Sapper Redux said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.

---

In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.

---

Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.

---

You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.

---

I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.

---

No, but you think they'd have a better insight into what the first amendment covers and what it doesn't.

---

Cough* Alien and Sedition Act *Cough

I do love how penumbras are read into the Constitution when it matters for conservatives but are anathema when it comes to liberalizing individual rights.

---

You'll have to explain how the Alien and sedition acts show the founding fathers for being the mainstream liberals Culpepper seems to think they are.

---

You'll have to explain how the entire furor over the acts and their blatantly political purpose point to any kind of universal agreement during the early republic as to what any of the articles of the Constitution meant at some deep philosophical level.

---

You're arguing with the wrong person, I don't really care much for the constitution other than I think it was an important document for the time but that its worship by the right has impeded the conservative cause far more than it has hampered the liberal cause for the very reasons you detail.

larry culpepper said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.

---

So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?

---

China actually didn't have much of an antigay stance until later westernization efforts in the 19-20th centuries. This is more an adopted thing and has begun to soften. China lags behind in most human rights areas hardly someone to point to.

So what's your rational secular purpose?

---

A reason I often hear for this is that society should "encourage" hetero marriage for procreation and child rearing, because kids good, nuclear family good, mom and dad good.

I agree all these things are good. But they are all happening anyway. People are having kids, nuclear families are common, and lots of (not sure if most) kids do live with their mom and dad.

Legalization of SSM didn't stop any of that. It just allowed certain couples to gain legal recognition of marriage and the rights that come with that. Some people think it's not good for kids to grow up with gay parents. You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but it's wrong for the government to discriminate against these couples simply based on their sex. Especially when you look at how many kids need to be adopted and how many kids are in broken homes. At least adoptive gay parents want the kids they adopt.

---

I think you have me confused with someone else. I agree with SSM and disagree that arguments in favor of hero marriage justify not supporting SSM. I was asking the question above rhetorically since I don't think the social conservatives really are relying on secular reasoning rather than religious reasoning.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Christian values should be given preference because they don't try to flout natural law. A pervasive gay culture in society is hugely detrimental, and Christian marriage and the product of which is hugely valuable to it. So why should we not act in our interest? And if society is acting in its interest, how can it be authoritarian? Is the imposition of an objective standard just Christian authoritarianism in your view? We have to be allowed to frustrate our intended purpose, or we aren't free. We have to be allowed to pursue pleasure without any constraints, or we're the subject of authoritarian rule.

---

Society's interest is not and has not ever been a monolith. A government authority that determines what society's interests should be and forces them is . . . yes, authoritarianism. You have basically listed the definition of authoritarianism and then asked why is that authoritarianism.

If I'm wrong, how should I read your post above? What should be the role of an authority like our government? You say it is to determine what natural moral laws are and impose them on people? You are comfortable with a government determining who is permitted to marry? You are comfortable with government imposing religious belief? And a person whose interests or values or beliefs are out of line with your standard are to be given fewer rights and treated less than equal.

Even though I very much oppose it, I can applaud you for at least admitting that you believe that your religious views should be forced on others.

---

I'm saying the laws we impose should be grounded in immutable truths. It's pretty easy to discern what's well ordered with regard to human sexuality. Our laws should be reconcilable with at least what is empirically true. I'm looking at it the exact opposite way. In my view, government should not be the arbiter of what is good, virtuous, vicious, etc. That is your view.

No, I was responding to you as well as those who were arguing against your position. I know you are in favor of SSM.

Silian Rail said:

---

My premise is that we look much better without; it becomes a matter of having a murder rate 67% higher than the UK than 625% higher. We have a ton of guns, and we don't deal with mental illness nor occupational stress as well as other developed countries who have more universal healthcare and worker-friendly labor laws.

---

That's funny, I though your premise was this:

Quote:

---

The confusion stems from the fact that the only societies able to actually practice liberalism are conservative ones where people voluntarily practice righteousness without having to be forced into it by law.

---

Which is of course false. And this:

Quote:

---

Furthermore crime is a touchy subject for the main reason that even with the huge numbers of laws on the books governing behavior; we have very low rates of crime when controlling for demographic/sociopolitical differences.

---

which is also false. We compare poorly to western europe when comparing our white population to their total population, let alone when comparing our white population to their own white populations...

