Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I find that all very laughable. You categorize me unfairly to be sure. I find it particularly ironic given that on this particular topic I have remained even keeled through being openly manipulated by ShineOn with his Socrates technique, the admitted condescension that Whisperfox posted, your continued one answer questions, etc...

I have been so very willing to take my lumps, but I will excuse your lack of understanding that point by assuring myself that no one has read probably half of the responses I have written.

It is easy for you to say that my standard is "anyone who disagrees with me," but remember that I have waded through your posts on the subject during the initial posts months ago, and now. I only responded this way after the continued assault of your arguments. I will reply with some examples not to slight you, but to illustrate my point.

if you want to challenge my aregument you will need to start with these items.

work with the above keys or concepts or princples and answer the rest of the questions.

this isnt ment to be funny, but perhaps a little condesending.

Please try not to leap with both feet into the stupid pool and come back and tell me I am saying then we cannot pass laws against murder.

SPLASH!

not even close. although knowing the flaws in your reasoning over this I was quite certain that you were going swimming.

The FACT is that legislating natural law works only under specific circumstances and we do not currently fall under that umbrella.

to say otherwise is to lie.

I do have the right to smoke, as God has made ME steward of my body. you are correct that I will have to face the consequences of my choices.

I will concede that there is no "right" to do "wrong".

. we MUST legislate morality, but there is a line, and when we cross that line we begin to abridge the agency of others. I have admitted I do not know where that line is but I assure you it is real. AND THIS IS BECAUSE we live in a fallen state.

LOL.... exactly what fictional government are you talking about? how about we speak about reality, not ideals?

again, if men were not screwing things up, we wouldn't need to legislate morality then would we? If men didnt gamble, we wouldnt need laws prohibiting it.

I see false principles being espoused here and I think it is misleading some who honestly are seeking to understand this very difficult subject.

I was thinking I would post next on why government= force. As long as we can agree on this I will address the issue "is there a line" in a few.

I do not speak against celestial law; I speak against forcing celestial law upon a people who are not ready for it. How will we know when they are ready for it? WE WONT HAVE TO FORCE them, they will be living it. Enoch didn’t legislate his city to be "taken up". He taught correct principles and the people applied them.

actually I believe that this can be done on a local level, perhaps even the state level, and as long as we can excommunicate people from the community and they still can exist, then we have full reign to legislate all the way to celestial law.

I hope saying this doesn’t open to big a can of worms. you have to have a firm grasp of the principle of banishment and excommunication to understand when this can be applied.

I believe that the time will come when Skousen will be rightfully recognized as a peer of the great freedom fighters off all time. I hope I can be included in such company when all is said and done.

Are you seeing the underlying principles here? it this beginning to make more sense?

there is nothing from stoping you from living the highest laws. Christ was your perfect example here. Prepare to be treated like he was.

So lets change the equation a bit to make it easier to understand. We cannot be free unless we are secure correct? I mean how free are we the the Mongol hordes come and rape and pillage us of our crops each fall? I think everyone here understands that we have to pass laws to make us secure from threats, and we understand that this includes threats from both local sources and from abroad. so we start to pass laws that secure us from those threats, and as long as we are FOCUSED on liberty and not security we do a fairly decent job.

I guess I am not getting through.

For those, if any, who are trying to understand law, I guess I should clarify again: we must legislate morality. This is one of the key points I have been making, that seems to have been missed.

Again for those who have ears to hear:

And now my quote:

I see that you obviously do not want to see the truth and that is your prerogative. I refuse to argue any longer with someone so lacking respect and so incapable of a rational argument. On both threads you have repeated the same childish tactics and the same "you can only respond to me in the context and understanding that I have because I insist that it is correct" argumentative logic. It is there for anyone to see. I suffered through it that time and this time and will no longer. The points are clear and anyone who honestly seeks the truth will find it there.

I am honestly so disappointed in your continued childish tactics that I have no desire to converse with you any longer.

After how many pages of contradictions and circular arguments with only one acceptable answer can I make the declaration that you do not want to see the truth?

Anyone intentionally condescending, who admits as much before pressing the "post" button, is clearly lacking respect. Anyone with an ever changing logic (as demonstrated above) is at least not willing to argue rationally if not incapable of it. I would certainly call "if you say this then you jumped in a pool of water with both feet,....SPLASH."a childish tactic. Wouldn't you?

