Should we legalize sexual freedom?

Mathematician said:

I give it about 10 years until there is major whining for polygamy to be legally recognized.

Click to expand...

And at that time we look at the potential measurable affects of that occurring. If those wanting it have a plan to overcome polygamy conflicting with the current marriage laws, I personally don't have an issue with polygamy. But the arguments for and against polygamy are not the same as those for same sex marriage. There are a lot of logistical issues that arise when you are talking about more than two people being involved in the marriage contract. And same sex marriage and polygamy also would not be at the same scrutiny level under the 14th.

I believe that the 14th applies to same sex marriage due to the arguments for and against same sex marriage, and how same sex marriage compares, overall, to opposite sex marriage. That is the same way I would look at polygamy.

roguenuke said:

The problem is, you cannot prove that making things like same sex marriage legal will have any negative effect on society, let alone will actually cause measurable harm. You only have your opinion.

And unless someone can show some proof that certain things will cause measurable harm or have some negative effect on society, then you still have to treat them equally under the law, no matter what state they are in. Saying that a couple cannot enter into a legal contract based solely on their relative sexes is against the 14th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't have any problems with legally allowing 2 people of the same sex to enter into a legal contract. I think calling it "marriage" is a social issue so falls under state or local jurisdiction instead of Federal. For one side to want to appear similar to the other doesn't make any sense to me, personally. Why call something a car if it's a tree? Why change the definition of a tree to include a car? If we're talking about benefits and heirs, it's a contract. No problem. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason it matters is because the government inserted itself into marriage via taxes, insurance benefits, etc. Get the gov't back out, and I don't know what difference it makes. Come to think of it, I think most so-called religious people have little respect for marriage anyway.

As an adult, I'm happy to work with, work for, speak to, and buy from anyone of any sexual preferences whatsoever - if people are polite, I have no problems interacting at a personal level with anyone - people are people, and we all have our own issues. I will show love to and accept love from anybody. However, I don't think the Federal government should require everyone in the country to officially endorse what I believe to be unhealthy behavior (individually and socially). Most things are best left to individual states.

Legalizing prostitution and allowing death benefits to apply contractually equally are not really very close to the same thing. But, I would prefer to see neither relationship flaunted as having been proved healthy in the long term. I can't prove certain traditionally unacceptable things won't have any negative effect on society or cause measurable harm any more than I can prove they will.

jamesrage said:

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. Sleeping with someone of the same gender, your sister, a minor, a prostitute or who ever else is not a constitutional right. Citizens exercising their their 2nd amendment rights keeps the government on their toes and in check.

Click to expand...

Constitutionality does not dictate whether people will make the right decision. The Constitution once tried to get people to stop drinking. History shows people still chose to get hammered. Your argument is a fallacy.

jamesrage said:

Morals are not just what them thar bible thumpers thumping they Harry Potter books, trying to get you to join their church, knocking on your doors and singing praise Jebus. You do realize that almost all laws are based on someone's morals and that it is not restricted to just people with religious views but atheists as well? Laws against stealing, murder, rape and many others are based on someone's personal view of right and wrong.


Moral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Click to expand...

Please don't compare sexual freedom between consenting adults to stealing, murder and rape. That's just dumb.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Everyone wants a portion of society to reflect their personal moral beliefs. People who insult people for having beliefs are annoying.

Click to expand...

I don't. I could care less what other people believe. All I ask is that I am given liberty to live my life without other people sticking their nose in my business. I'll do the same for them.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Everyone has beliefs. And, again, I think there should be a place for most of what's been discussed in this thread. I just don't think it can be one-country-fits-all. Smaller geographical areas are needed.

Click to expand...

That's not feasible.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I'll give you an example of how I know that everyone wants society to reflect their own beliefs. No one teaches their kids to believe things that they have grown, over a lifetime of experience, to believe are wrong. The most liberally minded might encourage their kids not to be biased by anyone and to only think for themselves. But, even then, the kids will gravitate toward the way their parents think until faced with realities of life and experience that convince them of their own moral "truths" and most of those parents will be very disappointed if the kids end up being, by their definition, "narrow minded".

