Why doesn't anyone say man/woman marriage comes from natural law?

[cradle of freedom]

I don’t believe in ethnic cleansing but I do believe that the pre 1965 immigration quotas were the best solution. When people come to our country they should know that they are coming to a country that was built on a Christian cultural tradition. They can practice their religion but they cannot ask us to change our religion in order to accomodate them. This is one of the reasons why the pre 1965 immigration laws were the best. There has to be a central core of shared beliefs, this is what keeps society together. The kind of society that you want would be a zoo.

What the secular humanists are doing is an act of destruction of the Christian heritage of the West. This is intolerance. Secular Humanists are not satisfied to just disagree, they have to take over institutions and drive out the people who founded those institutions. This is not tolerance. As for ethnic cleansing, there has been something akin to it—religious cleansing. It has going on for many years. Russia and other Communist countries have tried to wipe out large numbers of their own people in their fanatical drive to destroy their own religious tradition.

[SteveH]

I do not think that the best use of government is to enforce one religion or culture over another religion or culture.

That smacks of bigotry.

The best government is that which governs least.

Let religious views be debated in the marketplace of ideas, among those who care to do such.

Let people celebrate their religion and culture or lack of religion and lack of culture as they see fit.

I don’t want to enforce my personal beliefs and personal preferences on you, because under a different government, that would permit you to enforce your personal beliefs and personal preferences on me.

To the extent that this has been done in the past, it is an injustice, antithetical to most notions of individual freedom.

The only equitable solution is that no one should be allowed to enforce their personal beliefs and personal preferences on anyone else.

Stated in another way:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[cradle of freedom]

You don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

[SteveH]

All invention is outside of nature.

[RedHeeler]

All nature, is inside of invention.

[cradle of freedom]

So morality is an invention outside of nature?

[SteveH]

Natural law seems to be that which is common to all human societies.

It may exist, but it just may not be as expansive as some would seem to prefer.

[cradle of freedom]

It’s moral law.

[SteveH]

You are missing the location independent aspect
of natural law. Natural law does not differ
from region to region and/or from culture to culture.

It sounds as if you have issues with that.

[cradle of freedom]

Some individuals and some cultures are more receptive and others are less receptive to moral law.

[SteveH]

The issue you leave out is who gets to decide which cultures are morally superior.

[cradle of freedom]

We live in this country with a long established culture going back thousands of years. No one has a right to play Dr. Frankenstin with the culture. People who have children and grandchildren as I do are not so quick to try rash social experiments. There are real consequences for radical ideas, we have seen what has happened to the culture in the past thirty years. Have some consideration.

[SteveH]

No one is playing with your cultural values which you
are welcome to keep.

You are not required to try things you personally do not like.
Same goes for your relatives.

You seem to be arguing
for the enforcement of your own cultural preferences
on other individuals because other individuals do
things that you don’t like in the privacy of their bedrooms.

In the USA, preference is given to individual rights (in contrast to collective rights). Also the US legal
tradition is for a government which governs least on the theory that the power of that government is thereby restrained and the government then governs best (Thoreau).

Again, you argue for cultural conformity without demonstrating any tangible need, without consideration
for defining the boundaries of government power
over individual rights, and without really explaining
who gets to be “we” versus who gets to be “them.”

You presume everyone should simply adopt European
culture as superior. Isn’t that a highly conceited
worldview? What if you were not so fortunate
as to be born into a given culture? If Eskimos
were the majority, would you want a positive law banning
kissing in favor of rubbing noses?

If your basis for making or supporting laws enforcing European customs is based on the premise that the majority
of the people in the USA practice one sexual lifestyle or another, and so laws shoupld be passed enforcing the sexual lifestyle choices of that presumed majority, do you appreciate the dangers of the tyranny of the majority,
and how do you reconcile the two?

[cradle of freedom]

I think we are suffering from the tyranny of the minority. Radical lifestyles often practiced in the streets is disrespectful to others. What people do in their homes is another thing.

[SteveH]

How do you suffer from what other consenting adults do in private.

Please be specific as to your injuries.