As to investigators, good luck to them! The contention here would be the least of my worries, but it is not a fear of mine in any way, shape, or form.

I am still trying to get you to address a few salient simple questions. If you wish to return the favor minus the above referenced tactics, I will be perfectly willing to address them and move forward.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE, ONCE YOU TAKE A GOSPEL LAW AND MAKE IT A RULE OF LAW, IT BECOMES SIMPLE OBEDIENCE. and it rarely will take into account other laws, such as when nephi killed laban. accoring to the RULE OF LAW, nephi was guilty. sorry for yelling.

Not according to the just and holy principles by which men ought to be governed. See Dr. Jones post on the subject:

The rules of justifiable war are laid out clearly in DC 98 and in Alma 48 etc. -- ONLY for defense, and with the permission of God. that was the "law of Nephi" -- see DC 98 and recall that Laban attacked Lehi and his brothers multiple times before the Holy Ghost said that Laban was in Nephi's hands. A clear application of the law of Nephi, explicated in D&C 98.

and

DC 98:32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers...etc.

Note that the Lord singles out Nephi -- as having operated under this law, which is:

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families -- if men will smit you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded (but if ye bear it not patiently etc.)
.. a second time...
.. a third time..

28 and now... if that enemy [Laban for example, who came after Nephi and/or family 3 times] shall escape my vengeance... then if he shall com upon you or your children... I HAVE DELIVERED YOUR ENEMY INTO THINE HANDS;

31 THINE ENEMY IS IN THINE HANDS; AND IF THOU REWARDEST HIM ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS THOU ARE JUSTIFIED; IF HE HAS SOUGHT THY LIFE AND THY LIFE IS ENDANGERED BY HIM, THINE ENEMY IS IN THINE HANDS AND THOU ARE JUSTIFIED.
32 BEHOLD, THIS IS THE LAW I GAVE UNTO MY SERVANT NEPHI"

Clearly referring to the case of Laban (for who else did Nephi slay?)



That is to say, the Holy Ghost did not command Nephi to disobey a commandment; Nephi was acting within the LAW.

The just and holy principles by which all men ought to be governed is the entire point and purpose of these threads. Not because I say so, but because the Lord says so. His laws do not contradict, nor limit agency. The law of tithing is enforced in the church. The laws of the Word of Wisdom are enforced in the church. They do not take away agency from members, nor would their application in secular government do so.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

So, umm this topic was killed almost a year ago right?

Any reason why it died?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Is a society bound to a standard that must be below what the majority currently live?

no.

as a matter of point, the minority cannot enforce a higher standard.

How can you then answer no? Shouldn't your answer have been yes?
---------------

when you attempt to do so with law what you end up with is more people in prison not more people closer to God.

I disagree because I believe that the standard should be applied in the manner proscribed by Joseph Smith (open prisons and loving your enemy).

I know to view the two things this way makes for a blury line. perhaps it is because for people it is required that we forgive, but for governments it is required that they dispense justice. notice I said governments cannot be merciful. (this is why I am a huge fan of the fully informed jury) if there was no punnishment affixed then there is no law... (see alma)

Joseph Smith clearly did not endorse that principle as evidenced by his presidential platform. I would and do assert that he believed and professed that governments should be forgiving, merciful and just (when necessary) as defined by the individual enforcement of the people themselves (which as I have said, I believe to be the proper enforcement model).

(remember that property rights are so sacred that when you are a slave we will not even teach the gospel to you)

Wow, I never thought I would hear you say that! The church asserted that to yield to the rule of law, NOT to respect the "property" rights of slave owners! People are not property!

What is to prohibit us from banishing now?

When someone enters the United Order and lives the Law of Consecration, they will consecrate everything to the Lord (church). If they transgress and leave, they will have claim only on what they brought with them. The rest will belong to the order including their stewardship (which is different than an inheritance that will be earned by those faithful in their stewardships). See D&C 42:32-37 and 51:5 and 56:10. All property is the Lord's, only when He grants an everlasting inheritance will it truly be ours.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I think that we forgot how much fun it was Charity!

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Ok, I am going to go to bed now, you two behave...

I think you both know enough about correct principles to govern yourselves.