Another example - you want people to believe what you believe. You try to make that happen by scoffing at people like me. I'm not trying to convince you to live by what I've learned. I'm just suggesting that we'd each be happier with some things not in view of our kid's schools or in our own face 24/7. I would personally choose a more conservative community to live in. You might personally choose Vegas. We should each have a choice.

Click to expand...

I can't make anything happen, nor do I pretend that my opinion makes even the slightest difference. I don't come here to change minds because I know that is fruitless. Everyone else assumes that they are correct in their beliefs so what would be the point? But I am very frustrated that other people think they have the right to impose their beliefs on me or my family. And it frankly pisses me off when people think they should control how others choose to live. I may disagree with someone else's decisions, but because I want my liberty, I in turn give others that same respect.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Actually, I don't have any problems with legally allowing 2 people of the same sex to enter into a legal contract. I think calling it "marriage" is a social issue so falls under state or local jurisdiction instead of Federal. For one side to want to appear similar to the other doesn't make any sense to me, personally. Why call something a car if it's a tree? Why change the definition of a tree to include a car? If we're talking about benefits and heirs, it's a contract. No problem. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason it matters is because the government inserted itself into marriage via taxes, insurance benefits, etc. Get the gov't back out, and I don't know what difference it makes. Come to think of it, I think most so-called religious people have little respect for marriage anyway.

Click to expand...

The government contract that covers the legal relationship between two adults at a certain level is known as marriage. It would be economically stupid to change this just because some people do not approve of having to share the word marriage with others that they do not feel fit that term. And it is wrong, along with economically stupid, to have two different contracts that set up legally the exact same benefits, rights, etc. for a committed couple just due to their relative sexes.

GreenvilleGrows said:

As an adult, I'm happy to work with, work for, speak to, and buy from anyone of any sexual preferences whatsoever - if people are polite, I have no problems interacting at a personal level with anyone - people are people, and we all have our own issues. I will show love to and accept love from anybody. However, I don't think the Federal government should require everyone in the country to officially endorse what I believe to be unhealthy behavior (individually and socially). Most things are best left to individual states.

Click to expand...

Except that this means that people who get legally married would be in trouble if they had to move to a state that refused to recognize their marriage contract due to their sexes. What people don't understand is that some people have to move. What about servicemembers who are married in one state but must move to another state that doesn't recognize that couple's marriage, for whatever reason? They would face issues that they should not have to face just due to some arbitrary decision on who should and should not be their legal partner by the state in which they live. Why should this be acceptable?

DADT is officially repealed September 20th. This means that servicemembers can openly have same sex relationships. It also means that they can marry members of the same sex. Once DOMA goes down, the federal government will recognize those marriages as well. What happens to them if in 5 years, DOMA has gone away but states can refuse to recognize their marriages as legal? What if they are stationed in a state that does not recognize same sex marriages? They will still be discriminated against for the sex of the partner.

And leaving such decisions in the hands of each state would mean that we would have to also allow interracial marriages to be left up to each state as well. Interfaith marriages would be another issue. States should not be allowed to discriminate just because they are smaller government entities than the federal government.

GreenvilleGrows said:

Legalizing prostitution and allowing death benefits to apply contractually equally are not really very close to the same thing. But, I would prefer to see neither relationship flaunted as having been proved healthy in the long term. I can't prove certain traditionally unacceptable things won't have any negative effect on society or cause measurable harm any more than I can prove they will.

Click to expand...

Legalizing prostitution is going to take a lot more fighting than same sex marriage. There are certainly issues that will come from legalizing prostitution and a good plan would be needed for dealing with those issues and ensuring that the legalization is made in a way where the benefits of the legalization are seen. Legalizing prostitution should probably stay on the state level or lower, but I could still see a legitimate argument for legalizing it if it did become an issue that went to the SCOTUS. I think one big issue with prostitution is that it is at the state level, despite some local governments wanting to legalize prostitution.

But prostitution is not the same as same sex marriage, which is what I think you are talking about with the contract death benefits. For one thing, same sex marriage involves a lot more than death benefits. Having a legal marriage contract involves a lot of everyday legal things that many take for granted. These legal issues affect some couples more than others. I know a lot about how legal marriage can affect your everyday life because I am a military spouse and in the reserves. I live in a house based on my legal marriage status. I am entitled to certain benefits I use throughout the year due to my legal marriage. My husband is entitled to certain benefits throughout the year due to our legal marriage.

evanescence said:

I don't. I could care less what other people believe. All I ask is that I am given liberty to live my life without other people sticking their nose in my business. I'll do the same for them.




