The Second Amendment is a bar against a tyrannical federal government. Supreme Court ruling, Federalist Papers and debate records make this fact, not opinion. All other uses, hunting, target shooting, defense, etc.; they all flow from this fundamental God given right. That is the truth and apparently you and your ilk cannot handle it. Why? Because the “assault weapon,” named that by gun control nuts in the 1980′s when they were looking for an effective marketing scheme to malign them; you can’t handle the fact that US citizens can own them and normal capacity (sometimes called high capacity by gun control nuts again using marketing techniques in an effort to shift the debate) magazines. Get used to it. Congress isn’t going to pass another AWB for a number of reasons. Get used to that. And you’re a loser. Get used to that. The loathing you feel when you look in the mirror can only be solved by your death. Remember, suicide is an option.
December 25, 2012 at 4:27pm
Just because he maybe bought the gun at a gunshow from a non-dealer, or from the truck of a non-dealer parked in a shopping center parking lot, or in an apartment when responding to a Craig’s List advertisement, or stole them from someones home(s) or vehicle(s); he knew he was a convicted felon and the lack of a background check isn’t what kept him from getting the guns. He was breaking laws buying guns, stealing guns and/or possessing guns. Another gun law would have been ignored just like those were. But, even more illustrative…
How many people did he shoot? How many did he kill? Weren’t there laws against that? What about setting arson fires? Weren’t there laws against that?
OK, so if we just plug the so called “gun show loophole” that is going to fix what?
The libtards that push for the so called “gun show loophole” are just looking for an excuse to chip away at peoples rights by increasing costs of purchase. The only thing the “gun show loophole” is going to do is…nothing. It isn’t going to do a thing.
Yes he is and I would also add BRILLIANT. Also, I am so sick and tired of the name calling from the Left because you disagree with them on homosexual marriage. In a way, calling me anti-gay because I don't believe in same sex marriage is like calling a Vegan -- anti-animal.
IMMORAL BEHAVIOR "DEHUMANIZES gays", not the moral law.
Scalia is clearly saying that state or federal government can make an immoral behavior illegal....That should trigger your Constitution spidey sense....
What do you think Michelle Obama is going to push for when she hears that 'immoral behavior' can be made illegal? Better go get your fast food before it is made illegal by the government. You guys are hanging yourselves with your own rope
Excuse me but government ALREADY MAKES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR ILLEGAL!
Murder is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!
Theft is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!
Rape is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!
The government has a responsibility to protect the innocent from evil. It's purpose is to PRESERVE POSTERITY -- the sustainability of FUTURE GENERATIONS! An out of control, do as you please, immoral society is UNGOVERNABLE!
That is why John Adams RIGHTLY made the comment that:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Why did he say that? BECAUSE THE VERY NATURE OF IMMORALITY IS TO DENY MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE BUT ONE'S SELF! Immorality says, "I will do what I please"; morality says, "I will restrain my behavior for the good of myself and the good of the many."
The Judeo/Christian religion teaches moral restraint. Those who often reject it, reject the moral principles that it espouses electing instead to embrace either no moral boundaries at all or relativistic morality which is often contradictory and inapplicable for the sustainment of society for the long term.
It has been a goal of the activist homosexuals since the late '60s to somehow "normalize" homosexuality. Done in two ways ........... redefine the term normal, so-to-speak, and load the Psychiatric community (and especially the committee responsible for writing the DSM) with activist homosexuals. Have to find out THEE individual is responsible for the nonsensical term 'homophobic'. Nice try, but meaningless when discussing the biology of normalcy.
those things are illegal because it violates the rights of others
you want something illegal because you dont like it
What about the right's of Children...
When I was young I got married to the wrong person for all the wrong reasons and after 5 years and having 2 sons with my ex-wife the marriage ended.
6 years later I married the right person for the right reasons and she had no children of her own. After doing a fantastic job of being a super-step-mom to my boys, one day my wife came to me with tears in her eyes and pleaded with me to have a child of our own with her so that she could experience that unbreakable bond she saw between my boys and me and with their mother. No matter what…she always felt like the replacement and she would always see herself as 2nd best. The fact is the boys could have walked away from her without hesitation if they wanted to. After all…the kids were never really hers.