And don't forget the Golden rule.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

For the sake of those who do not like Soap Operas, I will address your questions and not further explain the descent of this thread.

do you understand that central to my stance is the concept that government = force?

and that

as such it is necessary to agree on this point before I can expound on the principle I am trying to teach?

No, I do not see how that is central to your argument. I see that you believe it to be so, but I do not believe it to be so. I believe that your argument is entirely whether or not people should be accountable for their choices in this life and to what degree. You admit that you cannot define a line and I think the line is clear (as soon as you violate another's rights through offense etc...) Who enforces the laws and how, is to me beside the point and irrelevant. The laws are ennobling and in fact can and do exalt a people who adhere to them. When ignored a society cannot progress as satan will always exploit the weakness in the law.

in my opinion, this (a standard of enforcement) would have to be achieved before some laws were moral to legislate, would you agree with that?

No, it is always just to enforce the natural law in the power and authority given. Therefore as in all self defense anyone is justified in maintaining their rights (including the right to virtue) within the bounds of the law as given by God.

[AussieOi]

I'm all for legislating morality.

On the following terms.

What goes on in MY bedroom stays my wife and my business.

I get to make the law.

I get to appoint those who interpret the law.

I get to appoint those who enforce the law.

They become authorised to go into other peoples bedrooms and ensure that they are obeying the law.

Its pretty stupid isn't it. We live in a world where most people know what is good, or right. Where governments make BILLIONS from Tobacco, and Alcohol, and Gambling, and allow legal abortions. I mean, "its my body" right.

I boil a lot down to this. If you can permit a person to take a life, on the basis that it is their body and they can do what they want to it, regardless of what the father may think, or the long term damage to themselves mentally or physically. If it is legal to let an 8 month woman smoke, or drink alcohol, how can the society turn around and start making laws about what kind of cigarette a person can have, or what they can watch on television in their own homes, and so on.

Of course I am for controls and censorships in public formats. But its like my kids. I'll teach them well, but they will be adults one day, I hope they make the right decisions.

God has given us the commandments, and his punishments are not in a taliban style prison, they are mostly spiritual.

Legislating morality is why we are in Afghanistan isn't it?

I might detest Larry Flynt, but who is doing the more damage? Him and his smut, or Dick Cheney and his AC-130 gun ships? Who is destroying more lives? The drug dealer who sells the drug to those who want to damage their own body and mind, or the guy who sells the cluster bomb which will be used indisciminately.

Legislating morality is easy for those who make the laws, because they tend to make laws that suit themselves and their own repressed frustrated views of the world, and impose that on others.

Beyond public decency and protection of standards and the innocent, It starts to get dangerous.

Also, youth. If you make stupid laws (ie the film Footloose), how many kids decide they have broken the laws so might as well break some more while they are at it, and determine they are "bad"? etc

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

In fact, I think that is the major source of contention here and I think the source of what I perceive to be your error.

Because you see that "to ere is human." I believe that you are afraid of men trying to administer God's law in error and forcing it down peoples throat by force of arms.

I believe that all law is morally based in an attempt to legislate God's law anyways, the only success being when they succeed in their interpretation.

I draw the line at any offense to another (with God's law as the standard).

I believe that is hard for you to fathom because you immediately ask who gets to decide what constitutes offense. My answer is that God already has. The degree to which we succeed in applying that, is the degree to which law can ever succeed. Twas always thus, thus t'will always be.

Societies fail in this area more often than they succeed. That is because they allow for satan to legislate rather than the Lord.

Because they are too afraid of taking away the fallacious right to do wrong.

That is why I support a theocracy. But would I support a Muslim theocracy? No. I would support (by voting for) the prophet, or better yet He whose right it is to rule and reign. I do not believe that would deprive any of agency.

I believe further that most men are good and strive for perfection inasmuch as they can see it. I believe that in such a society men could see it (the standard of perfection) better and would better live it.

This is both an issue of law and of teaching. (we are bound by law and it's consequences whether we know it or not, and will be judged by it. All the better then that we know it, enshrine it, and live it.)

I always tell my children that I am not for discipline, I am for the good behavior that makes discipline unnecessary. I want my children to learn the Celestial standard now (after all they were born with it). I do not want them to fall because I set their aim too low. I want the same for everyone.

Some would argue that I set them up to fail because they cannot live the Celestial law, that it is unrealistic. I say that they are bound by it (and judged by it) regardless. They at least ought to know the standard by which they are judged.

