E
estesbob
Guest
why don’t we just discuss this law instead of dragging in laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand?
- Status
F
Fairwinds
Guest
we’re discussing morals laws. did you find one with unintended consequences you need to ignore?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
you’re approving “morals laws” in general, which was fx’s point. so, presumably, you’re also approving idiotic ones like the anti-miscegenation laws. why?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Really? “What you please?” Then how do you expect anyone here to take such postings seriously and to have a mature, adult debate with you, respecting a position. You, not we, introduced, with no support, a very damning statement about the hearts and minds of U.S. residents, a full 5% of them.
I am not “commanding” you. However, as a person with equal standing as you on this forum, I am telling you that when you imaginatively invent what “Americans,” en masse, might savagely think, and then expect forum members to take you seriously on other wild statements, you lose general credibility as well. To attribute such vicious private motives to 5% of the American people is itself, a vicious thought. I am an American, and what you say about other Americans who are strangers to you is offensive. It is the language of secular political marginalization. This is not a secular political forum. Think about it.
Matthew 5:21
1 John 2:9
1 John 2:11
1 John 3:15
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I don’t respond to insinuations about my approval that have nothing to do with what either the poster fix, or I, indicated. It is your very uncharitable suggestion that I approve “idiotic” laws. I have nothing to say to you on such an unseemly generalization.
He made a general statement and is correct on the generality as it stands.
Have a nice day.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
defending morals laws because they’re “morals laws” is a bad argument, as demonstrated by morals laws like anti-Catholic and anti-miscegenation laws which are patently stupid.
ProTip: be more careful about what and whose posts you adopt.
Have a nicer day.
A
Atticus_Sparrow
Guest
Sounds vaguely familiar…dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132053/Youll-grandchildren-Social-workers-warning-couple-spoke-gay-adoption-row.html
Are you equally full of outrage when heterosexual grandparents are denied access to their own grandchildren (and indeed guardianship) simply because they do not embrace gay marriage?
If you are as concerned over fascism as you claim, I hope you are.
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
There are plenty of morality laws on the books. Laws against bestiality, pederasty, polygamy, under age drinking, etc etc are all based on moral values. You may say, “But that’s not the same thing!!”
But how so? You could say the age of consent is arbitrary or that as long as the animal isn’t hurt it isn’t abusive or that as long as all adults agree the polygamist relationship is healthy and blah blah blah All of these arguments have been made.
And of course all of these laws are moral in nature. You won’t find too many countries who knowingly adopt children to polygamists. So what you’re saying is your brand of morality isn’t approved of in Russia. But you’re an atheist and you probably believe we live in a morally ambiguous universe and much like atheist hero Sam Harris who argues our universe is largely predetermined and free will a fallacy. So really, you can’t be outraged at the Russians because they’re just doing what they’re programmed to do. And really, your morality is subjective and who is to say the Nazis weren’t right all along™ (Richard Dawkins).
E
estesbob
Guest
Actually we are discussing this law which contains nothing that is contrary to the teachings of the Church As far as anti catholic laws they are becoming common in this country-usually with the full support of those who oppose these in Russia
F
fix
Guest
This makes no sense. I was pointing out that laws can be just or unjust. Is this a new concept for you?
F
fix
Guest
Because confusion and deflecting are usual ploys.
F
fix
Guest
Of course morals laws are not bad, but that implies they are just. Hardly a novel concept. The problem is the pedantic want to confuse the issue for other reasons.
F
fix
Guest
Not really. Is your criticism unique to laws of this nature?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
If you were not to quick to the draw, you might find that you are off base with your implication that the two posters whose views you just criticized about support for moral laws, as demonstrating a lack of thinking and discerning ability.
Sure, the forum attracts the sort, the ill informed, the unfaithful and those outside the faith. This is a Catholic forum, which means that it also attracts the best informed faithful, who happen, as you may find, follow the teaching of the Church on justice, who believe that moral and just run together, and moral and legal don’t always do.
Anti-miscegenation is, always has been, unjust, never considered as moral; hence correction to the law was needed.
In voir dire, you may be able to project in a day or half a day who among a group of people would be helpful to your arguments. And yet, I bet, your projection does not prove to be right enough times.
Best to turn the arrogance down.
,
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Is that a way of saying you are unable to articulate your position or can not support your preceding statementI “imagine” then Elizabeth.
