[Sunsong]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

No, it is proper to ask. But as I say, I had no idea just how arrogant you are.

No, that is your belief.

Wrong. I know that the founders were not theocrats. I still wonder if that is what you are hoping for. You do not seem to draw a line between what is government and what is your religion…nor do you seem to understand the difference.

I am actually much more liberal on the subject of sodomy that our Founding Fathers were and you consider me a "theocrat."

It wouldn’t surprise me if you were or wish to be a theocrat – like the Islamists. Perhaps you are unaware that it is now over 200 years since the founding of our nation???? Are you aware that the founders weren’t too hip about women’s rights either??? And slavery??? Are you aware at all that we live in different times and that human understanding has progressed since the 1700’s?

I find the Jeffersonian solution of castration for sodomites to be harsh. How is it, then, that I am a "theocrat" but Thomas Jefferson gets a pass in your book?

Perhaps because the definition of theocrat does not have to do with your solution to sodomy! Do you know what theocracy is? You are trying to force others to live by your religion. Thomas Jefferson did not. I am not against castration for rapists and other serial sex offenders. Are you aware that Mr. Jefferson did not consider the Bible to be the absolute and only word of God? Are you aware that he was sure that some of the quotes attributed to Jesus could not possibly have been uttered by him and made his own gospel of Jesus?

Nowhere in any of our founding documents is a 'right' to do evil enumerated, nor a 'right' practice deviant sex.

Now you are getting childish! The constitution is about government – not religion. The Bill of Rights asserts general rights such as those I have already listed. Do you have any idea how creepy you come across – obsessed as you seem to be with other people’s sexual practices?

I repeat: there is no where in the constitution that says there is no right to sin. And, in fact, sinners’ rights have been upheld through the courts…which you should count your blessing for – since you are also a sinner. Perhaps it is time for you to get your own house in order – before throwing stones.

In the story of Adam and Eve – they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit. God gave them the “right” to sin – it would seem.

Anger is a sin. You seem angry to me. Should you be in jail for it?

If we had a "right to sin", any law restricting human action would, by definition, be violating the rights of the sinner.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between government and religion. Sin is a religious term. People have the “right” to sin. If they break the law, there will be legal consequences. If they sin – say for instance, have homosexual sex – they will not receive legal consequences. If someone is greedy, that is a sin – however there is no law against it. If someone is unloving – that is a sin – but again, there is no law against it. If someone is so evil as to condemn another – there is no legal consequence for it.

If we have a "right to sin", then by definition, we can take no action when we are the victims of sin for fear of violating another person's "right to sin

Again, you seem confused as to the difference between church and state. We absolutely, by law, have a “right” to sin. For a Jew to eat things that are not Kosher is a sin. But you or I are not prosecuted for it and, of course, Jews aren’t civilly prosecuted either. When the sin – say murder – is both a religious sin and a civil crime - then there is a civil consequence.

[Antoninus]

No, it is proper to ask.

It's proper to ask someone if they are without sin? Why don't you ask me if I have a head? The question would be no less idiotic and the answer every bit as obvious.

But as I say, I had no idea just how arrogant you are.

Yawn. Ad hominems are boring.

Wrong. I know that the founders were not theocrats.

Really? And yet they spoke about rights coming from the "Creator", imposed all kinds of laws about public and private morality, called for days of prayer, etc. Heck, even though he didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, Thomas Jefferson thought that Christ's moral teachings represented the most perfect system possible. By your definition, the Founders sounded pretty theocratic to me.

It wouldn’t surprise me if you were or wish to be a theocrat – like the Islamists.

That's right, ignore the point I made and just compare me to guys who slice off the heads of infidels while chanting, "Allah akbar." Again, yawn.

Perhaps you are unaware that it is now over 200 years since the founding of our nation???? Are you aware that the founders weren’t too hip about women’s rights either??? And slavery??? Are you aware at all that we live in different times and that human understanding has progressed since the 1700’s?

So you have retreated to the bastion of the anti-American leftist, eh? The old "living Constitution" canard? Last time I checked, both slavery and women's sufferage were settled by Amendments to the US Constitution--as is proper. If the butt-sex crowd is able to pass a Constitutional Amendment saying that they have a God-given right to "marry", then they will have at least acted legitimately, even though I will go right on disagreeing with them. They can't do that, so instead they are attempting to force their immorality on an unwilling nation via naked judicial fiat against the oft expressed will of the electorate. Are you in favor of that?

Perhaps because the definition of theocrat does not have to do with your solution to sodomy! Do you know what theocracy is? You are trying to force others to live by your religion.