That's not feasible.


I can't make anything happen, nor do I pretend that my opinion makes even the slightest difference. I don't come here to change minds because I know that is fruitless. Everyone else assumes that they are correct in their beliefs so what would be the point? But I am very frustrated that other people think they have the right to impose their beliefs on me or my family. And it frankly pisses me off when people think they should control how others choose to live. I may disagree with someone else's decisions, but because I want my liberty, I in turn give others that same respect.

Click to expand...

You want to live in a place where anyone can do just about anything. I get it. I want to live in a place where more rules and protections are in place. Why should your want supercede mine? Why should you be protected but not me? I'm not saying, nor have I said, that there shouldn't be a place in the good ole USA for you and people who think like you. You, though, are saying that there shouldn't be a place for me and people who think like me. That's not the same as liberty except in the most anarchy-like sense. That's why much of this should be states rights.

roguenuke said:

The government contract that covers the legal relationship between two adults at a certain level is known as marriage. It would be economically stupid to change this just because some people do not approve of having to share the word marriage with others that they do not feel fit that term. And it is wrong, along with economically stupid, to have two different contracts that set up legally the exact same benefits, rights, etc. for a committed couple just due to their relative sexes.



Except that this means that people who get legally married would be in trouble if they had to move to a state that refused to recognize their marriage contract due to their sexes. What people don't understand is that some people have to move. What about servicemembers who are married in one state but must move to another state that doesn't recognize that couple's marriage, for whatever reason? They would face issues that they should not have to face just due to some arbitrary decision on who should and should not be their legal partner by the state in which they live. Why should this be acceptable?

DADT is officially repealed September 20th. This means that servicemembers can openly have same sex relationships. It also means that they can marry members of the same sex. Once DOMA goes down, the federal government will recognize those marriages as well. What happens to them if in 5 years, DOMA has gone away but states can refuse to recognize their marriages as legal? What if they are stationed in a state that does not recognize same sex marriages? They will still be discriminated against for the sex of the partner.

And leaving such decisions in the hands of each state would mean that we would have to also allow interracial marriages to be left up to each state as well. Interfaith marriages would be another issue. States should not be allowed to discriminate just because they are smaller government entities than the federal government.



Legalizing prostitution is going to take a lot more fighting than same sex marriage. There are certainly issues that will come from legalizing prostitution and a good plan would be needed for dealing with those issues and ensuring that the legalization is made in a way where the benefits of the legalization are seen. Legalizing prostitution should probably stay on the state level or lower, but I could still see a legitimate argument for legalizing it if it did become an issue that went to the SCOTUS. I think one big issue with prostitution is that it is at the state level, despite some local governments wanting to legalize prostitution.

Having a legal marriage contract involves a lot of everyday legal things that many take for granted. These legal issues affect some couples more than others. I know a lot about how legal marriage can affect your everyday life because I am a military spouse and in the reserves. I live in a house based on my legal marriage status. I am entitled to certain benefits I use throughout the year due to my legal marriage. My husband is entitled to certain benefits throughout the year due to our legal marriage.

Click to expand...

I've agreed that it's not fair for a government to interject itself into marriage or similar relationships. My point is that the "marriage" relationship existed prior to the US existing. If the US gov't wants to define a contract that works for it concerning taxes, inheritance, benefits, etc. that's great - put a name on it and enforce it. Call it "Family Status" or some such thing and regognize "marriage" as a legal form of "Family Status" among other forms. The comment about actually calling it marriage at a state level was just a side comment because I think the local governments should have a lot more control over social issues than the Federal Gov't. After all, you can move to a different state if you don't like the way your state does it. And, if everyone moves to the same state, then other states will see (or not) that there may be good reason to act differently. The term "marriage" is a social issue (state). The "Family Status" example would be a equal protection under the law issue (federal).

evanescence said:

Please don't compare sexual freedom between consenting adults to stealing, murder and rape. That's just dumb.

Click to expand...

