Should prostitution be legalized?

Then you don't read the documents. I have a right to a different religion and belief, your "moral values" are not the measure or capable of overtaking that right.
I have my dog-eared copy of the Declaration right in front of me. It doesn't state anything about "my" moral values, but self-evident Truths given to people by the Creator; His morals.
 
Didn't we leave England to get away from the tyranny of Roman Catholics?

Unlucky there, Top.

England just got shot of all it's craziest religious fruit loops to the new world.

And, unfortunately, they're still going strong. :D
 
I have my dog-eared copy of the Declaration right in front of me. It doesn't state anything about "my" moral values, but self-evident Truths given to people by the Creator; His morals.
Which Creator? Does it talk about Jeebus? Does it mention Yahweh? What about Allah? Amida Buddha? Baal? Ahura Mazda? Odin?

List the "moral values" they listed in that document, please. I'd like to see how it said that your moral values trump those of the person who would choose a different line of work than you want them to.
 
Which Creator? Does it talk about Jeebus? Does it mention Yahweh? What about Allah? Amida Buddha? Baal?

List the "moral values" they listed in that document, please. I'd like to see how it said that your moral values trump those of the person who would choose a different line of work than you want them to.
You're getting off subject now. I won't answer the obvious so as to keep you focused on the moral principles of the Founding.
 
You're getting off subject now. I won't answer the obvious so as to keep you focused on the moral principles of the Founding.
No, I am directly asking you questions based on your theory that your moral values are the ones that are inculcated in "created equal", and in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You say your moral values are the only list they used to create the document. I'd like some evidence of that.

I'd also like you to explain how taking away their right to choose poorly when it only effects themself is in some way protecting their liberty.
 
No, I am directly asking you questions based on your theory that your moral values are the ones that are inculcated in "created equal", and in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You say your moral values are the only list they used to create the document. I'd like some evidence of that.

Good luck with that. :)
 
He is trying to point out to you that the US Constitution spefcifically forbids any one religion from being a basis for our government.

Therefore, your morality based on your religion has no bearing on our laws.

The "denigration" argument has been shot down. And the "society has to have ..." has been shot down.



Besides, what two consenting adults do in private does not effect the whole of society.
 
No, I am directly asking you questions based on your theory that your moral values are the ones that are inculcated in "created equal", and in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You say your moral values are the only list they used to create the document. I'd like some evidence of that.

I'd also like you to explain how taking away their right to choose poorly when it only effects themself is in some way protecting their liberty.
Again, its not me who defines morals, but God. Man can't justify using mortal combat to gain independence from England with his right hand then toss out His morality with his left. Unless of course that man is a hypocrite.
 
Again, its not me who defines morals, but God. Man can't justify using mortal combat to gain independence from England with his right hand then toss out His morality with his left. Unless of course that man is a hypocrite.
And again, which God? Since I am guaranteed the right to believe differently then your set of rules are not more valued than mine.

Your circular argument notwithstanding, the government is not allowed to use your specific moral values to make the rules, and that was because the founders you revere realized that it would be contrary to the right of liberty to do so.

(circular reasoning: It is based on moral values. Whose? God's. Which God? You are going off topic, moral values are defined by God! Which Moral values are listed? You are off topic, God defines moral values! Whose moral values? God's. Which God?....)
 
Again, its not me who defines morals, but God. Man can't justify using mortal combat to gain independence from England with his right hand then toss out His morality with his left. Unless of course that man is a hypocrite.

Not hypocricy at all.

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

That is certainly not a recommendation to use the christian God as a benchmark.


And your insistence that the gov't should tell a woman what she can and can't do with for her career, when her choice does not harm anyone, goes against the founding principles of this nation.
 
And again, which God? Since I am guaranteed the right to believe differently then your set of rules are not more valued than mine.

Your circular argument notwithstanding, the government is not allowed to use your specific moral values to make the rules, and that was because the founders you revere realized that it would be contrary to the right of liberty to do so.

(circular reasoning: It is based on moral values. Whose? God's. Which God? You are going off topic, moral values are defined by God! Which Moral values are listed? You are off topic, God defines moral values! Whose moral values? God's. Which God?....)
Since the Founders were Christian, the laws that they wrote are tolerant to non-Christians.

You see it as circular reasoning yet I see it as described: moral consistency.
 
...

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."....
Too bad you didn't read the 2nd paragraph.
 
Since the Founders were Christian, the laws that they wrote are tolerant to non-Christians.

You see it as circular reasoning yet I see it as described: moral consistency.
Not all of the founders were Christian, and even those that were still guaranteed the right to follow a different set of moral rules set down by those who believed differently.

Either you revere the principals of freedom and responsibility or you believe in radical reform of those principals that the nation was founded on. It makes me a bit ill to watch a "conservative" attempt to say that the government is the measure of morals and that his religion should be what we base those morals on.

Liberty is something we should value, not dismiss based on a false premise and a wish to see the laws match your own religious values.
 
Back
Top