What do you think about legislators deciding morality issues?

[bloom]

Whether it is polygamy laws or laws that legislate at what age a minor can have sex with an adult, penalities for various crimes, etc?


Morality is legislated. On what basis should moral decision be decided?


Also - do you consider Roe v. Wade to be a moral decision?

[Deep13]

1. Ultimately, we balance the needs of society vs. the needs of individuals

I would naturally prefer everyone do whatever he or she wants, but that is not civilization and no one would be safe. So we have cultural norms about respecting life and liberty and property that have become law. These standards are not perfect or absolute, but by and large they work at making society stable while allowing people to do most of what they want. Where we think the interest of the individual is paramount, we call them fundamental rights and put them in the Constitution. Abortion is only tangentally a moral issue since it assumes that an embryo is a person based on the idea that it has a soul, an idea with no objective basis in fact.

[bloom]

5. What do you think should be the basis of "cultural norms"

It seems like that is part of what the "culture war" is about. People having disagreements about what it "normal" and reasonable to legislate.

The Christian right has their ideas. Others groups have different ideas.

[Deep13]

10. Cultural norms ARE the basis.

They are not deliberative. They are assumptions people have implicitly. Saying so is not a value judgment, just an observation. I agree with some, accept others and disagree with yet others.

[bloom]

18. It seems to me

That it is "cultural norms" that are argued about when it comes to making these laws.

And that when we vote people in - that their cultural perspective is what makes the difference. Some people are cogs - as Republicans (or Democrats) they will go along with blah, blah, blah and don't have any ideas of their own - but someone has an idea - and they are pushing it. They are pushing it to become the new normal. Like South Dakota and their anti-abortion bill.

This is the sort of thing that Republicans are doing with their "Framing" and such - they get an agenda and they send it out to people who will spread it. I think it is all about manipulating "cultural norms".



It seems to me also that people try to promote what is "culturally normal" on message boards - in churches - among friends - by what people do - by what people say. Some people think about it - some people don't.

Some people do things is a non-deliberative way - or make advertisements that sell without thinking about what messages they are sending along with "buy this". Others proclaim things like that they are "proud purveyors of smut" - (Hi Mongo :hi: ) and I think in their own way - he/they are trying to influence "cultural norms". Some are quite clear about what they are fighting for. Some people are content to go along....

[Deep13]

20. Cultural norms are basic, broad underlying assumptions...

...and not legislative details.

For example, the debate about abortion, health care, the death penalty, the war etc. are all based on the assumption that human life is valuable.

[bloom]

21. I think people assume that they can influence others

and change cultural norms.

Like the people and their "abortion is murder" signs or fetus photos. For people on the left - it is more of a moral, philosophical argument - and that it is the life of the woman - that it is valuable.

Some people aren't going to change their minds - but others are. Assumptions might be underlying - but they aren't set in stone either.


I think it makes sense to have a value system of community and the value of life. But I don't assume that everybody does. In fact I know that they don't.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Laws are made to protect people

Polygamy laws protect the public from unknowingly marrying someone that's already married, it protects fraudulently granted citizenship, it prevents fraudulent sharing of insurance, etc. That's not morality - that's legitimate protection.

Laws against having sex with a minor protect minors that don't understand what it means to consent. That's protection, not just morality.

Roe v. Wade is not a law, but it protects women's ability to make health decisions for themselves without governmental interference.

Yes, it's a fine line, but you can see plainly where the line is drawn. Constitutional law has helped us draw that line as well, stating that the government must have an immediate compelling interest to abridge civil liberties.

[bloom]

4. Of course then you have things like the FCC rulings

Some people see it as "protection" - others see such things as a violation of their rights (also - as some people see laws that regulate ages between sexual partners as intrusive).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. That's where constitutional law comes into effect.

The government must show that it has a compelling interest in abridging civil liberties. In the case of FCC rulings, that's exactly why you have lower standards for cable television than you do for network broadcasting - because with a network broadcast, anyone with a set of rabbit ears can tune in, making it incredibly difficult to prevent minors from viewing. Cable's a much different story. You can either choose not to have cable television or you can use the V-Chip thing that comes along with pretty much every cable box these days. That's also why basic cable is more stringent than premium cable - because you can get basic cable without a receiver.