With regards to homosexual couples and children…our society is setting itself up for a tidal wave of blow back from the children of these couples who may grow up and want their natural parents. Only one person in the homosexual relationship can have the physical/genetic bond…the other person may end up feeling like my wife did…like they are just along for the ride.
Children are the product of one man and one woman…there are no exceptions to this physical law…and a child has a right to experience the natural order of living things and live with both of his/her natural parents. Same sex couples should be made to acknowledge that they are giving up their right to parentho
I morally object to the justice being morbidly obese. His failure to choose a healthy lifestyle is a moral failing. It should be banned.
No, those things are illegal because they violate MORAL RIGHTS, PERIOD! You can't even begin to MAKE the argument for legal rights without first having a basis for morality!
In the United Arab Emirates this week a UK woman was gang raped by a group of men. But she was charged in the case because she was intoxicated. The rapists went free.
Here we have an example of "the law" acting on behalf of those who perpetrated the rape. In THAT culture, the rapist has more rights than the rape victim! She was the one judged "immoral" for having been intoxicated.
No matter what the LAW SAYS, there must be a moral basis for it. The law can still act incongruous with morality as the story above illustrates, but when morality is the basis for the law it properly restrains evil. That is the basis for civilized society. Uncivilized society acts in contradiction to moral restraint and history proves this out over, and over, and over again.
Hitler himself created a legal basis for rounding up the Jews and having them executed. But no one in their right mind would claim that this act was moral!
LEGALITY WITHOUT MORALITY IS TYRANNY.
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." J.Adams
"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." S.Adams
SOYBOMB315_II... in your reply to same sex marriage being an immoral act and equating equivalence to eating of fast food... please define these:
i will not define because it is the judgement of the individual.
The government should only make law that applies to prohibiting violation of our natural rights
liberals say we should have high taxes and government subsidizing the poor because it is the MORAL THING TO GO.....
I think you guys and liberals are both crazy and suffer the same ideological problem
@PaxInVeritate, the question of morality can't even be answered without God in the equation. Otherwise all you're left with is RELATIVISM -- all morality is relative and no two points of view are consistent.
For instance, one says homosexuality is immoral, another might argue that it is moral.
Relativism says that both are right because morality, according to the relativist, is a matter of individual preference rather than moral absolutes. Relativism violates the Law of Non-Contradiction and is therefore unsustainable.
According to our Founders, God is the Author of our rights.
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS..."
It's self-evident that we get our rights from God. He bestows them and no one can take them away.
God defines the perimeters for what is morally right and morally wrong since He alone is an infinite moral agent who supersedes our finite limitations.
Therefore, Morality is defined by God -- the Creator -- and PRINCIPALLY (not theocratically) instituted as laws for society to abide by. That is why the Founders believed that NO LAW can be adequate for a society that refuses to obey the Law written on their own heart -- the conscience.
A society that has no conscience is ungovernable.
SOYBOMB Admit it....you can't tell the difference!!
I morally object to VAMAN'S mother not teaching him the difference between right and wrong.
"Excuse me but government ALREADY MAKES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR ILLEGAL!"
We have here a case of "every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square." Yes, there is immoral behavior that is illegal. There's also immoral behavior that is not illegal. There's also "moral" behavior that is illegal.
Morality is not the end-all, be-all of what decides legality.
Do you think that heterosexual couples who adopt should do the same? Or heterosexual couples who use a birth mother or a sperm donor?
Your issue seems to be more with biology and parental rights than with gay marriage.
Also, anyone who is adopted is within their rights to seek out their biological parents. Those parents have NO legal right to see their child, however. Most adopted children do, at some point, seek information about their biological parents. That does not mean that adoption is a poor option, I would argue. Most children who are put up for adoption or do not have two biological parents have good reasons to do so.
STAGE9......BRAVO!!! You, sir, are a whole man, worthy of honor and respect.
Morality and legality are not equivalent and should not be, because morality limits freedom.
if every immoral activity were illegal - every person in the USA would be in jail
@Soybomb and Stage9
You both give sound arguments but morality and our concepts of freedom will not always harmonize. Other countries are attempting to do this, I present Iran as a case in point. Societal morality shifts our concepts of freedom shifts with it, often at the chagrin of the religious community who have a book they believe doesn't change.