Quote:

---

I'm not an American exceptionalist; I love my country but we have a life expectancy lower than Cuba and our cities are turning into Hoovervilles; I don't know where you got this "American exceptionalist" argument from; it certainly isn't me.

---

From the above quotes attributing the ability to practice liberalism to social conservatism and attesting to our very low crime rates with blacks excluded.

Quote:

---

The social conservatism of the countries I've mentioned keep them very very safe despite the overwhelming poverty of the majority of the people who live there (save Singapore). If poverty leads inevitably to crime; why aren't these places dens of drug use and murder?

---

I think you have confused cause and effect here. First off, western Europe alone disproves your social conservatism is required for liberalism premise. Having a conservative muslim population alone doesn't do it.

Second, you can certainly take a huge bite out of crime with authoritarianism, draconian laws, and a police state-that's a rather high price to pay...

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

My premise is that we look much better without; it becomes a matter of having a murder rate 67% higher than the UK than 625% higher. We have a ton of guns, and we don't deal with mental illness nor occupational stress as well as other developed countries who have more universal healthcare and worker-friendly labor laws.

---

That's funny, I though your premise was this:

Quote:

---

The confusion stems from the fact that the only societies able to actually practice liberalism are conservative ones where people voluntarily practice righteousness without having to be forced into it by law.

---

Which is of course false. And this:

Quote:

---

Furthermore crime is a touchy subject for the main reason that even with the huge numbers of laws on the books governing behavior; we have very low rates of crime when controlling for demographic/sociopolitical differences.

---

which is also false. We compare poorly to western europe when comparing our white population to their total population, let alone when comparing our white population to their own white populations...

Quote:

---

I'm not an American exceptionalist; I love my country but we have a life expectancy lower than Cuba and our cities are turning into Hoovervilles; I don't know where you got this "American exceptionalist" argument from; it certainly isn't me.

---

From the above quotes attributing the ability to practice liberalism to social conservatism and attesting to our very low crime rates with blacks excluded.

Quote:

---

The social conservatism of the countries I've mentioned keep them very very safe despite the overwhelming poverty of the majority of the people who live there (save Singapore). If poverty leads inevitably to crime; why aren't these places dens of drug use and murder?

---

I think you have confused cause and effect here. First off, western Europe alone disproves your social conservatism is required for liberalism premise. Having a conservative muslim population alone doesn't do it.

Second, you can certainly take a huge bite out of crime with authoritarianism, draconian laws, and a police state-that's a rather high price to pay...

---

For the vast majority of its history the West has been socially conservative; we're currently still basking in the "afterglow" of the success fostered by the overlap of righteousness and freedom; looking forward the west will reap the reverse because of the overlap of freedom and licentiousness. This is already starting to show up in the numbers.

The homicide rate in the UK is 50% higher than it was 50 years ago, this is despite the vast improvement of medical technology that turns many victims what would have been a murder in 1970 to agg assault in 2022.

Why does authoritarianism take such a huge bite out of crime? Is that it imputes the benefits of virtue upon a society through fear of temporal punishment rather than eternal? Would said draconian policies be needed if the populace shunned the behaviors the laws were enacted to tamp down upon?

Quote:

---

LOL, in fact a rational argument was made for marriage to remain as between a man and a woman (and this is still the stronger argument imho) particularly on a 'rational basis' level of scrutiny. Certainly, greater minds than my own have recognized/documented this basic fact (of the democratic debate which Obergefell now has largely led some to forget/ignore, per the link). You may agree with the ruling/state of decay regarding the now ongoing grooming saga of children in this country, but you don't get to pretend there was no rational counter-argument to this cascade of events;

---

You'd think a guy so superior that he can't post without trying to mock or use the laugh cry icon would actually understand the basic argument and be able to respond to it. Scalia's argument is NOT a rational argument against SSM, it's an argument about the scope and power of the supreme court deeming it a matter for legislatures. Care to try again?

Quote:

---

Social conservatives (by today's standard, no doubt) established the legal system which you now say protects you from their (philosophical) heirs, so I am not sure why you see them as unable to make a rational secular argument, or rather that if they do so only the legal system precludes it from being legally enforced, or if you just resent that people disagree with you about any social matter.

---

It's funny people like to say "by today's standard", but if we look at the time most every thing we enjoy and take for granted came from people quite liberal by the standard of their own times, funny how that happens...

and I see them as being unable for the simple reason that they are. Try it, don't post some link to something that isn't relevant. Just simply state in your own words what your rational secular argument against SSM is- I mean you have one right?