The "some people" part of your sexual partners argument doesn't fly. The government does have a compelling interest to protect children from entering into sexual decisions they do not understand at the hands of a coercive adult. That's not morality or intrusion - that's protection, plain and simple.

Even though it may not seem like it, there actually is a significant amount of black and white when it comes to legislating morality. There are a lot of grey areas (unfortunately, abortion is one of them), but most issues can be pretty cut and dry.

[bloom]

11. This actually comes up a lot - "some people"

See posts 55 & 97 & 112 (they are all together) for examples of different views - I would say based on different moral values:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=717135

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. It's pretty clear - patcox is wrong.

There has to be an age cutoff at some point. Saying that some 16 or 17 year olds can make those choices for themselves doesn't do anything to protect the millions that can't. That's not patronizing at all.

[mongo]

24. Still it's not that clear cut

The age of consent is an arbitrary number.

Canada is not far from us as far as culture goes, but the age of consent is 14. You could take a 14yo to a swing club there and let her interact sexually with multiple partners, as long she consents to the acts. Most all swing clubs have their own rules baring people less than 18 (or 21 in the US), but there is no law that says you can't.

I'm not advocating lowering the age of consent, just pointing out that it is not such a black and white issue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. As long as we can agree that there should be SOME age cutoff.

That's really the point I'm arguing.

[mongo]

27. Agreed and 18 is fine with me

as long as there are provisions that address "normal" relations between teenage minors and people close to their own age.

[willows]

3. Tough.

I don't consider Roe v. Wade a moral decision for the fact that it is multi-faceted.
There are the certain inalienable rights of the woman, medical threat for the body, criminal acts (though I'm not sure where I stand on whether incest is more/less of a moral decision in general circumstances).

If it were a moral decision in my thinking, it would be difficult. Especially if it were rape.
I try not to hold grudges. But children hold grudges against siblings and family for feeling less loved, etc.
I wonder how mothers of children conceived during rape feel towards the child/ren over their life time.
If the relationship is any different even subconsciously (flashes of anger, resentment, etc)

[newyawker99]

17. Hi willows!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[thereismore]

6. There are two things. There is morality, and there is law.

Some immoral behavior is unlawful, but certainly not all. Every now and then enough Congressmen decide to criminalize behavior, like selling or drinking booze, and make it a law. Hell, they sometimes put it into the Constitution, only to be taken out later. There will always be stupid laws proposed, but to paraphrase Dr. King, "the arc of history is bending towards justice".

Moral decisions should be based on your moral compass, regardless of where you got it from (Hindu, Christian, Anarchist). You may have a different moral compass than I, but as long as you are not violating laws, it's OK.

As far as Roe v Wade, I must say this: there is a biological asymmetry between man and a woman. Only women bear children. I as a man don't think I can fully comprehend all the aspects of abortion. I do not like it, but who doeas like abortion? As fas as a matter of law, I think it hinges on the legal definition of a "person." According to the Constitution, 5th amendment, "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." So, if a fetus is a person, it is unconstitutional to abort him/her without some sort of a trial, I guess. Many think that a fetus is a person. I personally think that a fetus definitely has a personality, in the way she/he reacts to sounds or motion by kicking and flipping in the amniotic fluid (mothers of several children will agree with me I think). That's not the same as saying a fetus is legally a person. Currently, I think, Roe v Wade stands on a lot of historical precedent. I think in order to overturn it there would have to be some constitutional changes (amendments).

[Triana]

8. what CONSENTING adults do in their lives, bedrooms, homes...

...is none of any legislator's business. What is decided between a woman and her doctor as a course of treatment or termination of pregnancy is none of any legislator's business. When they start inserting their noses that far up people's butts and into women's vaginas, they need to be slapped down and reminded what the parameters of their jobs are -- and are not. AND, the law should delineate that and I believe it does however disregarded in favor of religious extremeists who want to run our government a la The Taliban.

[leeroysphitz]

9. I've never been comfortable with EITHER party trying to

legislate morality. Pass laws that keep me and my family and fellow citizens from being HARMED in a TANGIBLE way and leave the sermonizing out of it.

