Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

You've done no such thing.

Laws of the land should be secular. I can't stand when Christians try and legislate their morality either.

Atheist here, and I disagree. I do agree that the law of my country should be secular, but I don't know why I would have to impose this same requirement on every country. I don't think this needs to be a universal law.

Whether a set of laws violates basic human rights is a different story entirely, and yes it should be a unviersal that no established governments must impose a set of laws that violate basic human rights. But that's separate from whether a country is allowed to have laws based on religion, which I think in principle is fine if that's what the people want.

 

[ElTorro]

Atheist here, and I disagree. I do agree that the law of my country should be secular, but I don't know why I would have to impose this same requirement on every country. I don't think this needs to be a universal law.

Why should we apply a double standard? Especially when the Abrahamic religions are based on doctrines that demand at their core submission to their authority and demonize dissidents? That's not compatible with human rights. That's fascism.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Why should we apply a double standard? Especially when the Abrahamic religions are based on doctrines that demand at their core submission to their authority and demonize dissidents? That's not compatible with human rights. That's fascism.

I don't see a double standard. If anything it's a double standard to have it any other way than what I'm proposing. "Democracy, but you don't decide what you want, we decide what you want". Like, what?

If a country's people choose a set of religious laws, that's what they should have.

 

[Fenderputty]

If a country's people choose a set of religious laws, that's what they should have.

Which is fine. But that doesn't shield these theocracies from criticism. Nor does it affect it's place withing a more secular western society.

I mean we've got a whole other thread on the first page of OT about racist people in Sweden and how right wing extremism is expanding as immigrants fail to adapt to western culture.

 

[injurai]

I don't see a double standard. If anything it's a double standard to have it any other way than what I'm proposing. "Democracy, but you don't decide what you want, we decide what you want". Like, what?

If a country's people choose a set of religious laws, that's what they should have.

I think there is a difference between having laws based in religious doctrine which are legislated by a secular process. Versus a process that inherently venerates a particular religion's tenants.

The same thing goes for a nation's constitution, which should stand apart from religious doctrine, and should be able to be amended.

In that sense a secular approach to society should be ubiquitous.

 

[ElTorro]

I don't see a double standard. If anything it's a double standard to have it any other way than what I'm proposing. "Democracy, but you don't decide what you want, we decide what you want". Like, what?

If a country's people choose a set of religious laws, that's what they should have.

It's not about deciding how other people should live. It's about criticizing them on the same ground that we criticize ourselves. A Christian theocrat that demands more involvement of religion in law making and an Islamic scholar who demands the same should be subject to the same criticism. There is no reason to expect more or less from Arabs (or any other ethnicity) than from Americans or Europeans. It's human rights after all, as your yourself have conceded.

 

[pgtl_10]

On top of what you said, the Islamic parties like Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ennahda, etc run massive social welfare programs like free food, hospital and emergency care, charities, alleviating poverty and other important programs affecting the pooor that secular dictators dont care about or run it with corruption (embezzling funds, etc). Another reason why people vote for them all the time.

Which is more of a failure of government to provide such services.

 

[ElTorro]

Which is more of a failure of government to provide such services.

It's often times just a question of money. The Nazis, for instance, gained and maintained popularity through similar strategies, and they were only able to do so because they were initially heavily funded by rich ideological supporters, and later, when in power, by accumulation of so much debt that was only manageable with future war loot in mind.

It's a strategy that decent governments in economically challenged states cannot necessarily copy.

 

[pgtl_10]

It's not that any islamic party in power would be overthrown, it's when secularity was threatened. You might disagree with this, but it wasn't originally designed to improve inequality.

This argument is really superficial. It boiled down to a military overthrow of what people voted for.

Secularists in Middle East make very similar arguments every time they lose in an election. There is no self reflection. Just excuses.

Also the massive social welfare addresses a social need something that Middle East secularists have failed to do repeatedly.