Yet, it does. What was acceptable in the Old Testament radically changed in the New Testament. In fact the religious practices of the Mosaic and Levitical Laws often have no resemblance to the Christian concepts of freedom. Moralistically, I find it interesting that the Jewish Christian leaders who were trying to push for Old Testament practices of morality were rebuked by Paul resulting in nearly every OT practice no longer having a place in their religious culture.
Freedom as we know it allows for a degree of shifting morality, that doesn't mean it becomes acceptable to those who believe it immoral. But it does mean you live in a country where the freedom to do what is wrong is often as acceptable a part as the freedom to do what is right.
THEGREATBIGLIFECOM, wrote"What was acceptable in the Old Testament radically changed in the New Testament. In fact the religious practices of the Mosaic and Levitical Laws often have no resemblance to the Christian concepts of freedom. Moralistically, I find it interesting that the Jewish Christian leaders who were trying to push for Old Testament practices of morality were rebuked by Paul resulting in nearly every OT practice no longer having a place in their religious culture."
Do you know why? Old testament is the story of the Hebrews, and the directive to keep a bloodline pure. Resulting in the birth of the only 'begotten' son of God. The Mosaic law, was only to bring this bloodline to the time of Christ. After the 'blood' sacrifice of Jesus, no more blood would be shed for the law. This is where the Roman church erred. She killed 500 million more.
The use of moral relativism and animal behavior to justify immoral behavior on the part of humans merely sinks us to their level.
I am not an animal and refuse to justify immoral behavior using moral gymnastics like the gays use. I am better than an animal.
Perhaps that is the goal of gays, to be reclassified as mere animals...?
Man government need to just get out of marriage PERIOD!!! What someone else chooses to do with their life is NON of my business, so long as it doesn't infringe on another's Life, Liberty, or pursuit of happiness!!! People talk about moral this and that. WHERES THE LINE??? What you deem moral, some other tyrannical jack is gonna say is indecent. People need to stop playing God and King and worry about themselves. That and fight for my rights as I would fight for theirs. You can't pick and choose freedom folks. Stand for it, or against it, but don't kid yourself by thinking picking and choosing what you like, that somehow your standing for LIBERTY. My best friend growing up used to say- "If you ride both sides of the fence, your gonna gets your ***** hung up on a post!".
STAGE9 -- Keep up the good work. Your understanding of morality, constitution and government is impeccable. I fully agree with your arguments and what they are based on.
ENCINOM, I have read all of the posts here and I have come to the conclusion of just how brave and mighty you must believe that you are. Okay, big assed guy, many here have pointed out primarily just how "immoral" your lifestyle is. But, nobody, and I say again NOBODY here has said that you must die for such a practice. If I respect any homosexual for just that practice I respect those who live in a country who would by that nation's laws kill them for just such a practice. But, you don't have the balls to rail the way you do on those countries. You attempt to only go after those who merely believe that your life style is immoral, but who actually take no physical action against you. My, my, what a ballsy, brave man you must be, right? If you want to prove yourself to us all, go live a year or so in one of those countries. You know, one of those countries that we never read of you complaining about.
To Yaman: You object to the fact that someone is overweight? Who are you to object to anything that someone else does with his/her own body as long as what that person does is within the legal boundaries of our society? Evidently, you wish to take away the basic rights of Americans beginning with what and how much we can put into our mouths.
My daughter is a health freak and although her chosen profession bugs me, her lifestyle does not. She can choose to take whatever supplements she feels will maintain her body in a healthy manner and enrich her life through exercise. I just don't want her trying to push that onto my lifestyle, particularly at my age. Let me die with a Twinkie in my hand, so to speak and no, I am not morbidly obese.
SO, take your self serving attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. And when you and Michelle come with your new laws in an attempt to make me weigh 175 lbs again, you'll find me defending my right to eat what I want to with the same tools I will use to defend my rights under the 2d Amendment.
What might happen if a person engages in bestiality? Diseases might jump species & cause extremely virulent diseases.
What might happen when people engage in sodomy? Diseases, killer disease, might readily spread.
Yup, It looks like government has an interest & the problems look similar in enough ways to be comparable.
SOYBOMB wrote this
"liberals say we should have high taxes and government subsidizing the poor because it is the MORAL THING TO GO…..
