5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 143:
Line 143: + + +
→Morality and Law
::::: If you don't want morality legislated on the basis of the existence of disagreement, what do you do when people disagree for other reasons? Still not legislate? Or if you do, who gets to decide then?
::::: If you don't want morality legislated on the basis of the existence of disagreement, what do you do when people disagree for other reasons? Still not legislate? Or if you do, who gets to decide then?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::How are you affected by ''someone else'' being married (in a manner that's different from a homosexual couple living together ''as if'' they were married, which is legal)?
:::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.
:::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)