Not everyone in the church lives the full law, in fact few do. And yet the church holds nothing back. The standard is set and administered in mercy and justice. Sure we could ex-communicate all who disobeyed, but it would be a very lonely church that way. But that does not change the high standards.

Earthly governments likewise may enshrine the Celestial standard of law without necessitating everyone living it all the time.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Aussie, I want to clarify the bedroom thing. If you do it in secret, your right to be secure in your person, in your private property, will ensure that no one sees it. None of this probable cause crap. If however you bring it out where it may offend others, then you have violated their rights and the law should mediate between yours and theirs to restore what was taken in the best manner possible.

All law is legislated morality. We could all cite an eternal (almost) list of failures to appropriately do so, but they are failures to do so and hence were clearly in error and cannot be cited as proof positive that legislating morality is wrong.

Only when we get it right...is it right.

But then that is the question and the point...what is right.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

No joy.

[AussieOi]

Aussie, I want to clarify the bedroom thing. If you do it in secret, your right to be secure in your person, in your private property, will ensure that no one sees it. None of this probable cause crap. If however you bring it out where it may offend others, then you have violated their rights and the law should mediate between yours and theirs to restore what was taken in the best manner possible.

All law is legislated morality. We could all cite an eternal (almost) list of failures to appropriately do so, but they are failures to do so and hence were clearly in error and cannot be cited as proof positive that legislating morality is wrong.

Only when we get it right...is it right.

But then that is the question and the point...what is right.

i hate smoking. anyone smoking outdoors is offendin gme, and my religion, and my lungs. they do more than offend my mind, they offend my health. i don't really like people with freckles either, or single mums who don't seem to be able to manage 4 kids at a supermarket. what about people who hoard wool? they have enough, they should share. would someone without any wool, with perhaps no money for clothing, be offended by their opulance? and what about people eating meals on a fast sunday with the curtains open? or during ramadan? thats offensive to good taste and public order.

clearly there are times when you do want to close the windows, but legislating is dangerous. keep it for the extremes, ie someone watching porn that anyone can see, or adults copulating in public etc, but for mine th eproblem is we risk turning a society into a stasi-land of people easy to be offended and people eager the be the police. i mean look at Iran, they have people from the "office of public virtue" and they catch a boy and girl out in public and give them 50 lashes.

it relies on humans to define and enforce, thats what worries me. people who are already eager to get stirred into a frenzy when janet jacksons nipple pops out. but the irony is they call themselves christians, and they miss justyn timberlake gyrating in the background and that its the sabbath.

i do want degrees of censorship. in australia we have 60 x 45 foot billboards all over the place for this nasal spray stuff for erections, the sign, the 15 foot high letters says "want longer lasting sex?". yeah i hate it, and yes i speak to my local rep about it, and no no-one will do anything about it. i want it gone, but i don't want the office of homeland security to remove it. that 1984 meets minority report.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Are you telling me that society doesn't already enforce ridiculous stasi-esque standards? That will always be the case so long as the standard is arbitrarily defined. All I am saying is that they ought all to be based upon actual moral standards and specifically not your whims nor mine, Ie. not arbitary.

Your examples make my case.

Also the idea that because governments now enforce such things as your ridiculous examples with extreme punishment is likewise an indictment of current arbitrary governance of morality and not what the Lord has established as His standards.

If our Representative Republic and your Parliamentarian one are already massively corrupted by your example in your espoused governance, then how valid is it to assert that they will be the downfall of properly legislated morality?

Enforcement run amuk is enforcement run amuk, and all law is legislated morality. The only question is what constitutes morality (Ie. Who's? morality) and how to punish/reform offenders?

I say the Lord's morality should be the standard as revealed by Him, and you assert... anarchy was it? or an arbitrary standard is it? or do you agree with me that the Lord's standards should be enshrined?

How firm a foundation.....

[CHH]

I'm all for legislating morality.

On the following terms.

Section 134 answers those questions.

When the wicked rule, the people mourn.

My first step is to get the government out of my life. Then I work to teach others how to do that. While doing both of the above I work within the legislative process to stop bad laws and encourage good laws. Then when or if I lose there we sue in the courts. And of course I do not follow bad laws as it is my sworn duty not to. I am religiously compelled to violate unconstitutional laws.

