the first thing you'd better realize is that none of these folks see it as legislating morality. they see it as policing the way you interact with others in society and they've been doing it since the beginning of civilization. the simple fact is that everything you do involves moral guidelines, so how could the law avoid sticking its greasy fingers into the pie as well. from deciding whether or not to kill that bastard who stopped in front of you at a yellow light to choosing between the hamburger and the vegetable plate for lunch, your morality is entwined in your every move.

i'm sure we all agree that there must be some sort of code of conduct when dealing with others. the sticking point is where to draw the line between personal and interpersonal actions. where one might see gay marriage as no one's business but the two people involved, another might see it as degrading a beloved institution for the entire society. where i find no harm in rolling up a nice fat joint and settling in for the evening, some see such actions as encouraging the abuse of a hazardous substance and setting a dangerous example for the nation's youth. in both cases there is some merit to both positions (i must admit i see logic on only one side of both examples, but that is my own bias) and legislation is the only way to decide the argument civilly.

the reasoning behind it all is less one of morality than it is of power. mankind is a creature of hunting packs and grazing herds (depending on individual temperament). within those societies there will be leaders and followers and the power lies with those who can bend the others to their will. determining why decisions will be made (morality) provides more power than merely making the decisions alone. once the bureaucratic nightmare of intrusive government was developed, laws took the place of brute force, but the concept is still the same.

Quote Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
usually conservative morals
maybe it's your outlook or the way you were raised that blinds you to the massive intrusions of liberal morality. what could have more to do with morality than forcing the accepted guidelines of religion from the public square? as an atheist i can understand the push to keep religion from being forced down our throats at every turn, but to banish it completely seems a bit much. next we should look at the fervor with which they attempt to keep everyone from being offended. where morality and common decency should be enough to chasten the intolerant in society, they demand laws with special penalties should certain terms be used and even attempt to determine the mindset of the accused so that special punishments can be enforced. finally; we should think long and hard about the wealth redistribution so beloved of the socialistic liberals and see it for what it really is, enforced charity. charity, the act of giving without the slightest thought to recompense. surely the domain of morality and here they are trying to legislate us into a charitable mood.

the desire to grasp the power of determining why decisions are made is the sin of all our leaders.
delusionsofNORMALity Reviewed by delusionsofNORMALity on . Legislating Morality What gives someone the right? I have a hard time understanding things like this, usually conservative morals. Morals are a great thing, they set us apart from other animals, but when did people ever think it was a good idea to take what they think is right, and force it on others? I'd love to see some points from both sides bashing the others ideology, but only if they have valid points. I only wanna see truth to why someone's morals are "better" than others, or the specific reasons why Rating: 5