Huh? There are plenty of reasons to oppose homosexual behavior that are based purely on common sense with no religious component to them at all. Is it your opinion that we were living under a theocracy for the first 228 years of our nation's existence until the Lawrence decision made butt-sex a "civil right"? There have been plenty of laws on the books outlawing deviant sex acts throughout our nation's history.

Are you aware that he was sure that some of the quotes attributed to Jesus could not possibly have been uttered by him and made his own gospel of Jesus?

No, I'm a complete illiterate and an idiot. Please, patronize me more. (You do realize that by bringing up Jefferson's suspicions about Christianity, you're actually helping make my case, right?)

Do you have any idea how creepy you come across – obsessed as you seem to be with other people’s sexual practices?

Let's see. Homosexuals parade down Main Street in leather thongs during their "pride" parades, spew their propaganda on every conceivable media outlet, strain every bulkhead to get at my children in schools---and yet somehow, I'm the creepy one for opposing all of this? Again, yawn.

And, in fact, sinners’ rights have been upheld through the courts…

You are now going to cite me a Supreme Court case that does this (preferably from before the courts went nuts in the 1960s), and provide the relevant money quote from the case proving it. If not, please withdraw the claim as spurious.

which you should count your blessing for – since you are also a sinner.

I don't recognize any court which would pat me on the back and "protect me" for committing a sin. Such a court has ZERO moral authority. They may have legal authority--but hey, even Stalin's show trials had that.

Perhaps it is time for you to get your own house in order – before throwing stones.

I know you'd prefer that folks like me be silent in the face of evil, but sorry, no can do. If that bothers you, put me in jail.

In the story of Adam and Eve – they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit. God gave them the “right” to sin – it would seem.

It would seem--only to someone with very little insight. Once again, having the power to do something does not equal having the right to do it. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? God did not give Adam and Eve the "right" to sin. Indeed, He commanded them not to. And you'll notice--what was the sin they committed? Eating the apple? No. It was willfully disobeying a direct and unambiguous command from God. How does it make any sense that God would give his creatures the "right" to do something and then command them not to do it?

Anger is a sin. You seem angry to me. Should you be in jail for it?

Righteous anger is not a sin. Did Jesus sin when he drove the money-changers out of the Temple? Wrath or vindictive anger, on the other hand, is a sin. Regardless, I'm not in the least bit angry. Perhaps you mistake my zeal to help those afflicted with same-sex attraction properly understand their evil desires and escape their dangerous lifestyle for anger? If so, that's your problem, not mine.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between government and religion.

No, I do perfectly well. All government has its basis in a moral code that comes from somewhere. Ours, thank God, is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some libertine-arians and atheists would have us replace this with some vague notion of morality that none of them can seem to agree on. Such rationalist moral codes have been attempted as the basis for governments in the past--and have been notable for their catastrophic failures.

Sin is a religious term.

Perhaps, but it is also a cultural term meaning "to do wrong." If it makes you uncomfortable, just use "to do wrong" in place of "to sin."

People have the “right” to sin. If they break the law, there will be legal consequences.

No one has a right to do wrong. The very idea is self-contradictory. How on earth can anyone have a right to do something that's against the law unless the law itself is unjust? This kind of thinking is just a complete muddle.

If they sin – say for instance, have homosexual sex – they will not receive legal consequences. If someone is greedy, that is a sin – however there is no law against it. If someone is unloving – that is a sin – but again, there is no law against it. If someone is so evil as to condemn another – there is no legal consequence for it.

In every one of these instances above, you are describing a thought or a feeling--except homosexual sex which is an act. Our system tends not to criminalize thought--a noble notion to be sure. We do criminalize all kinds of acts. No one ever says, "he was caught in the thought." Again, I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's a logical mess.

We absolutely, by law, have a “right” to sin.

Really, which law? Can you cite one for me from before 1960 when all this moral "I'm ok, you're ok" gobbledeegook really began to take hold?

For a Jew to eat things that are not Kosher is a sin. But you or I are not prosecuted for it and, of course, Jews aren’t civilly prosecuted either.

Right. But we could be. If my town was 90% Orthodox Jewish and they passed a law that said that no one in the town could eat pig meat, do you think such a law would be constitutional? Newsflash: It would be. And even our modern courts which have strayed so far from the Constitution would likely recognize the law as valid for that town as long as it didn't contain any specific religious language.

When the sin – say murder – is both a religious sin and a civil crime - then there is a civil consequence.

In my opinion, homosexual acts should be a civil crime.

Question (and you don't have to answer this if you don't want to): Do you have a personal stake in this issue?