Pairs with Spares--3-somes and more

[vern_humphrey]

However, in a country like the United States which “supports” freedom of religion, you cannot legalize moral codes like this which are religiously based. Especially when there are certain “faiths” out there that don’t necessarily subscribe to the belief that all of the situations you mention are morally wrong.

No one adocates “legalizing moral codes like this which are religiously based.” The question is can the government illegalize moral codes like this which are based one religion because the other religions don’t like it?

 

[Just_wondering]

I just have to say that if my future husband suddenly told me that he believed in polyamorism (or whatever it was called), the legality of the arrangement would be the least of my problems.

I’d probably be dealing with more serious issues, like the morality and legality of having physically attacked him for him leading me on.

Well, okay, I probably wouldn’t physically assault my husband under any conditions, but I know right now that there ain’t no way I’m sharing. Nuh-uh, no way, no how! :dts:

 

[SILVERNAME]

However, in a country like the United States which “supports” freedom of religion, you cannot legalize moral codes like this which are religiously based. Especially when there are certain “faiths” out there that don’t necessarily subscribe to the belief that all of the situations you mention are morally wrong.

Cannot???

Well the History of the United States itself says otherwise.

Things like homophilia adultery and fornication used to be illegal in many states, why else would the Supreme Court have to declare the Texas anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional ( of course they are not, as there is no right to sodomy or freedom of sexuality in the constitution)

As does reason, for all laws of any kind always legalize one moral code or another, there is no such thing as a law that does not legalize any moral code of any kind, the only question is what moral code does a law or laws legalize.

Besides which major religion doesn’t consider adultery and fornication to be wrong, or even homophilia?

Personally, I’m not sure if I agree with criminalizing those matters. Making them criminal offenses does nothing to educate the people as to why the offense is wrong in the first place. It only teaches that there is punishment associated with the offense. We must first truly understand our moral code before we can truly embrace it. Is it better for one to avoid sin out of fear of punishment (earthly punishment) or to avoid sin out of love and respect for God? I think it is the second one, although I don’t know if that’s an official Church teaching.

Is is better for one to avoid committing murder or rape out of fear of punishment or out of love and respect for God??

Should we decriminalize rape and murder then??

Of course not, the principle is the same. Murder rape, fornication, homophilia, adultery are all wrong, and just like murder and rape , fornication adultery and homophilia should all be criminalized as well.

 

[john1863]

Of course not, the principle is the same. Murder rape, fornication, homophilia, adultery are all wrong, and just like murder and rape , fornication adultery and homophilia should all be criminalized as well.

As they have been through the ages, and precisely what good did it do?

John

 

[SILVERNAME]

As they have been through the ages, and precisely what good did it do?

John

What good has criminalizing rape and muder done?

If it has done nothing good, should we decriminalize them then??

I would say the criminalizing immoral behavior has done plenty of good, it has educated many people about morality and good and evil. It has also prevented many people from diving in to those sins, even if many others did.

When you legalize immoral behavior, the next step( or slide down) is to criminalize opposition to such immoral behaviors, as is happening now in Canada Europe and many other places.

When you criminalize immoral behavior, all opposition to such behavior is automatically legal and protected by law.

For the sake of preserving the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, immoral behaviors must be criminalized.

 

[john1863]

What good has criminalizing rape and muder done?

Nice try on the bait and switch…we were not discussing those offenses.

Things like homophilia adultery and fornication used to be illegal in many states,

Yes, and slavery used to be legal. I guess you’re saying that a democratic/republican form of government evolves. Welcome to the US.

Adultery, polygamy, fornication and cohabitaiotn should be criminalized and subject to criminal prosecution with jail time.

Again, unthinkable in my lifetime, whatever that may be.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nice try on the bait and switch…we were not discussing those offenses.

If you think those crimes are somehow intrinsically different from abortion – which, after all, is murder, and pre-mediated murder at that – feel free to show you evidence.

 

[john1863]

If you think those crimes are somehow intrinsically different from abortion – which, after all, is murder, and pre-mediated murder at that – feel free to show you evidence.

The instrinsic difference is that one is quite easy to conceal, while the other is not. You can’t enforce a law if you don’t even know that a crime was committed.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

The instrinsic difference is that one is quite easy to conceal, while the other is not. You can’t enforce a law if you don’t even know that a crime was committed.