Quote:

---

Sodomy laws also have a very long history, and though I think most all of them should be done away with now, do you really deny that there is/was a rational basis for their original construction/adoption?

---

If there was, I think you would simply have stated it. Since it's a mockingly simple answer for you it should be easy....lets hear it? And notice I said rational secular basis, don't change words now. You can have a rational scientologist basis for something and I don't' care a lick.

Oh and if there is a rational secular basis for this law, why are you against it? What is the rational basis that you are rejecting here?

Serotonin said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.

---

So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?

---

China actually didn't have much of an antigay stance until later westernization efforts in the 19-20th centuries. This is more an adopted thing and has begun to soften. China lags behind in most human rights areas hardly someone to point to.

So what's your rational secular purpose?

---

My point is that the framing is incorrect here. The framing from pro-SSM is something along the lines of:

- SSM is a natural progression in the linear progress of morality as we move from a religious society to a secular society
- SSM represents a "neutral" view of marriage devoid of moral judgment which is just based on "rational secular" thinking whereas traditionalists are out of touch with progress and attempting to enforce bigoted old Christian morality on everyone, including non-Christians

But I think that is wrong. SSM itself results from the religious views of liberal Protestant countries. There are a number of options for marriage including:

- Heterosexual monogamous
- Heterosexual polygamous
- Heterosexual & Homosexual monogamous
- Heterosexual & Homosexual polygamous
- No recognition of marriage at all

My point is that there is a natural reason for #1, although the Supreme Court decided for everyone in the US that we should go with #3. But why not #4, or #5?

Marriage in our society (or China, or India) has been defined as #1 because of the biological reality of procreation and parenthood. In my opinion this is the natural and logical definition for marriage based on human biology.

Can we choose #3? Sure, but I view that as resulting from an artificially imposed religious impulse (driven by religious notions of compassion and justice) and not natural biology or reality. So I think you all have the framing inversed here.

---

And the counterpoint is "nature" and "biology" are not the only reasons to be considered for allowing a marriage. That argument assumes that procreation is the driving factor (or a driving factor) behind marriage. It is for some, it isn't for others. There are lots of hetero couples that dont have kids.

And yes, it's the norm. Because it's the most common. Something like 90% of couples are heterosexual and that is how babies are made. Over time we learned that homosexuality is a naturally-occurring thing in humans, and as society progresses it becomes more accepted.

The Supreme Court decided that #3 must be allowed because of the numerous legal rights and benefits that we confer upon married couples. It violates the principles of equality when the government says a certain class of people aren't allowed to reap the benefits of this, just because.

Polygamy isn't allowed because it creates a lot of other problems and has a high potential to be abused. Marriage is essentially a contract between two people and when more people are thrown into the equation the covenants of marriage become almost meaningless.

I'm fine with option #5 by the way, but I think we all know that's never gonna happen.

That's fine, but certainly you see how

Quote:

---

It violates the principles of equality when the government says a certain class of people aren't allowed to reap the benefits of this, just because.

---

this logic can easily be applied to three women who want to to enter into a marriage agreement because they love each other. Why should you force your views or consequentialist logic on them? Isn't that authoritarian?

Doesn't a truly equal and free society allow the three of them to marry rather than forcing one of them to the curb to live a sad and lonely life?

Silian Rail said:

---

For the vast majority of its history the West has been socially conservative; we're currently still basking in the "afterglow" of the success fostered by the overlap of righteousness and freedom; looking forward the west will reap the reverse because of the overlap of freedom and licentiousness. This is already starting to show up in the numbers.

---

US violent crime rate peaked in the 70s.

Weren't we just talking about how US crime rates are worse than western Europe even excluding minorities? How does that jive since western Europe is much further along the secularization path than we are.

Quote:

---

Why does authoritarianism take such a huge bite out of crime?

---

Seriously?

Quote:

---

Is that it imputes the benefits of virtue upon a society through fear of temporal punishment rather than eternal? Would said draconian policies be needed if the populace shunned the behaviors the laws were enacted to tamp down upon?

---

Yes, governments have a very tough time imposing eternal punishments. Um no, laws wouldnt' be needed if people didn't ever violate them....what's your point here?

