In your opinion, should secular law attempt to enforce the morality of the citizenry in situations where nobody's rights are being infringed upon?
Like incest marriage?
I asked a poll along these lines a couple of days ago. Personally, i feel that anytime the govt tries legislate morality, they are in fact attempting to establish a national religion. Bad bad bad idea.
Not always. For example, public drinking laws are a leftover from prohibition and the temperance movement - but would Jesus be charged for drinking wine? It's simply ideological, with or without religion.
Actually, this is a great example of what I'm talking about. The temperance movement was based on conservative Christian ideals of the time on a global scale. The govt. enacting legislation aligned with this movt. IMO is a move toward a national rel.
When nobody's rights are being infringed upon before enforcement, or during enforcement?
Before, think of "victimless crimes"
Then no, but many "victimless" crimes are not truly victimless.
And some crimes with a "victim" are victimless. Think of statutory rape. Statutes in Florida call it rape when a guy age 18 makes love to a girl age 17. May I call green statutory blue ;)
It's still sex with a minor, though. She can't consent. Now, I'll grant you that there are far worse rapes, but I'm still convinced statutory rape is real rape.
She can't consent at age 17? The age of consent is rather arbitrary. The only damage that is done is if the state sends her boyfriend to jail.
I disagree. While the age of consent is rather arbitrary, that doesn't mean it does not exist. We do have to set the bar somewhere, and I say that somewhere is legal adulthood.
It matters not whether you're 18 or 48 or 68. Sex with children is rape.
Agreed, sex with children is rape. However, where you set the bar is "legal" adulthood. Do you have any reason why it's 18, not 17 or 21? In the 50s it was 21. Anything that lets you choose 18 except the law itself?