalized". Okay, so what to expect then? Well, probably nothing for the first generation or two, but, in time, don't you think it's likely that such attitudes towards sex that are likely to be the result are going to have an effect on the kind of society people will live in?
If the message -- eventually -- is going to be, "sure, go ahead and screw around to your heart's content. geez, why wouldn't you, it's THE BEST!", you don't think is going to have an effect, for example, on attitudes towards marriage and to family? I sure as hell do, and, to be perfectly frank, I think the implications would be disastrous.*
Sorry rs7, I know guys like you must wretch every time someone brings up "family values", but I just happen to think they're damn important and I'd rather have a say in what goes into shaping them, rather than just sitting back and allowing "nature to take its course".
*As a side note, those attitudes are already present, and people certainly already do act that way. But there's also still something of a "stigma" attached to such "naughty" behaviour that probably does go a long way to keeping our social fabric intact.
All of this means what? That religions dictate our laws? Obviously they do. Which means our separation of church and state is not a concept that has held up very well. And worse more recently as the nation drifts to the right.
Well, obviously an atheist would say something like that, especially a Democrat. Still, facts are facts, and I challenge you present to me any evidence that this "separation of church and state" was EVER intended to be anything more than a prevention on government establishing a state religion. You live in a country where the people are religious. That is something that is truly, as you put it, "plain and simple". So, unless they're formulating laws directly off some holy writ, then they are quite FREE to have their value systems, no matter how inspired by religion such value systems may be, influence their legislative decisions.
OK, he puts his personal beliefs into his work, which while not in the spirit of the Constitution is fine with most people.
Prove it.
But when he has the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court with Justices who will do the same, (and he will if given the chance), then we will be in for a serious and essentially permanent problem. We will be stuck with any new appointments for a very very long time.
Oh, but a Democratic president would never dream of appoint justices that share his socio-political views, no sir. Lol. What, are you "Bizarro" AAA? (if you've seen the Seinfeld episode you'll get it)
Lol, I can just imagine some faggot named Emile saying, "yeth, yeth! GREAT idea, oh I just LOVE it!" (hell, I shouldn't speak too soon, it's probably already happening somewhere)