John

That is not an intrinsic difference – if I were to kill a vagabond and conceal the body, would that be intrinsically different from leaving the body lie in an alley to be discovered?

The intrinsic nature is the act – killing an innocent human being. And that is the same, whether the victim is an unborn child, a toddler, a teen-ager, an adult or an old person.

 

[john1863]

That is not an intrinsic difference – if I were to kill a vagabond and conceal the body, would that be intrinsically different from leaving the body lie in an alley to be discovered?

1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic brightness of a star

The instrinsic nature of abortion is that it is relatively easy to conceal.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic brightness of a star

The instrinsic nature of abortion is that it is relatively easy to conceal.

John

No, the intrinsic nature of abortion is that it is murder.

And we successfully arrest and prosecute people every day for crimes that are “relatively easy to conceal.”

 

[john1863]

And we successfully arrest and prosecute people every day for crimes that are “relatively easy to conceal.”

Realistically, do you believe that the majority of the people of this nation would tolerate the type of tactics that would be needed to prosecute abortions? They might go along with the doctor…I don’t see them ever supporting the prosecution of the woman.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

Realistically, do you believe that the majority of the people of this nation would tolerate the type of tactics that would be needed to prosecute abortions?

What type of tactics would those be?

They might go along with the doctor…I don’t see them ever supporting the prosecution of the woman.

John

Every prosecution is a special case. Every defendant is allowed to plead special circumstances, and seek the sympathy of the jury. Abortion cases will be no different – some will be convicted, others will be acquitted.

 

[john1863]

What type of tactics would those be?

Well, what type of surveillance would be used to determine that a woman had had an abortion? Would we institute undercover agents to peer into people’s homes? Would we have cameras in every doctor’s office across the country? Would we ban the pill because it is an abortifacient? Would we then criminalize the possession of the same? Would we search every incoming package to make sure that these drugs were not ordered overseas?

In my opinion, enforcement would be a nightmare, prosecutions spotty, and jury nullification a very real possibility.

I choose to change hearts and minds over what I view as a very risky, and likely futile, reliance on legalism.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, what type of surveillance would be used to determine that a woman had had an abortion?

Here’s a hint – everyone who sells, be it underwear, illegal drugs, or abortions, must advertise for customers.

Would we institute undercover agents to peer into people’s homes? Would we have cameras in every doctor’s office across the country? Would we ban the pill because it is an abortifacient? Would we then criminalize the possession of the same? Would we search every incoming package to make sure that these drugs were not ordered overseas?

You’ve been listening to Phil Donahue, haven’t you?

In my opinion, enforcement would be a nightmare, prosecutions spotty, and jury nullification a very real possibility.

And yet somehow, Jack Kevorkian was finally convicted.

I choose to change hearts and minds over what I view as a very risky, and likely futile, reliance on legalism.

John

And I repeat, how do you convice people abortion is wrong, when the courts say it is a right?

 

[john1863]

You’ve been listening to Phil Donahue, haven’t you?

Phil who?

And I repeat, how do you convice people abortion is wrong, when the courts say it is a right?

The same way it’s always been done, the churches, the homes, personal witness, etc.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phil who?

The TV personality who orginated that argument.

The same way it’s always been done, the churches, the homes, personal witness, etc.

John

And yet, we still have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, don’t we?

 

[john1863]

The TV personality who orginated that argument.

I seriously doubt that ole Phil originated that line of thought. It’s merely a reasonable scenario given the enforcement goals.

And yet, we still have hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, don’t we?

And how many before Roe? I’ve tried to find impartial figures, but have found that to be impossible. So I’ll give the range I found: anywhere between 100,000 on the low end and 1.2 million on the high.
Where does the truth lie? Difficult to determine.

John

 

[vern_humphrey]

I seriously doubt that ole Phil originated that line of thought. It’s merely a reasonable scenario given the enforcement goals

.

If you understand the word “sophistry,” then you understand this is not a “reasonable scenario.”

 

[Sr_Sally]

OK you guys, you are seriously off topic. There are a hundred threads about abortion. This one is about the Washington Post article. Please get back on topic or go join one of the other threads.