And I don’t respond to directives in what I post. I post what I please so no need to give me recommendations or commands on what to post and not on the internet.
Thanks,
F
Fairwinds
Guest
the discussion was about a morals law in russia. someone then made a general comment about the history of morals laws in the US, implying that morals statutes are desirable and certainly making that assumption part of a circular argument. if the door is open that wide, then counter examples are appropriate. two counter examples show that these are not inherently moral, obviously, but these were passed in good faith and it took until 1967 before the a-m laws were off the books.
enforcing morality laws comes at a price that very rarely is anyone willing to think through. what might work in russia, if not an authoritarian state certainly one with an authoritarian mindset, will probably not work here. look at the second law the duma passed, they could net a lot of pro-gays in that roundup, but is that the kind of law you really want here? just legislation that is fully in line with the CCC is neither always possible because we don’t live in a catholic theocracy nor always desirable in any event because of the price of enforcement.
you’d lose the bet, why is that important here?
E
edwest2
Guest
Unless enacted into law, it’s not horrific since the Russians are watching the United and seeing the President of the most powerful country on earth, other politicians, heads of major US corporations, 5 year olds in schools, Gay Pride Month with 9 year old girls, and other politicians and lawmakers passing gay so-called marriage laws. And Western Europe?
I think Russian politicians are responding to a global infiltration of all institutions that demands and forces others not to just respect gay/LGBT people who will stop campaigning and live like everybody else after they get a “marriage” license, but no. They are watching a tidal wave of events driven by gay activists to force others to accept gay behavior as normative, at every institution, regardless of age, and parents cannot opt out their kids and raise them the way they want, and they are the ones horrified.
They missed the protests in France?
bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22833798
Ed
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
… and the poster made clear in #96 he was talking about moral laws that were just, not unjust, in reply to your post raising a-m statutes as an example of wide “moral laws” that you put in quotes.
No one is pushing for a theocracy.
The thinking is that in view of the recent passage of an LGBT related law (prohibiting pro-gay propaganda) in Russia, in the U.S., the pendulum has swung too far, from anti-sodomy laws to decriminalization of sodomy, to an ultra pro-gay stance of legalized same sex ‘marriage’ now in 12 jurisdictions, without much pause for the societal impact. Already, we are seeing indoctrination of kids in school to normalize homosexuality, recent opening of BSA membership to openly gay youth, closure of Catholic Charities for refusing to place kids with adoptive same sex couples, etc., and signs of increasing challenges by gay activists to amendment rights and religious liberty. We are not idealizing the Russian system or life under their laws there in general, but can you appreciate the concerns herein expressed?
Ideally, society is served with a government that strives to protect individual rights without forsaking the common good and continuation of a society that balances the interests of different groups of people. The practicality and price of enforcement is a consideration, but it does not make sense that said consideration is made to be the driving factor in deciding if a law is good or bad, or what is moral or immoral law. A good moral law requires built in enforcement rules that prevent excess and abuse.
Incidentally, the second duma law cited may be an overreaction by the Russian legislators, but it did not come about from an unprovoked or raw antipathy towards gays. You can do your own research to verify. It stemmed from the actions inside a Russian Orthodox Church of a feminist punk rock group, the P***y Riot, which aligned itself with the LGBT group against Putin and the ROC. Definitely, the Catholic Church in the U.S. and in other countries as well are more tolerant of the antics of irreligious and anti-Catholic folks. Historically, the Catholic Church is slow to react even in justifiable anger. Consider that it took centuries before she engaged the Muslims in the Crusades whereby the enemies did more than just desecrate altars and destroy churches in the Middle East.
Sorry that I digressed a bit and I would like to close now. Let me say my take away in relation to the OP news link. No doubt there is a wide variance in the cultural temperament of Russians and Americans. The respective histories are not comparable. The governing laws would therefore be necessarily different. The majority of Russians resent and would like to stop at its borders the global push by gay activism, mistakenly and unfortunately being championed by no less than the U.S. and its President. Why shouldn’t they?
,
F
fix
Guest
All true. The problem is the poster wants all morals laws to be undifferentiated. That way he can claim they alway lead to fascism. The silly notion that we will have a theocracy or a fascist state is refuted by the history in this country.
Oddly, so called morals laws are described as unworkable and dangerous but somehow anti morals laws, like pro gay laws, somehow lead to what? Freedom? No, tyranny as we are just starting to see.
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
:thumbsup:Well said, straight and to the point.
- Status