 

[nynt9]

It's often times just a question of money. The Nazis, for instance, gained and maintained popularity through similar strategies, and they were only able to do so because they were initially heavily funded by rich ideological supporters, and later, when in power, by accumulation of so much debt that was only manageable with future war loot in mind.

It's a strategy that decent governments in economically challenged states cannot necessarily copy.

It's not just the Nazi party, many terrorist organizations do this to garner support from the local populace so that people go "eh, they're not that bad, they're actually helping us" like the poster who put that out there.

This argument is really superficial. It boiled down to a military overthrow of what people voted for.

Not really worth getting into a deep argument on Turkish politics here, but your argument is even more superficial and it assumes that the basic human right of having your vote count is actually established, and it is pretty decently documented that there has been massive electoral fraud in Turkey for a while now. So what people vote for isn't necessarily what they get.

 

[number47]

What should be the penalty for adultery?

 

[pgtl_10]

What should be the penalty for adultery?

Nothing

 

[ElTorro]

What should be the penalty for adultery?

The Qur'an is very clear about this.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Nothing

Why not? We have penalties for public nudity, excessive noise, public intoxication. You can find thousands of examples, literally, of penalties we impose out of some desire to improve the standard of society even absent of a flagrant violations of human rights.

If a country wants adultery to be punishable, then why shouldn't it be? What about a $100 fine? You could argue that adultery harms society because it breaks families apart, and it might not even be that far off from the truth.

I don't think it should be punishable in my country, but luckily I have the freedom to vote for the things I believe in and against the things I don't believe in.

Why shouldn't other people have that same right?

 

[pgtl_10]

It's not just the Nazi party, many terrorist organizations do this to garner support from the local populace so that people go "eh, they're not that bad, they're actually helping us" like the poster who put that out there.



Not really worth getting into a deep argument on Turkish politics here, but your argument is even more superficial and it assumes that the basic human right of having your vote count is actually established, and it is pretty decently documented that there has been massive electoral fraud in Turkey for a while now. So what people vote for isn't necessarily what they get.

Or you're not getting what you want and trying to compensate by explaining away secularism's failure?

BTW if I get for every electoral loser in the Middle East claiming fraud I'd be billionaire. It's common in the Middle East to make such claims but it also a way to avoid asking hard questions about what is represented. Secularists will not succeed if they keep trying to explain away every failed election as fraud. They lose in nearly every Middle Eastern election.

 

[pgtl_10]

Why not? We have penalties for public nudity, excessive noise, public intoxication. You can find thousands of examples, literally, of penalties we impose out of some desire to improve the standard of society even absent of a flagrant violations of human rights.

If a country wants adultery to be punishable, then why shouldn't it be? What about a $100 fine? You could argue that adultery harms society because it breaks families apart, and it might not even be that far off from the truth.

I don't think it should be punishable in my country, but luckily I have the freedom to vote for the things I believe in and against the things I don't believe in.

Why shouldn't other people have that same right?

Stop legislating the bedroom. Adultery is not best solved by considering it a crime

 

[GSG Flash]

Why not? We have penalties for public nudity, excessive noise, public intoxication. You can find thousands of examples, literally, of penalties we impose out of some desire to improve the standard of society even absent of a flagrant violations of human rights.

If a country wants adultery to be punishable, then why shouldn't it be? What about a $100 fine? You could argue that adultery harms society because it breaks families apart, and it might not even be that far off from the truth.

I don't think it should be punishable in my country, but luckily I have the freedom to vote for the things I believe in and against the things I don't believe in.

Why shouldn't other people have that same right?

These aren't good examples, adultery is a much more private affair than the examples you gave. It would be like private nudity or private intoxication being punished.

 

[nynt9]

Or you're not getting what you want and trying to compensate by explaining away secularism's failure?

BTW if I get for every electoral loser in the Middle East claiming fraud I'd be billionaire. It's common in the Middle East to make such claims but it also a way to avoid asking hard questions about what is represented. Secularists will not succeed if they keep trying to explain away every failed election as fraud. They lose in nearly every Middle Eastern election.