Of course I also teach about jury nullification of bad laws. If I was on a jury I would never convict a man of a law I believed was assisting in tyranny.

If just 10% of the people would do the same bad laws would fail and freedom would win. But as long as good people follow and support bad laws by following them we will have tyranny.

[ChelC]

I think I can summarize the thread:

Do we have a right to defend our virtue through the creation of laws?

Yes. If said virtue exists and is founded in natural law, and if said law is administered by virtuous people. The right exists but only works when the majority and the administrators are a righteous people.

Does anothers disobedience to natural law trample any of my rights?

So long as the behavior is known to exist, it is likely having ill effects on a society, which affects all living therein. Due to the decline of a society, my rights have been violated.

Should we ask our legislators to set up the United Order right now?

Uh, no.

Do righteous people have the right to assemble into areas where they will become the majority (in that area) and to legislate morality to protect the virtue of the community?

Yes, and the Amish are a fine example of how it could work.

I'm missing more points brought out in the thread, but it seems that some of the discussion is disintigrating into trying to entrap someone into saying something dumb so that we can point at, laugh and say hee, hee... I told you so! Neener neener. Last one to the slide is a rotten egg!

Can we stay on focus?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Excellent synopsis. I agree wholly.

[Teancum-Old]

Excellent discussion (except for the derision of course). I think this discussion is very valuable if we could just quit the finger-pointing.

[Teancum-Old]

I agree with ChelC.

Perhaps in today's world we are not ready for the United Order but that does not mean we cannot or should not PREPARE for it.

I believe that the Lord is expects us to build His Kingdom on earth up until His Second Coming. By starting small communities which legislate moral laws which agree with the teaching of the Latter-day Prophets and scriptures, we would be on a great start. Funny, isn't that what the Church is doing by building up stakes throughout the world? Perhaps we, as members of the Church, simply need to take our covenants more seriously in building the Kingdom of God.

[obamohno]

I have read the first 4 pages of this thread, great read so far, but the key thing that stands out is when ShineOn said this in his statement.

If the people created a covenant, a compact, in which they voluntarily agreed to be punished if they gambled, then government would have the right to act, the just power, to punish and yet everyone would be protected in their rights. This is what the Pilgrims on the Mayflower did. It is what the Nephites with King Benjamin did. It is what the Israelites did. But that is not what Americans did in 1789, and it is not what they are doing today.

__

IMO, this following statement is correct..

State and Local governments can regulate debauchery/vices if the majority agrees.

__

My question is, is it moral to imprison those who have simple vices who do not agree to this punishment if caught doing the said vice?

I would like to hear why it is moral to imprison an individual for a vice because a majority of the people feel it is immoral and have made it against the law.

[ChelC]

I don't believe in imprisonment for smoking pot, no. For dealing in it, especially in instances where violence is known to be a part of the business, I do.

[jnjnelson]

IMO, this following statement is correct..

State and Local governments can regulate debauchery/vices if the majority agrees.

I would remove the condition on the statement. "Majority rules" is a horrible rationale for the use of government force - pure democracy doesn't work, and it never has.

My question is, is it moral to imprison those who have simple vices who do not agree to this punishment if caught doing the said vice?

I would like to hear why it is moral to imprison an individual for a vice because a majority of the people feel it is immoral and have made it against the law.

It is only moral to imprison those who have simple vices if those vices lead to actions where another individual's rights are infringed. It would not be moral to imprison individuals merely because of a weakness or vice. It is only moral for government to protect unalienable rights, so if the vice has no effect on another individual's rights, government should stay out of it.

Vices only become a public issue when they lead to actions that infringe on the rights of other individuals, and such actions are always apparent with all forms of debauchery. Debauchery, by definition, is deceptive in nature, and deception always infringes on unalienable rights.

[skmo]

My first thought when I saw the start date of this topic was "Holy dead thread revival, Batman!" I'm also glad to see it, since I'm still relatively new here and had not seen it before.

I couldn't honestly vote because there wasn't a choice I agreed with. Had there been one that said "Yes, if a legally sufficient majority agreed" I would have chosen it. Our Constitution has layers of checks and balances for a reason (actually, more than just one.) One of these is protection for a minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Fed was set up to have only the specific powers it needed to perform its limited job, and the rest of the powers were left up to each state to decide how they would govern themselves. Most of the initial states also demand that a Bill of Rights be included, which Madison originally thought unnecessary because he believed in his (purity?) (innocence?) (hope?) that the Constitution itself was a guarantee of rights. As an honorable representative of the people, when he was required to add them, we got the first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights. This was a great way to say that while each state could rule itself as it chose to, they each still HAD to recognize certain specific rights.