I think you guys and liberals are both crazy and suffer the same ideological problem"
SOY....You hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head with that one......Therein lies the crux of the social argument we have about taxes and entitlements. Conservative thought is: fix the money flow problem and we won't need so much entitlement spending..... the libs say,"How are we gonna feed these poor things till then? We need the investment money for them..."...and the conservatives say, "But if we just spend it all on entitlements, we will never be able to fix the problem....." That's when Bah Rahk pipes in and says "These are my constituents and we will let the entitlements stand." He knows that the problem is beyond all our capabilities to solve. So, he makes deals to "adjust" our sovereignty status, and devalue our money in preparation for the eventual and imminent absorption of the U.S. into the Global community. These deals include the decimation of Israel and the "hispanization" of the NAFTA 'corridor', and the adoption of the constitution of the NWO.
Look at the bar chart & tell us where the problem is.
The hetero IIV infections are probably due in significant portion to bisexuals. Heteros are not angels but let's look at gay marriage. Gays say that with a 50% divorce rate, they cannot make it worse. Yes they can. Likewise homosexual practices make the spread of any STD easier & thus the disease more widespread.
Encinom, you do know how to read a bar chart?
Scalia is clearly saying that state or federal government can make an immoral behavior illegal
Yup. What is the problem?
Murder is immoral. We ban it. It would be unwise to ban everything that is immoral perhaps due to fiscal constraints & sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease. But homosexuality is pretty corrosive to society.
Murder, robbery and rape do harm to others. I don’t want the government to EVER prohibit behavior that does me no harm just because somebody else considers it immoral. Immoral according to whom? If the answer is according to your ancient book of rules that somebody thousands of years ago claimed they got from God, that makes it establishment of religion as far as I’m concerned.
Bravo! Well argued! You've made the Christian argument well, and I think we should all apply it. There's a way to argue the same without reference to the Scriptures, though, so I encourage you in public conversation to make the moral argument for laws WITH Scalia, rather than fall into the trap of using references not everyone agrees with. The STRUCTURAL need for governments to use morality as the basis for law stands as universal without the need to base it on any one particular system of morality.
With all due respect, not only do you seem incapable of defining morality at all (which is NOT always completely relative and subjective), but you argue apples and oranges as if the two are the same. Of COURSE you are correct that govt shouldn't be deciding FOR people what's moral and what's not. NO ONE is arguing that, least of all Scalia. But for you to claim that there's NO moral basis for laws is silly. Laws must be based on that part of what YOU would call morality (which is really only a private, subjective sense of guilt anyone can choose to ignore to any degree) which the public shares or has defined as universally applicable. And even then, the public can be objectively wrong (which we see in the above cited example of the Islamic society prosecuting the victim of a rape for a minor, non-violent infraction). Govt's task is to uphold the natural rights of everyone so no one infringes on anyone else, yes, but the Constitution... (continued)
...creates a division between the universal (read national) rights applicable to all citizens, and the rights which local majorities must decide for themselves. The real question, then, is why do YOU think YOUR sense of morality from Maine has the right to override mine from PA, for example. THAT'S what the Constitution should prevent.
p.s. And there's no "spidey-sense" necessary in interpreting the Constitution...just read more Scalia, he'll set you straight.
What authority do you have to decide which immoral acts you are going to punish? Are you a God?
Pornography is widespread and destructive. Unless you guys start talking about banning thigns like pornography - you are just HYPOCRITES. But not as many of you want to ban it because you are hooked on it
I'll be honest - i did not read all of that. It's pretty simple for me - we live in a Constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Our federal government is supposed to have few enumerated powers, so i will go with that
It’s nice to see the republican theocrats and Scalia using the same arguments that the Muslim Brotherhood used last week to institute Sharia Law (moral code) as the constitution in Egypt.
Praise be to Allah!
In the very post you (mis)use them in, you have just demonstrated that out of the 10 nouns, and 7 adjectives you used, you understand only the phrase "last week" in the manner in which other English speakers can understand.
For example: putting Republican and Theocrat together means you understand neither. Egypt, Muslim, Sharia, and Allah are totally misrepresented in your morally relativistic attitude, and your grasp of law, code, brotherhood, and especially moral and arguments are completely lacking. I'll say nothing about how you misrepresent Scalia--and "nice" (which you obviously mean the exact opposite of).