[anarch]

12. how would we know what was right and wrong, if we didn't have laws

to tell us?

[bloom]

16. I guess that is the question.

Some people see harm in polygamy and in adults having sex with minors - esp. when there is a big age difference. I think that those who are against such things are thinking about what is in the best interest of the women (in the case of polygamy) or girls or boys as the case may be. Others don't want to think that there is harm.

To me - to not think it is wrong - I think people are approaching the question such it being a relationship of the man having the power (it's usually a man) and the girl or boy NOT having power and them not having a problem with that. When we have the question of the women as adult having sex with the boy as the 14 year old - some see the woman as abusing her role/her power ( as teacher) - and others don't seem to think that women can abuse their power (maybe they don't think that women have enough power to abuse).

It seems to me that there is plenty of abuse of power that can and should be legislated. And I suppose it's a question of wanting there to be laws that protect those who may be abused from those who do.


As far as Roe V. Wade - I don't see women having the choice to decide as being an abuse of power - but clearly those who advocate it's repeal do.

[Yupster]

23. All laws are based on some type of morality

So who should decide what's legal and what isn't? Who's supposed to make the laws?

It has to be our elected lawmakers, doesn't it?

If they make laws we don't agree with then we replace them with other legislators who will overturn the offending laws.

I don't know how else you'd do it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. I think that laws of this kind should be predicated

not upon "morality" but upon harm to someone. Rape is a crime because it harms a person both physically and emotionally. Same for child molestation.

Giving a woman a choice on whether or not to terminate a pregnancey is not in itself a moral decision. By making abortion legal, all the government is doing is allowing the woman to decide which choice is the moral one for her.

[mongo]

14. That's kind of a loaded question

That doesn't have a straight answer. It all depends on the particular issue being discussed.

But in general I will say that the government needs to have a VERY compelling interest to get involved in issues where no person or property is harmed in the process. Laws against homosexual behavior would be a good example of "bad" moral laws in my book. Laws against abortion for that matter. Laws against drugs? There's a grey area here. Many folks would like to see marijuanna legalized, but few Meth.

Laws protecting children against physical crimes (even by their own parents) would be an example of "good" moral laws. Or laws against dumping waste even on your own property.

Overall, I don't think that the government has a compelling interest to guide our culture in a particular direction, with "decency" laws and the like. When government gets into the business of shaping and molding our culture, it is a slippery slope to national fascism.

And when all is said and done, if you look at abortion, it is a moral decision. It is the weighing of the right of a woman to control her own body, and own destiny against the "potential" life of a child.

I am absoloutely pro-choice, and I can see where other pro-choice people would have a problem with seeing abortion as a "moral" issue, but I don't see how a moral component can be seperated from the issue.

[bloom]

19. What can be protection to some

would seem like fascism to others - don't you think? And what is abuse to some is nothing to others.



I like the civil rights example. There was a lot crap that was considered "culturally normal" that blacks put up with. There were big confrontations and the "cultural norms" changed for the better. But of course there were those who fought against change - who probably thought it was "fascism" or "communism" or something - that forcing of them to change ( and no doubt - some never changed - but did out in public).

I would like to see newspaper columnists be fired for supporting gang-rapists instead of the rape victims. But that is one of those "cultural norms" that would have to change. Enough people are going to have to see how disgusting that is and put pressure on publications to drop such people.

It's what we fight about with the Republicans. Limbaugh and O'Reilly - people who change "cultural norms" for the worse.

Initially - change happens through whatever networks people have. Some things are legislated - some things aren't. But having civil rights laws sure helped in the molding of our culture - for the better. And I don't think that "decency" laws hurt either.

[mongo]

22. I knew you would try to bring civil rights into the discussion

But it really doesn't apply. Civil rights is about placing limits on people I.E. You can't sit at this lunch counter, use this bathroom, etc. or about disparity - my business can pay you less because you are black.

But with porn, news-papper columnists, etc. what you are saying is that you can't print this because I find your speech offensive. You are limiting other's behavior or expression that you may never hear, or see in the first place - and certainly you have the option to not listen, change the channel, etc.

Who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not? I'm sure just as many people who think limbaugh is just great would like to censor planned parenthood.