I never did any such thing. Whether or not these things are similar is not the issue.What is the issue is your asinine remark about how people with moral views are annoying and a threat to freedom. Perhaps you should bother to look up what a word means before you try to bash people.

Hatuey said:

Constitutionality does not dictate whether people will make the right decision.

Click to expand...

Neither do most laws.If someone wants to do something no law on the book is going to stop them.

The Constitution once tried to get people to stop drinking. History shows people still chose to get hammered. Your argument is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

Almost anything that is illegal to do there are people who still do those things that are illegal. So it is your argument that is a fallacy.

Mathematician said:

I give it about 10 years until there is major whining for polygamy to be legally recognized.

Click to expand...

So what? Other than adjusting tax laws to reflect only one spousal deduction per household, who really cares? I don't. Just because something is legal doesn't mean I choose to be part of it.

Now if everyone were forced to partake in polygamous marriage, you'd have a complaint. Otherwise, you got nuttin'.

GreenvilleGrows said:

You want to live in a place where anyone can do just about anything. I get it.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't. But I would like to live in a place where consenting adults can sleep with whom ever they choose without government interference. That is a far cry from anarchy.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I want to live in a place where more rules and protections are in place. Why should your want supercede mine? Why should you be protected but not me? I'm not saying, nor have I said, that there shouldn't be a place in the good ole USA for you and people who think like you. You, though, are saying that there shouldn't be a place for me and people who think like me. That's not the same as liberty except in the most anarchy-like sense. That's why much of this should be states rights.

Click to expand...

I want to live in a place where people don't think their beliefs should be made law. I believe in limited government. That is about the extent of my beliefs.

jamesrage said:

I never did any such thing. Whether or not these things are similar is not the issue.What is the issue is your asinine remark about how people with moral views are annoying and a threat to freedom. Perhaps you should bother to look up what a word means before you try to bash people.

Click to expand...

Which word should I look up? Because what you said was clear to me. And I think that I have also been abundantly clear. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own life styles so long as no one gets hurt. It's called liberty. What a concept.

evanescence said:

Which word should I look up? Because what you said was clear to me. And I think that I have also been abundantly clear. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own life styles so long as no one gets hurt. It's called liberty. What a concept.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with your asinine remark that people with morals with moral views are annoying and a threat to freedom? Morals are what is right and wrong and those views vary from person to person. Practically every law on the book is based on someone's morals, the laws that are currently on the books are morals that a lot of agreed to that should be made into law.

jamesrage said:

What does that have to do with your asinine remark that people with morals with moral views are annoying and a threat to freedom? Morals are what is right and wrong and those views vary from person to person. Practically every law on the book is based on someone's morals, the laws that are currently on the books are morals that a lot of agreed to that should be made into law.

Click to expand...

Most laws can be justified by objective standards of safety/security. Laws regarding sexual freedom can only be justified by subjective standards of morality, so comparing such laws to most others is a false comparison. In other words, laws on murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. would all exist regardless of morality. However, laws banning SSM or polygamy would not.

GreenvilleGrows said:

You want to live in a place where anyone can do just about anything. I get it. I want to live in a place where more rules and protections are in place. Why should your want supercede mine? Why should you be protected but not me? I'm not saying, nor have I said, that there shouldn't be a place in the good ole USA for you and people who think like you. You, though, are saying that there shouldn't be a place for me and people who think like me. That's not the same as liberty except in the most anarchy-like sense. That's why much of this should be states rights.

Click to expand...

Because we are citizens of the United States mainly. The US is who issues your passport to go to different countries, not individual states. Every US citizen should have the right to move to another state without having their freedoms/rights restricted or being discriminated against due to nothing more than a moral standard having zero to do with an actual state interest. A state interest would include safety, protection, and/or welfare of those in that state which is measurable.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I've agreed that it's not fair for a government to interject itself into marriage or similar relationships. My point is that the "marriage" relationship existed prior to the US existing. If the US gov't wants to define a contract that works for it concerning taxes, inheritance, benefits, etc. that's great - put a name on it and enforce it. Call it "Family Status" or some such thing and regognize "marriage" as a legal form of "Family Status" among other forms. The comment about actually calling it marriage at a state level was just a side comment because I think the local governments should have a lot more control over social issues than the Federal Gov't. After all, you can move to a different state if you don't like the way your state does it. And, if everyone moves to the same state, then other states will see (or not) that there may be good reason to act differently. The term "marriage" is a social issue (state). The "Family Status" example would be a equal protection under the law issue (federal).

Click to expand...

Yet you fail to see that changing the word marriage in the current laws would waste money. It is fiscally irresponsible, especially when we are facing the money problems we are now, to change the word marriage in federal or state laws just to appease some people's sensibilities. Aren't conservatives supposed to be concerned about saving money?

And the reasoning that marriage should be a state issue completely has the potential to actually affect more than just same sex marriage. There are still people who view interracial marriage as not being acceptable. There are also a lot of people who would say that interfaith marriages should not be legal.

Also, as I have pointed out, some people have to move. How would you suggest handling servicemembers? How about those who would be vacationing with their spouses in other states? US citizens should have the right to move anywhere throughout the country and have their legal contracts recognized by all the other states within the US.

evanescence said:

People who want society to reflect their personal moral beliefs are not only annoying, but they are one of the biggest threats to liberty.

Click to expand...

Kind of like wanting society to fit to your belief that it shouldn't reflect an individuals personal moral beliefs?

theplaydrive said:

Things like murder, rape, theft, (sometimes) drug laws and so on are outlawed because of the threat they pose to our safety not because of the personal beliefs we have about them.

Click to expand...

So your personal belief is that its Right for the government to pass laws that have a moral element but are aimed at making us physically "safe" but its Wrong to pass laws that have a moral element but aren't aimed at making us physically safe.

Sure does sound like you're trying to suggest your personal views and beliefs of what's right and wrong regarding the correct way the government should be enacting and upholding laws.

Zyphlin said:

Kind of like wanting society to fit to your belief that it shouldn't reflect an individuals personal moral beliefs?

Click to expand...

Not wanting society to reflect an individual's personal moral beliefs is not a threat to liberty...at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

evanescence said:

I want to live in a place where people don't think their beliefs should be made law.

Click to expand...

No, you want to live in a place where YOUR beliefs are made law. As indicated by the notion that you would like the laws to be changed to allow consenting adults to engage in any acts they want because it adheres to your beliefs of what government should be and should do.

You apparently are the the biggest threat to liberty according to your own words.

theplaydrive said:

Not wanting society to reflect an individual's personal moral beliefs is not a threat to liberty...at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Not wanting society to reflect an individuals personal morals is in and of itself an individuals personal morals regarding what's right and wrong for a government to do.

EVERYONE wants the government to adhere to their personal beliefs and morals. Feel that government should be extremely limited and get out of peoples lives? That's a thought based on your personal beliefs and morals that you are placing upon the government. Everyone who has any care or opinion what so ever in regards to what the government should do and suggests that their opinion should be what the government DOES do is suggesting that their personal beliefs or morals are held by the government.

Zyphlin said:

So your personal belief is that its Right for the government to pass laws that have a moral element but are aimed at making us physically "safe" but its Wrong to pass laws that have a moral element but aren't aimed at making us physically safe.

Sure does sound like you're trying to suggest your personal views and beliefs of what's right and wrong regarding the correct way the government should be enacting and upholding laws.

Click to expand...

I do believe it's "right" for the government to pass laws aimed at increasing safety/security and I also believe that murder is "wrong". However, my opinions about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of both actions are not why I take my positions.

I believe government should evaluate law based on safety/security alone not because of my moral position on the matter, but because it increases freedom (a practical concern). I believe government should outlaw murder not because of my moral position, but because it threatens citizens' safety (a practical concern).

Just because someone believes something is right or wrong does not mean that their reason for supporting certain actions is based on their moral position. I think that's the thing you're missing when you try to critique liberal positions on liberty and freedom. Furthermore, it is also important to note that eliminating laws that impose morality is not an imposition of morality.

Zyphlin said:

Not wanting society to reflect an individuals personal morals is in and of itself an individuals personal morals regarding what's right and wrong for a government to do.

EVERYONE wants the government to adhere to their personal beliefs and morals. Feel that government should be extremely limited and get out of peoples lives? That's a thought based on your personal beliefs and morals that you are placing upon the government. Everyone who has any care or opinion what so ever in regards to what the government should do and suggests that their opinion should be what the government DOES do is suggesting that their personal beliefs or morals are held by the government.