I mean, there is a large amount of evidence showing the fraud, statistical analyses have been performed to demonstrate this fraud, but sure. Secularism is a failure. Let's just let the muslim brotherhood, hamas and hezbollah take over the entire middle east because they're benevolent saints that will save the middle east. Because they give resources to people disenfranchised by secular governments! I wonder what they were hoping to achieve with that.

Let's just ignore the massive heap of evidence of electoral fraud, because secularists suck.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0407/Turks-faith-in-the-ballot-box-falters
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...ociety-mobilizes-against-election-fraud.html#
http://drrichswier.com/2015/11/05/e...ey-erdogans-ballot-stuffing-election-victory/
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/02/erdogan-gang-heist-election-fraud-in-tur-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elect...uring_the_Turkish_general_election,_June_2015

 

[ElTorro]

If a country wants adultery to be punishable, then why shouldn't it be? What about a $100 fine? You could argue that adultery harms society because it breaks families apart, and it might not even be that far off from the truth.

Adultery is not synonymous with cheating or breaking a marital contract. Adultery means sex outside of marriage and thus includes sex between unmarried persons, including persons who aren't even allowed to marry.

This clearly violates article 3 and 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and probably others too.

 

[injurai]

These aren't good examples, adultery is a much more private affair than the examples you gave. It would be like private nudity or private intoxication being punished.

Marriage is public and for many represents a devotion and commitment of faithfulness to your spouse. So unless the relationship open, I don't see why adultery is a private matter. Especially when kids are in the equation.

However I think the spouse in victimhood should have the right to invoke laws and see charges carried in relation to the act of adultery.

 

[DragonSworne]

Marriage is public and for many represents a devotion and commitment of faithfulness to your spouse. So unless the relationship open, I don't see why adultery is a private matter. Especially when kids are in the equation.

Are you married? If so, I'll stop by tomorrow night so I can watch you have sex with your wife/husband.

 

[GSG Flash]

Marriage is public and for many represents a devotion and commitment of faithfulness to your spouse. So unless the relationship open, I don't see why adultery is a private matter. Especially when kids are in the equation.

Not sure if serious....

How is two adults committing adultery at all relevant to the public?

As ElTorro mentioned, adultery means sex outside of marriage, not cheating(not that cheating should be punishable by law either as that too is a private matter).

 

[The Lamonster]

The Qur'an is very clear about this.

What does it say?

Because all I've been hearing over the last several months (re: Bill Maher) is that there's nothing anti-women in Islam, and that it's just a problem with 3-4 countries, not the religion itself.

 

[ElTorro]

What does it say?

Because all I've been hearing over the last several months (re: Bill Maher) is that there's nothing anti-women in Islam, and that it's just a problem with 3-4 countries, not the religion itself.

This is a sura We have sent down and made obligatory: We have sent down clear revelations in it, so that you may take heed. Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.

You really can't be more clear and less open to interpretation than this.

And there are statements in respected Hadith that are more barbaric than that.

 

[Coriolanus]

Why not? We have penalties for public nudity, excessive noise, public intoxication. You can find thousands of examples, literally, of penalties we impose out of some desire to improve the standard of society even absent of a flagrant violations of human rights.

I don't think it should be punishable in my country, but luckily I have the freedom to vote for the things I believe in and against the things I don't believe in.

Why shouldn't other people have that same right?

All of the examples you mention affect (or are seen to affect) the collective, which is why the state then intervenes. One needs a fuckton of stretching to include adultery under the same umbrella.

fwiw, public intoxication shouldn't have penalties either. Or nudity.

 

[injurai]

Are you married? If so, I'll stop by tomorrow night so I can watch you have sex with your wife/husband.

Did the definition of adultery change?

Not sure if serious....

How is two adults committing adultery at all relevant to the public?

As ElTorro mentioned, adultery means sex outside of marriage, not cheating(not that cheating should be punishable by law either as that too is a private matter).

I'm not saying legal proceedings should be public. I'm saying that the legal system should uphold an external interest in righting the wrong of adultery between a couple. Equating adultery to private intoxication or private nudity seems like a non-sequitur to me. Because adultery hurts others. Adultery should be the business of the law, and the law is public. That is all I meant by it.

 

[The Lamonster]

You really can't be more clear and less open to interpretation than this.

And there are statements in respected Hadith that are more barbaric than that.

welp.

So I guess some liberals are giving Islam a free pass, presumably out of fear of being labeled a racist?

 

[DragonSworne]

Did the definition of adultery change?

No, but you are arguing that because marriage is public, all aspects of it are public. That includes sex.

So that means you also agree to let strangers watch you have sex if you are married using that faulty logic.

 

[GSG Flash]

Did the definition of adultery change?



I'm not saying legal proceedings should be public. I'm saying that the legal system should uphold an external interest in righting the wrong of adultery between a couple. Equating adultery to private intoxication or private nudity seems like a non-sequitur to me. Because adultery hurts others. Adultery should be the business of the law, and the law is public. That is all I meant by it.

Except the legal system in countries where adultery has no explicit punishment does exactly that should the victim(if there is any) come forth with accusations of being wronged. Should the victim win, the cheater will be punished financially.

This is different from public nudity and public intoxication, which is a nuisance to the public. If my neighbour cheats on his wife, it really does not affect me in any way, nor does it affect the state, and is a private matter between my neighbour and his wife. There should be no explicit penalty defined for adultery.

 

[OldRoutes]

I'm not saying legal proceedings should be public. I'm saying that the legal system should uphold an external interest in righting the wrong of adultery between a couple. Equating adultery to private intoxication or private nudity seems like a non-sequitur to me. Because adultery hurts others. Adultery should be the business of the law, and the law is public. That is all I meant by it.

How hurt are people 'victim' of adultery, really? I mean, really... in this day and age?

 

[dgamer]

dont kill nobody over some stupid shit like somebody fucking someone else.

dont use a fucking holy book to come up with your dumb fucking punishments (all religions)

no capital punishment for a non capital offense.

shit is super basic what skin in the game do any of the people arguing otherwise in this thread have in keeping these barbaric ass rules in place?

like the religious version of fuck you got mine.

 

[FoxSpirit]

You really can't be more clear and less open to interpretation than this.

And there are statements in respected Hadith that are more barbaric than that.

But this is anti-adultery, not anti-women. So why is the women in this case nt also given 100 lashes but rather stoning to death?

 

[ElTorro]

So I guess some liberals are giving Islam a free pass, presumably out of fear of being labeled a racist?

I reckon a double standard among some liberals because Islam is perceived to be a "religion of brown people", whereas Christianity and Judaism are "religions of white people". Especially in the thinking of identity politics, brown people are perceived as oppressed by white people. And there are obviously plenty of examples to support that view. The problem is that those liberals see Islam as part of these people's identity. As a consequence, the conflate criticism towards Islam with criticism of an oppressed minority, and thus they label it racist and bigoted. What they fail to realize is that bad ideas are bad ideas. And the weakest people who are oppressed by these bad ideas are minorities in those minorities.

For instance, who is more oppressed than a Muslim in country that has been bombed and destabilized by Western powers? A female, gay, or ex Muslim in those countries. And it's these people that are abandoned if we suppress criticism of Islamic doctrine.

But this is anti-adultery, not anti-women. So why is the women in this case nt also given 100 lashes but rather stoning to death?

I was responding to his first question. Adultery by itself is a rather bad example for anti-woman sentiments, because the statements that only concern adultery, to my knowledge, mandate the same draconic punishment for both sexes.

 

[gdt]

This thread is nuts. Can't believe people are pushing fairy tail versions of Sharia law that have never even come close to existing in the history of the human race.

 

[The Lamonster]

I reckon a double standard among some liberals because Islam is perceived to be a "religion of brown people", whereas Christianity and Judaism are "religions of white people". Especially in the thinking of identity politics, brown people are perceived as oppressed by white people. And there are obviously plenty of examples to support that view. The problem is that those liberals see Islam as part of these people's identity. As a consequence, the conflate criticism towards Islam with criticism of an oppressed minority, and thus they label it racist and bigoted. What they fail to realize is that bad ideas are bad ideas. And the weakest people who are oppressed by these bad ideas are minorities in those minorities.

For instance, who is more oppressed than a Muslim in country that has been bombed and destabilized by Western powers? A female, gay, or ex Muslim in those countries. And it's these people that are abandoned if we suppress criticism of Islamic doctrine.

It's a tough situation that puts liberals between a rock and a hard place. You either group yourself with bigots on the right, or ignore a major human rights issue going on in the middle east.

 

[Moronwind]

But this is anti-adultery, not anti-women. So why is the women in this case nt also given 100 lashes but rather stoning to death?

I believe it's because she was married.

 

[Stinkles]

BTW, recalibration here of intent for Azih and Rusty in particular, who continually try to be reasonable in inflammatory situations -

I'm not some passive aggressive anti-Muslim. I grew up among Muslims, my first "auntie" was Muslim and my best friends in High School were Muslim*. I'm good friends with some (admittedly very progressive) Muslim politicians and activists - and while we don't see eye to eye on everything, I fully respect the genuine love they have for their religion and culture - however I have SPECIFIC issues with the way Sharia treats women, atheists and especially apostates. There are basically no practical exceptions to that (nobody in this thread has actually shown a functioning Sharia system where women and others are not legally treated as lesser beings or where certain kinds of verbal testimony don't carry more weight than actual evidence) and I find it absolutely disgusting and an affront to law and logic and justice and human rights. And I also find the application of a single religion to a system of rational law to be a fundamentally flawed and intractable position. I won't change my tune on that point because it's cemented in logic, not opinion.

The upholding of apostasy as a grave sin is such a ludicrous con/poison pill that I don't know how any rational being can not take that as a significant problem with their faith in the first place - "If I reject my faith I might get killed." I mean, it's not exactly nuanced, is it?


Anyway, my point is, I love lots of Muslims and respect and admire many aspects of the religion and the culture, just not outside of cultural importance. And I don't want to come off as either a bigot or a Fedora.

* yes I literally went there, but it's true and sort of relevant to my point. I also got to watch many of them leave the faith, or move away from it, but in some sad cases go deeper into it with very negative effects on their view of women in particular. I also got to watch the miserable spectacle of at least two converts start out as basically feminist, and transition into something pretty pathetic as regards their views on equality. Hearing them say "sisters" nowadays is embarrassing because they use it as a diminutive to indicate how protective they are of those previous fragile creatures. And we've had heated face to face (respectful) arguments about that.

 

[injurai]

No, but you are arguing that because marriage is public, all aspects of it are public. That includes sex.

So that means you also agree to let strangers watch you have sex if you are married using that faulty logic.

That's not what I argued.

Except the legal system in countries where adultery has no explicit punishment does exactly that should the victim(if there is any) come forth with accusations of being wronged. Should the victim win, the cheater will be punished financially.

This is different from public nudity and public intoxication, which is a nuisance to the public. If my neighbour cheats on his wife, it really does not affect me in any way, nor does it affect the state, and is a private matter between my neighbour and his wife. There should be no explicit penalty defined for adultery.

I never argued it needed an explicit punishment, I was saying it's not a private affair even if it occurs in private. It's a public concern because of the people involved. In private intoxication led to other negligence then it could also become a public concern.

How hurt are people 'victim' of adultery, really? I mean, really... in this day and age?

By caring less they are better off, but if they are hurt by it or it's part of why their marriage is becoming dysfunctional then they certainly should have the recourse to involve the law in seeking a dissolution or divorce.

 

[Herbspiceguy]

In local (Dutch) news our Defence minister has expressed strong concerns about SA's upcoming mass beheadings; 50 beheadings this Friday on different locations.
An MP says expressing concerns is not enough, calls SA the Islamic State and wants to see something like a arms embargo. Another MP wants to call the SA ambassador on the carpet.
It's not much and no word about stonings, but at least it's getting some attention in politics and media.

 

[DragonSworne]

That's not what I argued.

Bullshit

 

[GSG Flash]

That's not what I argued.



I never argued it needed an explicit punishment, I was saying it's not a private affair even if it occurs in private. It's a public concern because of the people involved. In private intoxication led to other negligence then it could also become a public concern.



By caring less they are better off, but if they are hurt by it or it's part of why their marriage is becoming dysfunctional then they certainly should have the recourse to involve the law in seeking a dissolution or divorce.

Except it is a private affair no matter what your argument is. I don't think it's at all possible to come up with an argument that paints adultery as an act of public nuisance or being an action that affects the public because it just simply isn't and it doesn't affect the public at all.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Adultery is not synonymous with cheating or breaking a marital contract. Adultery means sex outside of marriage and thus includes sex between unmarried persons, including persons who aren't even allowed to marry.

This clearly violates article 3 and 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and probably others too.

I don't see how it violates 3, but 12 I'll give you.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

In the digital age though, I'd argue that almost everything could be said to subject people to arbitrary interference with privacy. Just depends who you ask.

That said, my original statement was referring to cheating and/or breaking a marital contract, and you're right that adultery is more general than that as it can include sex even when you're not married. I think that's a harder case and so I'm probably on your side there (i.e. it should not be legislated). But cheating, why not?

Honestly I think a big part of the problem with America is that we try to be everyone's police, not just our own. Let people handle their own problems and decide their own laws. That's literally the point of having different countries and different governments in the world. As long as the punishments are fair between men and women (and all groups for that matter), and as long as the people have chosen the terms of the laws through a fair process, and as long as it isn't a universally agreed upon human rights violation, I don't see what the problem is.

Obviously the last of those "as long as..." is where we're going to disagree, but I'm not convinced that forbidding someone from having sex with B while married to A is a human rights violation. I might disagree with forbidding it, but I don't think it's a human rights violation.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh wow, someone in this thread literally just posted this to Twitter out of context and called me a bigot. Thanks. Fantastic way to have a dialog.

Whoever that was, why didn't you actually just converse with me in this thread?

 

[nynt9]

BTW, recalibration here of intent for Azih and Rusty in particular, who continually try to be reasonable in inflammatory situations -

I'm not some passive aggressive anti-Muslim. I grew up among Muslims, my first "auntie" was Muslim and my best friends in High School were Muslim*. I'm good friends with some (admittedly very progressive) Muslim politicians and activists - and while we don't see eye to eye on everything, I fully respect the genuine love they have for their religion and culture - however I have SPECIFIC issues with the way Sharia treats women, atheists and especially apostates. There are basically no practical exceptions to that (nobody in this thread has actually shown a functioning Sharia system where women and others are not legally treated as lesser beings or where certain kinds of verbal testimony don't carry more weight than actual evidence) and I find it absolutely disgusting and an affront to law and logic and justice and human rights. And I also find the application of a single religion to a system of rational law to be a fundamentally flawed and intractable position. I won't change my tune on that point because it's cemented in logic, not opinion.

The upholding of apostasy as a grave sin is such a ludicrous con/poison pill that I don't know how any rational being can not take that as a significant problem with their faith in the first place - "If I reject my faith I might get killed." I mean, it's not exactly nuanced, is it?


Anyway, my point is, I love lots of Muslims and respect and admire many aspects of the religion and the culture, just not outside of cultural importance. And I don't want to come off as either a bigot or a Fedora.