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

For the vast majority of its history the West has been socially conservative; we're currently still basking in the "afterglow" of the success fostered by the overlap of righteousness and freedom; looking forward the west will reap the reverse because of the overlap of freedom and licentiousness. This is already starting to show up in the numbers.

---

US violent crime rate peaked in the 70s.

Weren't we just talking about how US crime rates are worse than western Europe even excluding minorities? How does that jive since western Europe is much further along the secularization path than we are.

Quote:

---

Why does authoritarianism take such a huge bite out of crime?

---

Seriously?

Quote:

---

Is that it imputes the benefits of virtue upon a society through fear of temporal punishment rather than eternal? Would said draconian policies be needed if the populace shunned the behaviors the laws were enacted to tamp down upon?

---

Yes, governments have a very tough time imposing eternal punishments. Um no, laws wouldnt' be needed if people didn't ever violate them....what's your point here?

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

Silian Rail said:

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

---

Except you don't need a socially conservative society for people to not violate the laws even if they could. Very liberal societies do this even better than we do. Which was what I said from the very beginning.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Quote:

---

LOL, in fact a rational argument was made for marriage to remain as between a man and a woman (and this is still the stronger argument imho) particularly on a 'rational basis' level of scrutiny. Certainly, greater minds than my own have recognized/documented this basic fact (of the democratic debate which Obergefell now has largely led some to forget/ignore, per the link). You may agree with the ruling/state of decay regarding the now ongoing grooming saga of children in this country, but you don't get to pretend there was no rational counter-argument to this cascade of events;

---

You'd think a guy so superior that he can't post without trying to mock or use the laugh cry icon would actually understand the basic argument and be able to respond to it. Scalia's argument is NOT a rational argument against SSM, it's an argument about the scope and power of the supreme court deeming it a matter for legislatures. Care to try again?

Quote:

---

Social conservatives (by today's standard, no doubt) established the legal system which you now say protects you from their (philosophical) heirs, so I am not sure why you see them as unable to make a rational secular argument, or rather that if they do so only the legal system precludes it from being legally enforced, or if you just resent that people disagree with you about any social matter.

---

It's funny people like to say "by today's standard", but if we look at the time most every thing we enjoy and take for granted came from people quite liberal by the standard of their own times, funny how that happens...

and I see them as being unable for the simple reason that they are. Try it, don't post some link to something that isn't relevant. Just simply state in your own words what your rational secular argument against SSM is- I mean you have one right?

Quote:

---

Sodomy laws also have a very long history, and though I think most all of them should be done away with now, do you really deny that there is/was a rational basis for their original construction/adoption?

---

If there was, I think you would simply have stated it. Since it's a mockingly simple answer for you it should be easy....lets hear it? And notice I said rational secular basis, don't change words now. You can have a rational scientologist basis for something and I don't' care a lick.

Oh and if there is a rational secular basis for this law, why are you against it? What is the rational basis that you are rejecting here?

---

You really just don't get it and I'm not gonna instruct you on legal ethics/history here.

Children are best raised by a husband and wife, period. It's worked all over the earth for tens of thousands of years, sorry you can't see that. Pederasty, abuse, you name it is higher in other situations. That's the rational basis. You don't like it, I know. Family friendly drag shows are just going to need to be accepted.

Rational basis has a long history in the law. Again, look it up yourself. That something has a rational basis for it's construction does not make it good/always the right thing, or even constitutionally acceptable. "It depends."

Bless your heart.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

---

Except you don't need a socially conservative society for people to not violate the laws even if they could. Very liberal societies do this even better than we do. Which was what I said from the very beginning.

---

Yet, the very socially conservative ones do it even better than they do. And secondly, for how long have these "very liberal" societies been "very liberal"?

Serotonin said:

---

That's fine, but certainly you see how

Quote:

---

It violates the principles of equality when the government says a certain class of people aren't allowed to reap the benefits of this, just because.

---

this logic can easily be applied to three women who want to to enter into a marriage agreement because they love each other. Why should you force your views or consequentialist logic on them? Isn't that authoritarian?

Doesn't a truly equal and free society allow the three of them to marry rather than forcing one of them to the curb to live a sad and lonely life?

---

As I said, there is a strong legal reason to limit marriage to 2 people. It's a contract between two people and you create lots of problems when you expand that number to 3, 4, or unlimited. Should we give some cult leader hospital visitation rights and tax breaks for him and his 20 wives? Marriage would be widely abused (and become almost meaningless) if this were to happen.

