The US Constitution Legislates Morality

First of all, thanks CON for the debate. As agreed to in round #1, neither PRO nor CON will bring forth any new arguments or sources. I will clarify points made by CON by linking them to my previous arguments, and then close. Clarification1) CON claims I have somehow altered the definitions used in round #1. I have been consistent in my usage. CON instead has indeed tried to continually alter the definition of morality by assuming that "conduct" requires social acceptance. It does not. This is clear in the round #1 definition of morality. I have been consistent in pointing this out. CON continually plays these semantics games.2) Again, there are no sources in the link defining morality, so I have no idea where CON is getting the information for his points on "aggregated community", "sub-community", and "individual". As I've stated before, these are wholly unsubstantiated, and have nothing to do with the resolution.3) I did NOT state that "only Christians adhere to the morality of Christianity. " I made it clear multiple times that an individual's sense of morality may easily coincide with Christian morals. Maybe someone's sense of morality encompasses ALL of Christianity, and then some. Who knows? Morality is subjective, after all.4) I did NOT state that "the constitution is still a moral code, despite only applying to the government. " This is what CON stated, not me. I quoted the preamble to the Constitution, that made it clear the Constitution applies to "WE THE PEOPLE. "5) CON brings out a false dichotomy: "The printing of money is not a moral issue, it is economic. " It can be an economic AND a moral issue, like theft and usury - a point I stated in round #3.6) One day CON might convince me that his semantics on the word "rights" have any relevance to this debate.7) I did NOT state that "morality can be forced on the individuals within a community. " As I've continually stated, a group of people may have their own moral code, and an individual may have his/her moral code. CON's point about individual morality "trumping" state morality does NOT negate the resolution but indeed affirms it. He clearly states "If an individual’s moral code conflicts with an organization’s moral code, such as a religious code, the individual's code trumps the organization’s code. " The relevant organization for this debate is the state. The individual's code trumps the STATE'S MORAL CODE. I fully agree. This affirms the fact that the laws of the state are indeed a moral code. The resolution is affirmed here. CON has forfeited the debate, unless he backtracks and somehow negates his own argument here.8) Again, the 2nd amendment is a moral judgment. According to the state, people should be allowed to protect themselves, in this case through "arms". Closing Comments Morality is a very simple term that has been complicated by the preponderance of religious influence in the West. At its core, it's simply about a code of conduct - that there are some thing we should do, and some things we shouldn't do. Whether or not a religion is telling you what to do, or a government, your Aunt Suzy, or yourself, does not change the fact that they are all defining a sense of morality by telling you what you should do. Laws do exactly this - they tell people under the jurisdiction of the state what they should and shouldn't do. Religion does exactly this - it tells people under the jurisdiction of the religion (i. e. not excommunicated) what they should and shouldn't do. Your Aunt Suzy does exactly this - she tells you what you should and shouldn't do. You fall under her jurisdiction because you're a child compared to her, and you must (supposedly) respect your elders. An individual's own moral code does exactly this - an individual thinks for him/herself, and tells him/herself what he/she should and shouldn't do. There's nothing magical about this. Morality is a very simple concept. All laws legislate morality. The Constitution is not an exception.