For as much as you would like to remake our culture in your image, there are just as many people who would like to remake our culture in an image that would be unacceptable to you.

There is a differnce between "abuse of power" when it applies to limiting other's behavior and opportunities in life and labeling certain ideas "abusive". As much as I hate Rush, I'll defend his right to speak.

[bloom]

25. "people who would... remake our culture..."

So you're a mind-reader now. :)

Well - it is what comes to mind. Because it was legislated and change did happen because of that legislation. Although it wasn't only about the legislation.


If there was a shift in the culture such as what happened with the civil rights movement - for women - then columnists who cheered for the gang-rapists would be fired. Just like Limbaugh or whoever it was that was fired from ESPN - wasn't it - for his racial comments. It wouldn't be tolerated.

And actually - I think there are people who are making the culture more unacceptable all the time. That is part of the culture that tolerates torture, and pre-emptive war and all of that. And the degradation of women as entertainment.


There is a thread about it in Editorials:

The Double Standards of the United States

"I fear there has been a brutal shift of morality in the 'new normal' US - and it may never be the same again"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x198746

[Vidar]

28. Revolution is overdue.

[porphyrian]

29. Morality is subjective, thus a poor basis for legislation.

I would argue that it has no place in law at all, save coincidentally. Laws should be made to protect our citizens, not to teach them right from wrong.

[bloom]

30. There seems to be a pretty big disagreement

between people who believe in protecting minors and those who don't want to tell people (esp. men) what they can and cannot do.

Those tend to be people who see no harm in adult men having sex with minors - though the issue of women having sex with minors comes into play occasionally.


So some call it protection, some call it morality. What's the difference?

[porphyrian]

32. Hmm, I'll take a stab.

With regard to sex with minors, I would say that there is considerable evidence that attempting intimate adult relationships with most developing pre-adults can adversely affect those children, whether physically, emotionally, mentally or socially. Perhaps this is in part due to the type of adult willing to break both law and taboo in order to have such a relationship, I can't say for sure. Whatever the case, the law is a protection for child citizens, regardless of how you view these relationships.

Morality, on the other hand, is what drives many people to say that all sex with minors is wrong, period. This aspect is less about the children and more about peoples' repulsion to the idea of a taboo, though they would almost always argue that it was about protecting children. As morality is subjective, not everyone agrees with this. Some people believe sex with children is completely acceptable and natural. One who believes this might argue that keeping sex with children legal protects both them and the children they have sex with. Again, this isn't really about protecting citizens, it's about what people feel is right and wrong.

This is a law, like that against murder, which both protects citizens and is coincidentally a point of morality to some. An example of a purely moral law (which I believe has no place here) is that against public nudity. There are just as many uncovered faces I would rather not see on a given day as genitalia I would rather not see, so that's no justification. Nudity doesn't hurt anyone, except in situations which otherwise require protective gear. And, there is no real evidence that anyone is actually hurt by the nudity of others.

[bloom]

33. I think that people

who assume that moral decisions are based on taboos are making an assumption that is unfounded.

While I think that the Christian right has given "morality" a bad connotation - people assume that people who are interested in "morality" just want to get into other adult's bedrooms. I think of it more as philosophical.

I also try to think about the issues as a matter of what harm is done or not.

Take dildos for example. I don't see where any harm is being done in the sale of dildos - some states outlaw the sale or say they have to be called "educational models". AFAIC - they could be sold at Kmart or at least women's department type stores.

On the nudity issue - I was reading recently where it is not uncommon for child molesters to frequent nudist colonies. Someone had dates and names, etc. And really - why wouldn't they? It would be the perfect place for a child molester to have access to at least viewing children in the nude. And would make abuse all the easier.


I don't know where these ideas are coming from - Howard Stern (I don't listen to him) :shrug: Larry Flynt maybe - people like that - that ANY laws that relate to sex are bad for adults. I think some people have gone overboard in their desire to protect adults, esp. men - at the the expense of others. But I am mainly interested in issues where harm, abuse, is being done to others.

[porphyrian]

34. I should clarify then.

I didn't mean to say that moral decisions are based on taboos, but that taboos are a product of morality. I don't think all morality relates to sex. It's as I said before, however unclearly - morality is a subjective set of rules about what is right and wrong.

