Lawrence v. Texas: Discuss

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, you do have a good point that society is overall good and that nations with order and society aree better places. But that's not the heart of this debate... this is.

In addition, a social morality system is utterly useless when two societies collide. If there is a discrepency in the values of the societies, how can both be right? In fact, one can model the world as a society of societies. The country-sized societies are the individuals, while the world is the common society. I find this global society to be eerily familiar to your disjointed, morally relativistic society, where the strong impose their morals on the weak, and there is nobody to stop them. I guess all I can do is sigh.

On the second part, you are begging the question. How do you define immorality? Is it because society thinks so? I hope it is clear that society's opinion does not define what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. It is merely a collective opinion. If this debate was occuring just a few decades ago, you would be the person arguing that because society does not agree with interracial relations, interracial marriages should be illegal. You would say, "It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as interracial marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it."

Exactly.

First... Weltall, I see your point that a completely relative society doesn't work. I agreed with that a while back.

Second... that doesn't matter to my point very much. I am not advocating 'anyone can do whatever they want and its okay to society if its okay to them'. That just doesn't work!

What I am saying is that society, while in many aspects good, has flaws that take a long time to correct. Over the course of human history societies have in general slowly improved... devolving sometimes but coming back. That process continues, slowly making the world a better and more moral place to live. The problem of course is determining what is the right changes... but whatever they are some groups will object, like slaveholders to the end of slavery or racists to the end of Jim Crow laws.

Or homophobes to the beginning of the end of anti-homosexual culture in our society.

Now... you will say that this goes too far. And yes some things have gone too far... but you just have to draw a line. ANd as Nintendarse says that should probably be about real harm... societal harm is different -- things taboo because of society are bad now but their status might change in the future. Things taboo because they to actual harm to others should all be not allowed. That should draw a clear line between, say, letting murderers off because they in their mind are convinced they are right and allowing homosexuals to marry because we try to get past society's problems with the issue.