I can't disagree with this process for law. Each state decides for itself how they choose their laws. If it's unjust, there are avenues for challenge, and each state has their own right to change as long as they stay within the ultimate law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

This was a long, drawn out way to say that I agree with how the Constitution is supposed to work. If the majority of the people choose vice, that's their choice. They live with the choice. If the majority exercise tyranny, there are ways to redress for injustice. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

No, it used to be the best we had. What we have now is a disgrace.

[obamohno]

IMO, this following statement is correct..

State and Local governments can regulate debauchery/vices if the majority agrees.

I would remove the condition on the statement. "Majority rules" is a horrible rationale for the use of government force - pure democracy doesn't work, and it never has.

My question is, is it moral to imprison those who have simple vices who do not agree to this punishment if caught doing the said vice?

I would like to hear why it is moral to imprison an individual for a vice because a majority of the people feel it is immoral and have made it against the law.

It is only moral to imprison those who have simple vices if those vices lead to actions where another individual's rights are infringed. It would not be moral to imprison individuals merely because of a weakness or vice. It is only moral for government to protect unalienable rights, so if the vice has no effect on another individual's rights, government should stay out of it.

Vices only become a public issue when they lead to actions that infringe on the rights of other individuals, and such actions are always apparent with all forms of debauchery. Debauchery, by definition, is deceptive in nature, and deception always infringes on unalienable rights.

What I gather from your post is that you don't think we should imprison people simply because of a weakness or vice they have.

We should imprison people who infringe on other peoples rights.

I agree with the above.

What I am confused on is, do you think people should be imprisoned for a vice based on someones assessment that the said vice could lead them to infringe someones rights in the unknown future?

In other words...

Some people who have the vice did infringe on someones rights from it's influence so anybody who does that vice should be punished because it will or could lead to infringing on others rights?

thoughts?

[ChelC]

I see where you are going with this, and to answer your question - no. Where rights are not violated, we cannot imprison someone. Don't skip over the part where, in fact, vices inevitably do cause people to have impaired judgment/agency. If we just prosecute the criminal offenses, we will in fact not need drug laws with one huge caveat - there is no way to protect our children from seeing it glorified. If we regulate the advertising of substances, we are in fact creating drug laws.

[ldsliberty]

Sure we can protect our children from seeing it glorified - we can turn the TV off, homeschool, and closely screen their friends. We can protect them from evil influences forever but we can certainly do a much better job than we do now without using the force of government.

Regulation of advertising is still the initiation of force. When it comes to advertising, we can only use morally government when fraud has taken place. Is it fraudulent to advertise people having a good time drinking alcohol? Yes and no - but I would still leave the government out of it because then the government could claim just about any advertising is fraudulent (including issues we all would agree with).

I don't believe government should be used to prosecute "debauchery" either. Many people left that plural marriage was debauchery back when it was practiced by our church. Would you have supported government laws against this back then? As long as all associations were freely entered into without violating the rights of anybody else then no use of force was warrented back then. Principles are eternal - same applies today.

Now, a legitimate case could be made that prosecution of those who committed adultery falls within the proper role of government because a legitimate contract has been broken.

Yes, principles are indeed eternal. We can argue that some people thought polygamy was a moral wrong, we can argue that some people think eating animals is murder, we can argue that some people think a woman's right to using her body as she see's fit trumps the rights of a fetus. We humans are capable of arguing a lot of nonsense. If we cripple ourselves and our ability to keep our neighborhoods safe and virtuous because some people think A, B, or C, we are kidding ourselves. Yes, principles are eternal.

The only way your rights are safe is if you recognize from whence they came. Trying to play to the arguments of godless people to make a position seem like it's not hypocritical in the secular world is a worthless pursuit. How about when people redefine the rights of a child? Some time back in Germany an official publication went to print and started being distributed which encouraged fathers to stimulate their infant daughters genitals because children should have the right to feel good about their bodies - or some such nonsense. How can we protect these children if we are hogtied by our desire to not appear hypocritical? It's a bogus argument to me. There is one truth.