There are serial killers who frequent malls, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw them. Child molesters go to nudist areas because they are able to see naked children there without having to break other laws. That doesn't mean nudism should be outlawed - child molestation is, which is the law designed to protect children.

Barring the breaking of other existing laws (i.e. child molestation or rape), I don't think there should be any sex laws. Between consenting adults, I can't see the difference between this and abortion laws - it's nobody else's fucking business.

[bloom]

35. There seem to be quite a gray area

in the matter of adult men (and some women) having sex with teenagers.

This is where you see some people who argue that there shouldn't be any laws infringing on the adults - and other people wanting to protect minors. With someone arguing upthread, for instance, that Canada allows sex with 14 year olds - so what's the difference? I don't think that is an argument.


I don't buy your argument about nudist areas - nudist areas give predators more access than makes sense to me. And if you are talking about children being there - you've gone beyond consenting adults.

[porphyrian]

36. OK, I'll try again.

Law - a rule of behavior within a system created for the protection and fair treatment of those within that system.

Moral - a judgement of right and wrong held by an individual or group of individuals.

Laws need not be moral, and morals need not be laws. Sometimes, however, they can be degrees of both.

Laws based on a specific age are not entirely accurate because we, as humans, do not develop and mature at the same rate. Some people are adults at 18, some people are still adolescent at 50. However, as actual maturity is subjective and too difficult to accurately determine in all cases, a specific age is used. People who argue against age of consent and other age-based laws may have met one of these early bloomers (or they could be pedophiles, it would have to be determined individually to be certain).

How do you think nudist areas give predators more access than non-nudist areas? Are you saying that nudists supervise their children less than clothed adults? That's ridiculous. Besides, it's far easier to spot a predator nude than clothed - they STICK OUT, if you know what I mean. So, your argument is more emotional and moralistic than logical and concerned with the children. This is an example of what I was trying to point out a couple of posts ago.

[bloom]

37. How would it be different

(just on the nudist question)

to have a child or teen parading around on a stage naked - or down mainstreet naked - either of which would be illegal - than to have them parading around naked at a nudist camp? I don't get it.

Children and teens are NOT always watched 24/7 - I don't see it as "emotional and moralistic" to be concerned about naked children or teens mixing with child molesters. I see as a practical, reasonable precaution to do what can be done to keep them apart.

[porphyrian]

38. Your problem is with molesters seeing children naked?

There's a disconnect in your logic, I just misidentified it at first. See naked children isn't molestation, no matter what it makes you feel. Child molesters don't always act on their impulses, otherwise they'd be easier to spot. Also, seeing a naked child doesn't make someone, even a pedophile, automatically molest that child.

Nudity laws don't protect children from child molesters - child molestation and sexual predation laws do. Having no nudity laws doesn't mean everyone would walk around naked. In fact, if one were passed today, very few more people would feel comfortable enough to take all of their clothes off in public. Children and teens, for the most part, would be no more naked or in danger from molesters than they are anyway.

Previously, I hypothesized that your problem with nudity laws was a moralistic one, which may be the case, but it is also possible that you are simply comfortable making leaps of logic where I am not.

[bloom]

39. The thing that I was reading

was about one of the worst offenders - child molesters that is on the loose. And he likes to go to nudist camps where there are plenty of nude children available.

I'm not saying that I think that the viewing of naked children is child molestation. I am saying that it makes it far easier for child molesters if there are lots of naked children around. And children - if you have ever had any yourself - or if you had been one ( :eyes: ) you would know that children are not watched every minute - esp. older children. And as a parent - I would not want my children to be running around naked where there are child molesters preying about. I think it's a bad idea.

For instance - I know of more than once that the only barrier between getting raped and not was my clothes. So maybe it's personal experience.

To some extent - I think having boundaries protects people. It's partly a psychological thing. That's how I see it.


You seem to feel really strongly about this. Did you go to nudist camps as a child? Is that why you defend it? Or are you just defending it on theoretical grounds?

[patdem]

31. Repuks were the VERY FIRST to say, during integration, that you cannot

legislate morality...only now...they talk from the other side of their mouth. They want to legislate ALL MORAL issues, except assisting the poor of course! :grr: