Sadistic parenting story of the day: foster mother arrested for torturing and sodomizing her 10-year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;32260136] For instance, sodomy is no longer illegal in any place that doesn't end in "-istan"[/QUOTE] Is that because we think it's morally wrong to prevent two consenting adults from partaking in an activity which does not infringe on anyone else's rights

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32260183]There are still laws on the books in more backwater areas of the South, even if they aren't able to be enforced.[/QUOTE] They're obsolete. They're still on the books because we never take laws off of the books. There's still an entire title in the US Code about how to deal with injuns, but it is invalidated by current legislation and precedence. If a law is invalidated by the Supremacy Clause (as most laws like that were when sodomy was made legal on a federal level,) it stays on the books as a record, not as an enforceable law. Most of those stupid, shitty websites like "Most ridiculous laws!" don't tell you the fact that laws rarely get taken off of the books, even if they aren't law anymore.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32260212]They're obsolete. They're still on the books because we never take laws off of the books. There's still an entire title in the US Code about how to deal with injuns, but it is invalidated by current legislation and precedence. If a law is invalidated by the Supremacy Clause (as most laws like that were when sodomy was made legal on a federal level,) it stays on the books as a record, not as an enforceable law.[/QUOTE] I see what you're saying, I'll defer to you on this matter.

[QUOTE=James*;32260189]Is that because we think it's morally wrong to prevent two consenting adults from partaking in an activity which does not infringe on anyone else's rights[/QUOTE] No, it's because people have the right to self determination. The majority of the US Population still believes homosexuality is an immoral deviancy and a sin. In no way is the fact that homosexuality is legal due to a moral consensus. If it were, California's Proposition 8 would have never passed. [editline]12th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=James*;32260153]So there's still a bit left in there somewhere?[/QUOTE] In places that end with the suffix "-istan" Or "-ritain." Or "-anada."

[img]http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world_map_red.gif[/img] Here's a nice map. Although, you can probably ignore the one state in the US, because as you said they can't enforce it.

I agree that morality has no place in law, as laws should exist purely to objectively ensure that people's rights are upheld. But how do we decide what should be rights and what shouldn't be?

Yeah, it's legal on the federal level since Lawrence v. Texas. Virginia can eat a dick. Supremacy Clause, what WHAAAAT.

-snip-

[QUOTE=James*;32260341]I agree that morality has no place in law, as laws should exist purely to objectively ensure that people's rights are upheld. But how do we decide what should be rights and what shouldn't be?[/QUOTE] Incredibly lengthy debate and examination. Right now, for instance, one of the hot-button questions is whether or not internet access should be classified as an essential service (basically a semi-right) given how dependent people have become on using it for work, personal use and general communication.

Which goes back to my earlier question, does the presence of a debate or lack of consensus not suggest that morality and subjectivity are an aspect of human rights?

The parts about the damages to his penis made my fucking skin crawl.

[QUOTE=James*;32260467]Which goes back to my earlier question, does the presence of a debate or lack of consensus not suggest that morality and subjectivity are an aspect of human rights?[/QUOTE] It's a factual, intellectual and rational debate, not a debate on opinion. The side that has the most legitimate, tangible reasoning wins. That is not necessarily the side most people like.

Wow apparently the Human Rights Declaration actually states that freedom of speech can be restricted "for the protection of morals" [editline]13th September 2011[/editline] that actually seems quite fucked up

Yeah thats because China is on the security council