I think you need to reread my post. My argument is that people, women included, are capable of making their own decisions when they reach adulthood, and it is not the business of feds to determine what is best for individuals.
Morality is irrelevant because morality changes between cultures and people. Feds are probably the worst group to be in charge or morality.
I read it fine, my argument is that the idea of "consenting adults should be able to do their thing" only ever applies at certain times and is a moral position because logically there are plenty of places where they should not be allowed because the alternative is the tyranny of anarchy which leads to even less freedom ironically.
Including allowing gays to marry because by doing so we were further eroding marriage into a government defined entity (since the big argument for it at the time was tax/insurance reasons) instead of a personal or religious union.
Not even getting into that it completely divorces actions from mental states, and thereby assumes people actively destroying themselves (in this case, through lust) should be allowed without question which also only applies here and not to gambling or drugs or many other limited vices.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
my rights end where yours begin
your rights end where mine begin
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
We concede when we make the choice of having a greater authority holding society together "for the greater good."
If you reject government entirely, that's fine if a little dumb. But I doubt you or most anyone does. So as long as we have laws in place constraining us, then we cannot pick and choose when to apply those laws and principles.
In this case, either the government shouldn't be involved in our relationships at all, and you should be marching against tax codes and marriage licenses long before you were ever pro/neutral-gay, or you are pro-Fed in our relationships because the "consenting adults" argument was always used by the LGBT movement to get the Federal Government to force the State and Local Governments to let them get married and get the Feds more involved in our relationships.
You can't have it both ways, and you can't just pipe off libertarian utopia slogans to dodge that fact.
I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.
I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.
But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.
Certainly. Because I'm a veteran, net taxpayer and father of four. I have a vested interest in fomenting a society that works for the sake of my children, I've put my own personal safety on the line to do so, and I'm not a chronic parasite on the public dole.
and what happens when a busybody in DC decides you are unfit to vote because of some bullshit criteria like the color of your skin or your participation in a certain political movement? Would you still think denying certain people the right to vote is fair, or even practical?
I think you need to reread my post. My argument is that people, women included, are capable of making their own decisions when they reach adulthood, and it is not the business of feds to determine what is best for individuals.
Morality is irrelevant because morality changes between cultures and people. Feds are probably the worst group to be in charge or morality.
I read it fine, my argument is that the idea of "consenting adults should be able to do their thing" only ever applies at certain times and is a moral position because logically there are plenty of places where they should not be allowed because the alternative is the tyranny of anarchy which leads to even less freedom ironically.
Including allowing gays to marry because by doing so we were further eroding marriage into a government defined entity (since the big argument for it at the time was tax/insurance reasons) instead of a personal or religious union.
Not even getting into that it completely divorces actions from mental states, and thereby assumes people actively destroying themselves (in this case, through lust) should be allowed without question which also only applies here and not to gambling or drugs or many other limited vices.
so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?
To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:
In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
We concede when we make the choice of having a greater authority holding society together "for the greater good."
If you reject government entirely, that's fine if a little dumb. But I doubt you or most anyone does. So as long as we have laws in place constraining us, then we cannot pick and choose when to apply those laws and principles.
In this case, either the government shouldn't be involved in our relationships at all, and you should be marching against tax codes and marriage licenses long before you were ever pro/neutral-gay, or you are pro-Fed in our relationships because the "consenting adults" argument was always used by the LGBT movement to get the Federal Government to force the State and Local Governments to let them get married and get the Feds more involved in our relationships.
You can't have it both ways, and you can't just pipe off libertarian utopia slogans to dodge that fact.
I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.
I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.
But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.
Gonna give you a big disagree on that one. Most people aren't fit to decide anything that has an effect past their own nose. Let alone vote.
so who is? you?
Certainly. Because I'm a veteran, net taxpayer and father of four. I have a vested interest in fomenting a society that works for the sake of my children, I've put my own personal safety on the line to do so, and I'm not a chronic parasite on the public dole.
and what happens when a busybody in DC decides you are unfit to vote because of some bullshit criteria like the color of your skin or your participation in a certain political movement? Would you still think denying certain people the right to vote is fair, or even practical?