These problems are not posed by allowing gay couples to marry.

Silian Rail said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

---

Except you don't need a socially conservative society for people to not violate the laws even if they could. Very liberal societies do this even better than we do. Which was what I said from the very beginning.

---

Yet, the very socially conservative ones do it even better than they do. And secondly, for how long have these "very liberal" societies been "very liberal"?

---

There is a big difference between a 'liberal' society at any given point in time and a leftist/socialist economic and political one. As shown by the transformation of the UK over a couple generations (from London in the 50's or 40's even), a large block/majority of social conservatives can…change with time/immigration etc.

nortex97 said:

---

You really just don't get it and I'm not gonna instruct you on legal ethics/history here.

---

In other words you've got no argument, and will just mock from the sidelines with boorish arguments and irrelevant posts. I mean you seriously thought scalia was making a rational argument against SSM?

Quote:

---

Children are best raised by a husband and wife, period.

---

Is a child in need of adoption better raised by the state or a gay couple? Arguments for hetero monogamous couples are only arguments that opposite sex marriages should be supported not that SSM should be denied.

Quote:

---

It's worked all over the earth for tens of thousands of years, sorry you can't see that.

---

Wait I thought you had a rational secular argument against SSM. Who's arguing that hetero marriages shouldn't exist? And I think you will find history is quite full of a lot of sexual relationships being the norm on and off again.

Quote:

---

Pederasty, abuse, you name it is higher in other situations.

---

Show me the stats you are comparing with monogamous SS couples and monogamous hetero couples.

Quote:

---

That's the rational basis.

---

So it's for the children right? So they don't get raped by the married gay couples raising them?

Quote:

---

Rational basis has a long history in the law. Again, look it up yourself.

---

I know, I'm stating that the theocrats have struggled to make this argument and their position is in a downward spiral because they don't actually have one people take seriously.

Quote:

---

That something has a rational basis for it's construction does not make it good/always the right thing, or even constitutionally acceptable. "It depends."

---

Of course, I'm still waiting for your rational basis argument outlawing sodomy.

Quote:

---

Bless your heart.

---

It's adorable you think you are superior.

Silian Rail said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

---

Except you don't need a socially conservative society for people to not violate the laws even if they could. Very liberal societies do this even better than we do. Which was what I said from the very beginning.

---

Yet, the very socially conservative ones do it even better than they do. And secondly, for how long have these "very liberal" societies been "very liberal"?

---

Ah yes, draconian Islam, our guide to a better world....

They don't do it better, those societies are worse to live in. A society that murdered every criminal would have extraordinarily low crime states, that's not doing it better. A minute ago you were arguing it's best to NOT need draconian laws, for people to behave themselves. Europe is actually the example of people behaving themselves, the muslim countries you listed are examples of authoritarianism.

Your premise is flat false, conservatism isn't required. How long have they been very liberal? It's not an objective standard unless you have one in mind, but many decades.

If the conservatives countries really were doing it better they would have a combination of liberal laws and lower crime.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Exactly what I said in the beginning; that liberalism can only flourish in a society where people wouldn't violate them even if they could. That freedom is a benefit of virtue and not a cause.

---

Except you don't need a socially conservative society for people to not violate the laws even if they could. Very liberal societies do this even better than we do. Which was what I said from the very beginning.

---

Yet, the very socially conservative ones do it even better than they do. And secondly, for how long have these "very liberal" societies been "very liberal"?

---

Ah yes, draconian Islam, our guide to a better world....

They don't do it better, those societies are worse to live in. A society that murdered every criminal would have extraordinarily low crime states, that's not doing it better. A minute ago you were arguing it's best to NOT need draconian laws, for people to behave themselves. Europe is actually the example of people behaving themselves, the muslim countries you listed are examples of authoritarianism.

Your premise is flat false, conservatism isn't required. How long have they been very liberal? It's not an objective standard unless you have one in mind, but many decades.

If the conservatives countries really were doing it better they would have a combination of liberal laws and lower crime.

---

It is best not to need draconian laws, a society that voluntarily chooses the good would be far more efficient; but if that's not an option you need the stick rather than the carrot.