Click to expand...

Wanting the government to stay out of people's lives is less of a personal moral belief than it is a practical position.

theplaydrive said:

I believe government should evaluate law based on safety/security alone not because of my moral position on the matter, but because it increases freedom (a practical concern).

Click to expand...

Freedom is not inherently "good" or "bad". There is no universal truth. It is your OPINION that its a good thing for people to have more freedom than less. Again, your basis for what the government should or shouldn't do is based on your own morals and beliefs.

I believe government should outlaw murder not because of my moral position, but because it threatens citizens' safety (a practical concern).

Click to expand...

Again, it is your belief and morals that its the governments responsability and purpose to protect its citizen's safety. Your belief in that makes you wish to impose your views onto other who may want there to be no government, or want the government to worry about safety over at a macro (say a national defense) then micro (acts of one person to another) level. Your beliefs and morals guide you to decide what you feel its correct or right for the government to do.

Furthermore, it is also important to note that eliminating laws that impose morality is not an imposition of morality.

Click to expand...

It absolutely is in the fact that you're imposing your moral belief that the government should not impose the moral beliefs you disagree with onto people and thus you deny them the ability to do so.

theplaydrive said:

Wanting the government to stay out of people's lives is less of a personal moral belief than it is a practical position.

Click to expand...

And your rationalization is no different than someone saying disallowing gays to be married is less of a personal moral belief than it is a practical position.

Its a practical position to THEM based on their own opinions, morals, and the facts they choose to look at based on those things.

Wanting the government to stay out of peoples lives looks practical to you based on your own opinions, morals, and the facts you chooes to look at based on those things.

In reality, both instances are someone imposing their beliefs, opinions, and morals onto others through the government.

Zyphlin said:

And your rationalization is no different than someone saying disallowing gays to be married is less of a personal moral belief than it is a practical position.

Click to expand...

It's not a "rationalization", it is, in fact, a practical position. Assuming that I'm rationalizing is just your way of dismissing my explanation of my position because you're more interested in keeping your interpretation of my position than the truth of it.

Its a practical position to THEM based on their own opinions, morals, and the facts they choose to look at based on those things.

Click to expand...

Wanting to ban SSM or prostitution because they're immoral is not a practical position, it's a moral position.

Wanting the government to stay out of peoples lives looks practical to you based on your own opinions, morals, and the facts you chooes to look at based on those things.

Click to expand...

I do come to conclusions about practicality based on my own opinions and knowledge (yes, knowledge, not "facts I choose to look at" :roll: - not everyone is selective about facts). However, it doesn't have anything to do with morals.

In reality, both instances are someone imposing their beliefs, opinions, and morals onto others through the government.

Click to expand...

Removing laws is not imposition.

Zyphlin said:

Freedom is not inherently "good" or "bad". There is no universal truth. It is your OPINION that its a good thing for people to have more freedom than less. Again, your basis for what the government should or shouldn't do is based on your own morals and beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don't strive for more freedom because of the moral value of freedom, but because of the practical value it brings to the creation of a stable society. I agree that it is my opinion. I object to your attempts to characterize my opinion as a moral one because it isn't.

Again, it is your belief and morals that its the governments responsability and purpose to protect its citizen's safety. Your belief in that makes you wish to impose your views onto other who may want there to be no government, or want the government to worry about safety over at a macro (say a national defense) then micro (acts of one person to another) level. Your beliefs and morals guide you to decide what you feel its correct or right for the government to do.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's my belief. I object to your characterization of it as a moral belief, which it is not. And again, "imposition" is a very specific thing - a specific thing that cannot be accomplished by removing impositions.

It absolutely is in the fact that you're imposing your moral belief that the government should not impose the moral beliefs you disagree with onto people and thus you deny them the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

I think that because morality factors so much into your own decision making that you can't conceive of a person or group that is able to separate morality from practicality. Those people exist, I am one of them and the more you dismiss that reality, the less able you are to understand certain political positions..

theplaydrive said:

In other words, laws on murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. would all exist regardless of morality. However, laws banning SSM or polygamy would not.

Click to expand...

Says you without any evidence. Wishful thinking.