What's a secular law?

[Wootah]

Separation of religion and state is good right?

If so then what is a secular law and what is the general principle we can use to determine which laws remain?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Traffic laws. Murder, rape, theft. Laws that make sense. I won't quibble other than it is subjective in deciding something makes sense.

Does marriage law make sense?

Marriage laws are a legal contract between two humans and the state. It spells out legal, financial, and custodial responsibilities. The contract is purely secular.

Do you think marriage falls into the same category as theft? That we need laws to resolve the out workings of marriage in the same way we do for theft?

I mean if theft laws are because theft is wrong are marriage laws because marriage is wrong?

It seems absurd to me.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 41 by Wootah]

Do you think marriage falls into the same category as theft? That we need laws to resolve the out workings of marriage in the same way we do for theft?

I mean if theft laws are because theft is wrong are marriage laws because marriage is wrong?

This is an example of binary reasoning, you are looking at secular laws as either this or that and it cannot encompass both. The absurdity is not in claiming that both marriage and theft laws are secular. It is the conclusion that they have the same secular basis.

If for example excessive speeding is illegal because it is harmful to oneself and others is secular. Then does that mean tax law is structured because it is harmful to oneself and others? Both have no religious basis yet both exist. Does tax law make sense? Does any law make sense? Are only religious laws the ones that make sense?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Presuming that a predominant visceral preference does not require a deity, it would fall under designation of secular. Therefore, even in a secular society, those three things would be justified, if there was a predominant visceral preference

Not necessarily, you would still have to justify that the predominant visceral preference requires these things to be so. There is a predominant visceral preference to have unconsequenced sex that doesn't mean free love should be mandated.

That is because there is not a predominant belief that there is such a thing. However, to the extent that there is such a thing, there may be a predominant visceral preference to have unconsequenced sex oneself, but there is not, as far as I am aware, a predominant visceral preference for everyone to have unconsequenced sex. That is why, even a secular state would generally not make universal "free love" legal. In fact, even Rome at it's worst reserved debauchery to the upper classes.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

I do not think that you are presenting the proper application of an amendment. The constitution was written to apply to the federal government and specify the parameters of it's powers. The purpose of the first ten amendments is to make that fact clear, by stating specific instances in which federal government may not pass legislation. The tenth is a summary catch all that applies that principle beyond the first nine specific instances to all other instances where power is not explicitly granted to the federal government.

Marriage is a case in point. In the past, and even today, states determine what constitutes legal marriage. To some extent, certain parameters have been placed on that vie the ICC clause of the Constitution, the equal protection clause of the 13th amendment and federal coercion through collection and distribution of funds via the IRS. However, certain characteristics of marriage have not been left to the people and the states. For example, common law statutes and property distribution laws

The first amendment becomes problematic for you here though. You cant mandate church attendance the wearing of burkas or ban gay marriage because of it. The supreme court is not in your favor here.

You are cheating now. You are attempting to reintroduce theism into a secular law. Sure, the free association and equal protection clauses in the amendments limit those things, but that has nothing to do with theism. Those clauses were enacted on secular grounds and they can also be rescinded on secular grounds, if there is a predominant visceral preference sufficient to further amend the Constitution.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by bluethread]

Presuming that a predominant visceral preference does not require a deity, it would fall under designation of secular. Therefore, even in a secular society, those three things would be justified, if there was a predominant visceral preference

Not necessarily, you would still have to justify that the predominant visceral preference requires these things to be so. There is a predominant visceral preference to have unconsequenced sex that doesn't mean free love should be mandated.

That is because there is not a predominant belief that there is such a thing. However, to the extent that there is such a thing, there may be a predominant visceral preference to have unconsequenced sex oneself, but there is not, as far as I am aware, a predominant visceral preference for everyone to have unconsequenced sex. That is why, even a secular state would generally not make universal "free love" legal. In fact, even Rome at it's worst reserved debauchery to the upper classes.

Well technically to be fair free love is legal(excluding minors). The question I was trying to get at is, at what point does PVP become legislation if there is a minority that is the object of the PVP? Especially if that object is no threat to those that have a PVP against it.

Let's take drinking for example it is demonstrably harmful to a society both in terms of cost health and social interactions. Yet it remains legal and for good reasons. Gay marriage has no demonstrable negative effects on society could have some benefitsreduced stress (related to financial and legal stressors)and more stable relationships yet remains banned in some states. Is the PVP ban justified?

[bluethread]

Well technically to be fair free love is legal(excluding minors). The question I was trying to get at is, at what point does PVP become legislation if there is a minority that is the object of the PVP? Especially if that object is no threat to those that have a PVP against it.

Let's take drinking for example it is demonstrably harmful to a society both in terms of cost health and social interactions. Yet it remains legal and for good reasons. Gay marriage has no demonstrable negative effects on society could have some benefits reduced stress (related to financial and legal stressors)and more stable relationships yet remains banned in some states. Is the PVP ban justified?

That is my question. People like to fault theism for laws that they do not like. However, similar laws are not only possible, but are generally put into place based on PVP, or at least a predominant visceral indifference. PVP being possible without theism, such laws should not be seen as examples of theistic bias, even if theists support them. There are many things that are considered harmful that are legal and many things that one may not consider harmful that are not legal, based on PVP. Such is the nature of democracy. Unless one wishes to establish an oligarchy of individuals to determine what is and is not harmful, then that will always be the case. Even then, one is just trading the tyranny of the majority, for the tyranny of the select few.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 46 by bluethread]

This much I can agree secularism is not a magic pill to irrational or inane laws. Certainly the banking regulatory system is an inane irrational cluster of insanity that has nothing to do with theism. The issue with having a non secular system is then you get into governing thought and belief. Certainly it would be problematic for you would it not if the official state religion was Islam and they banned Christianity and Judaism and Sharia law was made the official law of the land. The necessity for a religiously neutral system keeps the government away from your religious beliefs.

The fear that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to preside over gay weddings is irrational because the state is prohibited from doing so. It's not so much that secularism is the end all be all of governance. It is the idea that we should be free to believe what we want without government interference.