Lawrence v. Texas: Discuss

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Nintendarse
I agree, Geno, under one condition: just as there are going to be homosexuals that take advantage of equal rights (no descrimination in employment), there are going to be bosses that really do descriminate. It would be unfair for the government to be looking out for one form of misconduct over another.

Weltall, I certainly don't understand your logic. First, you say it's okay for something to happen, but then say it's still not right to do it. All of your statements seem to indicate an assumption that not everyone here agrees with: homosexuality is inherently a negative thing, just like child molestation, murder, arson, and terrorism. Society decides that these things are bad, and so they are bad. I happen to disagree with this method. It has allowed the society-wide acceptance of slavery, which assumes that African Americans are inherently worth less. I prefer a more universal explanation of morals. You can dismiss it as relativism, but it has convinced me. Within relativism, I have found moral clarity.

This philosphy hinges on a nearly absolutist rule within relativism: The one and only morally wrong thing to do is to intrude upon a subject's right. Therefore, if there is no interference of rights, there is no moral wrongdoing. If subject A throws his hand through the air, his right to swing his hand does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. Meanwhile, subject B is standing, breathing in another room. Subject B's right to stand and breath does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. But when you put subject A and subject B together in the same room, there is an interference of rights. It is up to the society to decide which right has precedence: the right to physical integrity or the right to freedom of movement. Our law has decided that, when in conflict, the right to physical integrity has precendence over the right of free movement.

Many of society's moral standards can be explained in this manner. If you think this is absolutely ridiculous, point out why and I will try to defend it.

Society does determine what is right and what is wrong. That is the very basis of law. If morality were determined solely by the individual, then essentially anything could be moral, and anyone could justify anything simply by claiming their personal morality. There are inherent problems with that. Perhaps you have heard of NAMBLA? That is essentially the claim they make: What they do (promoting gay sex between children and adults) is moral because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. Yet, society disagrees, with good reason.

Social morality has been a part of human civilization since the very beginning. It has been responsible for some bad things, the Crusades and slavery being two examples, but it has also been an integral part of social fabric and civilizational advance.

If you want to see where moral relativism takes place, you need only look at whatever lawless third-world nation you choose... Africa's got quite a few. Everyone has their own morals because there is no society, and because of that the strong can and do impose their morals over the weak, because who will stop them? In contrast, civilized nations of the world, for the most part, practice social morality in some fashion, and as a result, have a much stronger and rich society. Moral relativism is something that should only exist where there is no society. To want to dismantle social morality and artificially create a moral vacuum is, as you put it, absolutely ridiculous. It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as gay marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it.