"many decades" is a drop in the bucket when considering the timeline of western civilization; I would guess MAYBE 5 or 6 decades; if that. The enlightenment is nearing 300 years old and we are only just now reaping its ill harvest. We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

except it seems that the carrot is working in western europe. Where do you draw the line with the stick, do the conservative countries simply need to make the punishment life in prison for every crime? Is that better since it lowers the crime rate? It seems you put no value on individual liberty and safety from an authoritarian government. I don't think most agree.

And I think if you are of the mind that the enlightenment is a bad thing than you are at odds with some fundamental ideas about this nations foundation. And your predictions seem less data based and more like a wish for ill fortune to come toward people who don't share your philosophy but by your own admission perform better under the crime metrics we are discussing.

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

notex said:

---

The protection of the family as a unit of procreation/source of children was/is a primary purpose of all kinds of legal jurisprudence. There was a time this was also well taught to all new lawyers.

---

By all means, what is the exact timeline? Because wives and children were considered property of the father until VERY recently. The idea that a family exists in history for the rearing of children as an end is a joke.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

Aggrad08 said:

---

except it seems that the carrot is working in western europe. Why do you draw the line with the stick, do the conservative countries simply need to make the punishment life in prison for every crime? Is that better since it lowers the crime rate? It seems you put no value on individual liberty and safety from an authoritarian government. I don't think most agree.

And I think if you are of the mind that the enlightenment is a bad thing than you are at odds with some fundamental ideas about this nations foundation.

---

Again, the carrot has only had the appearance of working because of the capital stockpiled for centuries from the end of the dark ages to the beginning of the enlightenment. You had the best of both worlds when freedom was coupled to a society that freely chose virtue; then you still had a net benefit when society started to liberalize but laws kept society in check; now you will see the worst of both worlds when the laws that kept society in balance are going by the wayside.

I put a very low value on human liberty as a means unto itself, it is objective. The ability to do something is much less important than what you actually do. The problem is that freedom is often talked about as a false dichotomy today because of the relativism that has been rampaging through society now that the enlightenment has burnt through its bumper crop of morality. This false dichotomy claims that if you curtail any action no matter how base, how harmful to individual or society you've essentially curtailed all liberty and have become a theocratic authoritarian state.

I have HUGE issues with the founding of our country and the liberalism of the founding fathers. The only thing I will grant them is that they tried to gerrymander a society that liberalism would actually work in, and they did a pretty good job, but they weren't omniscient. They created a society where virtue (although not perfect of course) kept liberty in check. We decided to throw away the virtue and keep the liberty and what you see playing out in our society is the effect.

Sapper Redux said:

---

notex said:

---

The protection of the family as a unit of procreation/source of children was/is a primary purpose of all kinds of legal jurisprudence. There was a time this was also well taught to all new lawyers.

---

By all means, what is the exact timeline? Because wives and children were considered property of the father until VERY recently. The idea that a family exists in history for the rearing of children as an end is a joke.

---

No, it's basic common law history. Do you think 'blue eye's charges for seduction in New Jersey in the 40's was just an isolated case? Why was that illegal at the time?

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

nortex97 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

notex said:

---

The protection of the family as a unit of procreation/source of children was/is a primary purpose of all kinds of legal jurisprudence. There was a time this was also well taught to all new lawyers.

---

By all means, what is the exact timeline? Because wives and children were considered property of the father until VERY recently. The idea that a family exists in history for the rearing of children as an end is a joke.

---

No, it's basic common law history. Do you think 'blue eye's charges for seduction in New Jersey in the 40's was just an isolated case? Why was that illegal at the time?

---

Want to look up coverture and get back to us? Marriage was a property arrangement for the overwhelming majority of its history.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

---

Well it doesn't have to be all better or all worse does it?

Some things get better and some things get worse.

Would you rather live for a year in Beirut in 1955 or 1985?

Would you rather be a wealthy Creole family in New Orleans in 1790 or 1890?

There are plenty of examples like those.

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

---

Well it doesn't have to be all better or all worse does it?

Some things get better and some things get worse.

Would you rather live for a year in Beirut in 1955 or 1985?

Would you rather be a wealthy Creole family in New Orleans in 1790 or 1890?

There are plenty of examples like those.

---

Indeed, this is the false dichotomy bereft of nuance that seems to dominate today's discourse.

"You think things were better in the 1950's? Why do you love Jim Crow laws so much?".