what is your opinion on gay couples adopting?

[American]

who says its their rights? what gives them that authority? rights are based on morality.

I didn't bother addressing this one because it's so convoluted, I wouldn't know where to begin.

 

[Kelzie]

who says its their rights? what gives them that authority? rights are based on morality.

Man, who the hell knows where the rights came from? It doesn't really matter. Where does morality come from? Again, unimportant for this discussion. Unless you want to take it to the philosophy forum, it is irrelevant. They are two competing theories for the creation of laws. Where the creator get's authority doesn't matter.

 

[Kelzie]

I didn't bother addressing this one because it's so convoluted, I wouldn't know where to begin.

And yet....you did anyway. Odd.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

While the law gives us guidelines to follow, not all laws would fall under a moral heading; nor does everyone think that just because something's against the law it is immoral, or vice versa.

I agree. I suppose my point is that morality and the law both serve the same function-- they are designed to promote the survival and prosperity of the community. Really, law is nothing more than the use of force in support of some standard of behavior.

Not all moral things can be legal, and not all immoral things can be illegal... but the law should generally reflect the moral sentiments of the people that it applies to.

However, not everyone sees it that way, and though they are supposed to abide by the legal code, they don't have to agree with the rightness or wrongness of it.

That's really no different than acknowledging the difference between individual morality and collective morality. I do not have to abide by the law any more than I have to abide by common morality-- I merely have to be aware that there will be consequences for my defiance of either.

And like morality, the law is only as binding as the power that enforces it.

However, the whole gist of this is just because something is legally acceptable, not everyone will agree that it is morally acceptable.

Of course. There's no such thing as a moral belief that everyone will accept. Goes back to the purpose of law-- to crack the skulls of those that don't agree and won't comply.

The general heavy-handedness and wastefulness of this is why the law should generally be as relaxed as the people will tolerate-- the law should be strict enough (and effective enough) to keep people from needing to take it into their own hands.

If we can also convince some folks who are against it that it is also morally acceptable, that's great, too, but I think moral acceptance takes a backseat to legal acceptance.

Unless it happens in the Supreme Court, like Roe v. Wade, widespread moral acceptance has to occur before legal acceptance is even a possibility. While I respect the Court's role in upholding Constitutional rights, it isn't acceptable for the Court to do so in opposition of public moral opinion.

Even if I agree with the Court, it damages the credibility of the law and is a recipe for civil unrest-- if not revolution.

you are using a moral code though. you are imposing your moral beliefs about infringing upon peoples rights on everyone else.

Not at all. ... Believing in the protection of rights is not a moral belief.

Believing in "rights" at all is a moral belief, unless you're only talking about our legal rights as defined by the Constitution-- or other government document. Remember, though, that legal rights are a result of the philosophical belief that all men are morally entitled to certain rights.

rights are based on morality.

Man, who the hell knows where the rights came from?

Rights come from power. If you can claim that you have a right to do something, and noone can prevent you from doing it, then you have the right to do it.

If you claim a right and someone prevents you from exercising that right, you were obviously mistaken.