Troll, you've been spanked!
As some have already pointed out, governments use moral code as the basis for writing laws which create an environment where void of anarchy people can live together in peace and harmony. In this country, the basis of our moral code and hence laws….well we all know where they originally came from. Deny it like a good Supreme Court tour guide, but this code has been in place and practiced for thousands of years. Secularists have in fact even co-opted some of this ancient code, deciding to ditch the parts they don’t like. Basic morality, though, never shifts or changes. People’s projections and biases create the illusion that things have changed. Mental gymnastics aside, denying our moral origin is a lie, and picking and choosing won’t help you either, because in the end Nature will always win.
Taking care of the poor can happen in ways OTHER than government and taxes. So, that some self centered politician coerces people to pay high taxes that will go to caring for the poor because it is the moral thing to do is only the projection of their own inflated ego and self aggrandizement, if not just a way to line their own pockets.
You can try to use the theocratic vs. secular republic argument to change a reality you don’t like and want changed, but you then you will still just be in denial of the truth.
Our goal should be freedom from government. Telling people who they can and can not marry is none of our business. Shoving our morality down someone else's throat while complaining that people who shove their morality down our throat(the rich need to share their wealth is a form of morality) is hypocritical and illogical. We don't stand for freedom unless we stand for it in all scenarios, not only when it aligns with our personal beliefs.
No one wants to force your church to marry people. We simply want equality under the law for everyone. Gay marriage hurts no one and the right loses its platform of individual liberty the second it takes a stand against it.
SOYBOMB315_II… Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I didn’t ask anyone to judge anyone’s soul, just to define the terms moral; immoral; and amoral, so we have a basis for discussion (e.g. “A moral act is an act which is Good.”). The reason I ask is that eating fast food by in and of itself is an amoral act, not moral or immoral.
STAGE9… I think you misjudged my reason for asking. I was not denying that God is the center or moral acts. Having studied both philosophy and theology long ago, you’re preaching to the choir on the subject of Morality and Relativistic Morality. I have no issues on these points. As ‘we’, tongue in cheek, kidded each other when the subject of relativism came up, “We are on the ocean of happiness sailing on the boat of love to the rainbow of tolerance.” (aka Hell)
Here’s the issue from my point of view (and yes it is Religious in nature). As we continue to erode God’s Laws, both in our country and in the world in general, we are challenging God’s authority in all matters. A fine example of this is the churches of different ‘denominations’ that are now conducting same sex marriages in His house of worship. It has never gone well in any society that has done so, and since the whole world is ‘misbehaving’… ‘we’ are in for one good swat on the butt. It’s that simple folks.
They do the name calling and insults to deflect the truth.
"Excuse me but government ALREADY MAKES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR ILLEGAL!
Murder is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!
Theft is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!
Rape is illegal precisely because it is IMMORAL!"
No. There is a far more obvious reason why these crimes are illegal. How are they all similar? They all involve harming and violating the rights of others, simple as that. The fact that these acts are also immoral has no bearing on their illegality. Certainly some people claim that war is immoral, but it is not illegal. Idol worship is not illegal either, despite what the Bible says about it.
So, please, tell me how gay marriage harms others or violates their rights?
"It’s self-evident that we get our rights from God. He bestows them and no one can take them away."
Yes, and those rights are individual rights that don't include imposing your religious objections on others. Do tell me how you see gay marriage violating the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Seems to me that those concepts are entirely in favor of legalization.
"Children are the product of one man and one woman…there are no exceptions to this physical law…and a child has a right to experience the natural order of living things and live with both of his/her natural parents."
So... you're against adoption for anyone? Or the idea of having a step-parent?
MyselfandI, Thank you!
For someone complaining about people making apples to oranges comparisons, you sure love thinking in them.
Stage9 brought up murder, theft, and rape because they're the easiest examples. Just because you can claim those ALSO belong to the SEPARATE category of things that harm other people, doesn't make it incorrect that we outlaw them because they're immoral. Are you against the death penalty? What about imprisoning criminals? Isn't that violating the principles life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The state has a legitimate monopoly on those infractions, not because it's the only institution allowed to harm others, silly, it's because when it's a just punishment for a crime, it's NOT IMMORAL anymore.
