Do you oppose legislating morality, even if it's your own morality?

Question

I keep hearing and reading Leftists who oppose gay marriage bans and other social conservative legislation claim that the government shouldn't legislate morality.

I agree with them on that point.

But I think they are being disingenuous about their philosophy. The welfare state is merely state-enforced charity - it is based on the concept that some people have a moral duty to subsidize others.

We don't all agree on whether that moral duty exists or, even among those who do agree that it exists, on the extent of contribution that ought to be required. On top of it the economics are bad - with the $ you take from me to give to an unemployed widget salesman, I might have bought more widgets....

If you oppose gay marriage bans (as I do) but favor welfare programs, then the reason you oppose gay marriage bans isn't that you don't think the government should legislate morality, it's just that you want it to be YOUR morality.

Answer 1

we should be the only ones worried about our personal morality.

Answer 2

If legislation represents an expression of the collective opinions of the legislature then all legislation - as well as the lack of legislation - can be seen as "legislating morality." I think your question may be better phrased as: "At what point does the public attain such a level of common consensus on a moral issue that legislating it becomes apporiate?" I expect that the answer to that question depends on the importance and invasiveness of the issue to be legislated. For instance, generally speaking there is a broad social consensus that the unjustified killing of another human being is morally wrong, so murder is properly prohibited by legislation. (I recognize, however, that the extent to which a consensus exists on the justifications for taking human life is an open point.) Prohibiting the consumption of alcohol by adults over the age of 21 who are not operating vehicles or large machinery, on the other hand, is an issue on which, in the United States, a broad public consensus no longer exists, so it is not an appropriate subject for legislation. Or, put another way, any legislation involving that area is likely to be seen as invasive. Issues such as gay marriage, the "welfare state" (which I take to include not only personal entitlements but also the so-called, "corporate welfare" programs), abortion and others are simply areas in which highly vocal camps on each side of the issue are working to achieve public consensus in favor of their respective opinions.

IMO the problem with American society today is that we are too quick to legislate and don't spend sufficient time listening to and discussing view points opposed to our own. A more respectful and thoughtful dialogue on controversial issues could go a long way toward building consensus on those issues through compromise and avoid the "my way or the highway" approach American society seems currently to favor.

Answer 3

I don't believe that morality has anything to do with the welfare system. In America, most people are just one or two paychecks away from losing their homes and vehicles. A system of welfare is in place to assist those individuals - TEMPORARILY - so that they can get back on their feet. What's wrong with that? In theory, its a great concept, and shouldn't be looked upon as socialist leanings - it is a compassionate society that realizes that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The problem with the welfare system - as it exists today - is that it is poorly run and monitored. As with most government programs, it is not managed well.

Gay rights and the ban on gay marriage IS an attempt to legislate morality...and it is wrong.

Answer 4

You have a good point, however I think you are confusing the issue. You are using spiritual morality to compare the responsibility of our government towards its' citizens. As an example, let's use the effects of Katrina on the gulf coast. Under your thinking the government should not help, I think that's morally wrong. It is the responsibility of government to step up to the plate to insure that we the people do not unduly suffer because of a natural disaster. Should a person who works every day at a low paying job be put into the position to lose everything due to illness? It is not only the responsibility of the government but also of us to to be more understanding of a person's situation. Some disasters are unavoidable and the people in our society at the lower end of the spectrum have the most to lose should one affect them. Shouldn't the people who use religion as their argument be the first ones to be a little more compassionate towards their fellow man, instead of profits ruling all decisions.

Answer 5

certainly no longer! the government has no employer telling human beings what to think of, say or do as long because it would not violate everybody else's civil rights. components rights are necessary to freedom. because of the fact if we enable the government let us know what to do with our components, whats next. perhaps the subsequent component they're going to attempt is to scale down our first modification rights, and let us know what we are able to declare because of the fact they do no longer like it. enable the loose industry artwork. If somebody is working a employer it rather is racist, that employer should not be around long. maximum folk won't pass to a employer it rather is racist, and that employer might pass below. the government is restrain from being racist, the interior maximum loose industry isn't. maximum human beings does no longer comprehend authentic freedom if it jumped up and bit them on the ***. maximum human beings think of democracy is sweet. as a rely of actuality that democracy in basic terms potential that in basic terms about all can vote away the minorities rights. We have been formed as a constitutional republic. have been as we are born with inalienable rights that no you are able to nevertheless get rid of. no longer by way of vote or legislations. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb vote casting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a properly armed lamb contesting the vote.

Answer 6

All legislation deals with morality. Murder is immoral, so we outlaw murder. Rape is immoral so we outlaw rape. Theft is immoral so we outlaw theft. In a Democratic Republic like the USA we decide what is immoral and ban it. Gay "marriage" has been deemed to be immoral every time it has been voted on by the people of any state.

Answer 7

In Ohio Republicans passed a smoking ban. Would that be a moral issue? Gay marriage is a non issue. Tax payers will spend $498 billion in 2007 on defense. That is in fact lots of welfare for Defense contractors. Republicans also gave $18 billion in tax cuts to big oil, Democrats just took it back, that's lots of welfare for big oil. In the USA defense waste cost tax payers 20 times more than all spent in total on welfare of Americans.

Answer 8

We need to quit relying on the government to take care of us. I do not believe in the welfare system...just as I don't believe in gay marriage. Gay marriage goes against the natural laws of nature. That is why I object to it.

Answer 9

The government should never legislate morality, that is something that should be taught in the home or in the church's. Legislating morality have brought down many of the great empires, each of us have our own sense of right and wrong but to impose that on others is just wrong.

Answer 10

Legislating morality has never worked. I don't expect others to live by my morals, anymore than I would want to live by theirs. People just need to be more tolerant.

Answer 11

What?

Yes, I oppose the attempt to legislate morality, in any form, but you have some issues with welfare.

I suggest you drive down to the nearest homeless shelter and have a long talk with the Director. I think you'll be surprised at what you hear, and discover that you, too are only a couple paychecks and an illness away from sleeping on a cot yourself.