I had to comment on this >The have a speed limit on road is about safety; however it prevents >people from the right to drive whatever speed they want because society >has determined that public safety is more important than the individual >fun, is this not based on morality?
We used to use this argument all the time in high school. The law to limit speed is based on public safety. My rights or freedoms stop when they start to hinder your rights and freedom. Me going 150mph in a school zone that should be 25mph could kill someone or permanently disable them. Doesn't that person have more of a right to live or to not be disabled? What harm would gay marriage cause to me? How would that harm me? How would that stop any of my rights or freedoms? >The people must have some level of general compromise regarding morality >that is reflected in law. Otherwise we wouldn't differentiate between >manslaughter and murder. I believe there is a difference because there are things known as "accidents". Perhaps you have heard of them. The person will still be punished because they took someone's life, but they will not be as punished >Government doesn't decide what is right, and what is wrong, there is >something greater than that. However man, needs some sort of order, and >we create that order with laws, and from time to time those laws reflect >our own morality. Laws should not reflect morality. They should be those that reflect the need to protect people. My town in Florida doesn't allow me to buy alcohol on Sundays. I can drive 5 minutes and go to another city and buy it. I can even go into a bar in my town and have a beer. So what is that law protecting? All I see it is someone in power had a moral issue with stores being able to sell alcohol on Sunday. I think your problem is that you have accepted that our laws need to have morality in them or that they need to go towards the way society is leaning at the time. This is the reason I have been glad we have a Supreme Court that could take those laws and not have to be burdened with political power or having to worry about being reelected. They could judge a law on its merits and not with their own morality. Segregation was ahead of its time, but the Supreme Court said it was not right. B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199737 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