And another thing: this false flag of a question about what harm gay marriage does deserves a little discussion. I happen to believe there IS harm done to the whole of society when the institution of the family is weakened by the state, and I'm willing to convince those around me so that my local community and state never decide to do so. So why do you skip the real question here: who decides? Maine has no right to impose on PA it's locally determined sense of "morality", BEFORE the merits of their judgment are even discussed. THAT'S why atheists and pure libertarians shouldn't be let anywhere NEAR federal authority--too much willful ignorance as to the provenance of liberty and the institutions necessary for its upholding.
"Just because you can claim those ALSO belong to the SEPARATE category of things that harm other people, doesn’t make it incorrect that we outlaw them because they’re immoral."
Ahh, but now you are suggesting that the positive claim being made (the comparison between gay marriage and rape, etc.on the grounds of morality) is true because I don't prove the the opposite? Now that's just a silly little logical fallacy right there. If you concede that these crimes infringe on the rights of others, then you would have to prove that this is somehow merely coincidental to what you suggest is the real reason for the prohibition: morality. You don't get anywhere close to doing that--you merely insist that morality must be the reason they are legal, despite the fact that these acts specifically violate explicit rights to property, safety and public order (somehow those are secondary concerns!).
The entire basis for our legal and political system is individual rights--are you disputing this? The safeguarding of those rights inevitably involves a mechanism for enforcement (imprisonment, etc.), meaning that punishing criminals who break the social contract is not a violation of those rights (this is a really basic point, so I hope you will give up on that silly high school debate move you tried to make there).
But, of course, different faith systems have different codes of morality. Now, if a particular moral code conflicts with an individual right, which do you think wi
The Homosexuals want special rights. Their argument is baseless on the question of equality. Their rights are the same as Heterosexuals.
If even a high schooler could understand this argument, why does it seem so beyond you? ;-)
Seriously though: you've demonstrated no understanding of my argument. You've claimed the only basis for law is individual rights, I say yes, and that coincides with morality because individual rights are moral. What is (public) morality if it's not a core of honesty, and respect for the liberty and security of person and property of the other? It's silly to insist the two don't have overlapping meanings. And reasonable to state that morality is therefore the raison d'être of the legal system.
But then, you don't generally reason (or read) well. I am NOT supporting Stage9's claim that gay marriage is comparable to rape, and I'm NOT taking you to task for failing to prove the opposite. I READILY concede that rape, murder and theft violate individual rights and therefore should be illegal. You've fabricated those straw men.
Instead, I have taken issue with your doctrinaire relativism, and pointed you to the real heart of the question: WHO DECIDES?
We may have an individual right to decide our own system of morality, but there's a common core we legislate on, otherwise anarchy. The point is, the Constitution leaves it to the people to decide all but the barest minimum of moral standards as locally as possible, and my state shouldn't be forced to accept your state's definition of state-sanctioned relationships with rights and benefits attached.
I see many good arguments here, good strong arguments. I'd just like to remind my friends here of the Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35, January 10, 1963 "Current Communist Goals".
There is probably no need to say the communist goals were aimed at undermining the morality of the American public, the foundation for a nation capable of self-government. These are only 2 of the 45 stated goals. The comments in parentheses are my notes.
[√] 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." (In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.)
[√] 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." (Social Justice, as in the “church” of “Jeremiah Wright” Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). A false Christianity based in “Black Liberation Theology” that despises America)
"It’s silly to insist the two don’t have overlapping meanings. And reasonable to state that morality is therefore the raison d’être of the legal system."
Overlapping, therefore the "raison d'etre"? That's a bit of a nonsequitur. But anyway, you don't seem to quite understand what relativism means, since you accuse me of being a relativist, and then you suggest that "the Constitution leaves it to the people to decide all but the barest minimum of moral standards as locally as possible." That seems a bit relativistic to me...
But anyway, you didn't answer my question--when when a groups moral code abridges or conflicts with someone's or some group's individual rights, which "law" do you think is higher? Even if a majority of a community has a certain moral conviction, that majority does not trump the rights of the minority.
In other words, to answer your question "who decides," the answer is that the government doesn't. The government doesn't decide on morality. It preserves individual rights. See how simple it is?