* yes I literally went there, but it's true and sort of relevant to my point. I also got to watch many of them leave the faith, or move away from it, but in some sad cases go deeper into it with very negative effects on their view of women in particular. I also got to watch the miserable spectacle of at least two converts start out as basically feminist, and transition into something pretty pathetic as regards their views on equality. Hearing them say "sisters" nowadays is embarrassing because they use it as a diminutive to indicate how protective they are of those previous fragile creatures. And we've had heated face to face (respectful) arguments about that.

I also come from the perspective of being raised Muslim, but as I grew I fell out of the faith, then was assaulted for not being a true Muslim, discriminated against, and seen many opinion polls in my country where a significant percent of the population thinks I should be killed. Also I have female friends who were beaten badly for not wearing the scarf in the wrong part of town. I have friends who can't live together because single men and women can't live in the same house.

So I'm not very keen on having these principles be enforced as the law of the land instead of enforced by public peer pressure.

 

[injurai]

Bullshit

Accuse me of not being clear, fine. But don't tell me what I meant.

Except it is a private affair no matter what your argument is. I don't think it's at all possible to come up with an argument that paints adultery as an act of public nuisance or being an action that affects the public because it just simply isn't and it doesn't affect the public at all.

So you're saying adultery should be of no concern to the courts, a public entity, when a couple seeks divorce resolution in relation to adultery?

 

[ElTorro]

I don't see how it violates 3, but 12 I'll give you.

Regulating people's sex lives against their will is against the principle of liberty demanded by article 3. And you do regulated it against their will if you restrict sex to the framework of marriage. Especially for people who are denied the right to marry. It's actually very obvious.

Honestly I think a big part of the problem with America is that we try to be everyone's police, not just our own. Let people handle their own problems and decide their own laws.

Critizism is not the same as American Interventionalism, which I reckon underlies much of this defensive position of foreign cultures. There is probably also a lot of post-modernist cultural relativism, which I generally find to be an intellectually and morally bankrupt concept.

 

[GSG Flash]

So you're saying adultery should be of no concern to the courts, a public entity, when a couple seeks divorce resolution in relation to adultery?

That is a disingenuous argument and you know it, especially since the original argument was that adultery should be punishable by law because actions that could be considered a public nuisance such as public nudity or public intoxication are punishable. Should all domestic problems be classified as public affairs just because public courts may be dealing with them?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Regulating people's sex lives against their will is against the principle of liberty demanded by article 3. And you do regulated it against their will if you restrict sex to the framework of marriage. Especially for people who are denied the right to marry. It's actually very obvious.

The principle of liberty is overly broad. You can say outlawing public sex violates the principle of liberty. But this is an exception, right? Because of morals.

The definition of a law is literally a doctrine that restricts a person or group of persons' liberties. That's literally exact what "law" means. So if we hold article 3 to be authoritative, then we can't have any laws at all.

Obviously you have to apply some common sense exceptions in order to arrive at a document that doesn't contradict itself, and I think regulating peoples' sex lives does not fall under that category of common sense exceptions. If sex lives cannot be regulated, then why can marriage? The two are intimately intertwined, especially when you take into consideration that cheating is a major cause of divorce.

 

[ElTorro]

Oh wow, someone in this thread literally just posted this to Twitter out of context and called me a bigot. Thanks. Fantastic way to have a dialog.

Whoever that was, why didn't you actually just converse with me in this thread?

The user in question was perma-banned recently.

 

[ElTorro]

Obviously you have to apply some common sense exceptions in order to arrive at a document that doesn't contradict itself, and I think regulating peoples' sex lives does not fall under that category of common sense exceptions. If sex lives cannot be regulated, then why can marriage? The two are intimately intertwined, especially when you take into consideration that cheating is a major cause of divorce.

Marriage is (or should be) a voluntary contract between consenting adults. If these adults want to agree to enforce a punishment in case of cheating then they should be free to do it.

This is obviously very, very, very different from punishing people just for just having whatever sex they both want to have with each other in the privacy of their homes. But adultery includes this.

This is so obvious that I am not even sure what you are trying to defend here.