I am gay and a conservative. I do believe that marriage as a religious institution should be up to the particular church. However, the government can recognize the union of same sex relationships for the purposes of benefits and property rights. A law written that no church shall be forced to perform a ceremony against its beliefs should be the standard.
I can respect people who believe differently than I do. I can not respect those who think that their belief entitles them to say who I can love. God is Love. And if I am wrong God will see fit to handle me in His own way. God will see no sin differently in His own eyes. I saw family members who belonged to a church tell me I was an abomination, when at the same time they had sex out of wedlock, children out of marriage, and spread the evil in their hearts, even against their own children.
God is a personal relationship between the individual and God. And no man can ever change that. And so long as the government can find ways to protect the individual, then it is doing God's work.
MCLHURLEY… First, I’m sorry that some in your family consider you to be “an abomination”. That is not of God. That said… what you need to concern yourself with is that which God proclaimed through His prophets concerning homosexual acts. In addition, Jesus did not come to abolish how God the Father wants His children to live. As He said it Himself, He came to complete it. From the standpoint of God, anyone who performs a sin in His eyes and does not repent and conform their ways to His are unfit to enter into His Kingdom. The Father, Jesus and the Apostles are very plain on this issue.
“I can not [sic] respect those who think that their belief entitles them to say who I can love. “
If it is your desire to love another man in a relationship, do so in celibacy. God will not fault you if you accept His Love first and express that Love to another of His children in celibacy.
“God is Love…. God will see no sin differently in His own eyes.”
Yes, God is Love, and He views all sin as a stain of the soul. But that does not mean He Loves any act that He views as an abomination, as homosexual acts are plainly described, just because it is done in or out of human understanding of love.
“And if I am wrong God will see fit to handle me in His own way.”
And here is the crux of ‘our’ concern. You are willing to commit the act which He has called “abomination”, out of what your understanding of love is, on a continual basis (my presumption). And ‘we’, who accept His decrees, know what that means if you continue in such practices. You will not be in a state of Grace when you die, or still alive when He comes (which will be in our generation). That means eternal separation from absolute Love, Joy, Peace and all the other ‘characteristics’ of God and Heaven which He bestows upon His children whom He delights in. Why anyone who understands what is at stake would want to you to continue to that end? Do you think that because, “I wholly love this individual.” that God will overlook what He considers an abominable act? You are willing to ‘gamble’ on the eternal state of your soul on that position knowing, as you are being told now, that that will not be the case.
“I saw family members who belonged to a church tell me I was an abomination, when at the same time they had sex out of wedlock, children out of marriage, and spread the evil in their hearts, even against their own children.”
“I saw family members who belonged to a church tell me I was an abomination, when at the same time they had sex out of wedlock, children out of marriage, and spread the evil in their hearts, even against their own children.”
That falls into the “mote in your brother’s eye… plank in your own.” I’m single, celibate and not a priest. So in this regard, although I’m not homosexual, I can say, “Be celibate.” It is not easy, but reliance upon His Grace through fasting and prayer it is possible.
“God is a personal relationship between the individual and God.”
Yes and no. You do live in a society. And within that there is a community of Faith if you are willing to avail yourself to it. It is from there that you will make and receive fasting and prayers to live as a celibate in His Grace.
December 11, 2012 at 12:02am
You hijackers ought to get an all expense paid visit to the winner in the story above…
November 23, 2012 at 12:56pm
I understand the sentiment, but two points: 1) He was not fired, he retired. 2) I am not sure on what basis he would sue. Many people confuse the 1st Amendment right to free speech in discussions like this. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from restraining your speech. Your employer can fire you, your spouse can divorce you and your friends can disown you for saying something they view as moronic.
I personally wish this guy had dug his heels in and told all of them to f&^% off. He wasn’t going to get prosecuted, the only reason it made headlines is because he was a cop and some jackass decided to file a complaint about him making the statement. I would have loved to see him push it as I suspect an arbitrator would have reinstated him had the agency fired him for making an admittedly intemperate, but not even slightly threatening statement.
Political correctness run amok. Whomever filed the complaint about his statement, I hope they read this – You should grow a pair, put on your big boy/girl panties and stop being so sensitive. And if you don’t like that, you can kiss my a$$.