Posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:28 PM PDT by papasmurf
The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at update08.foxnews.com ...
Smoking is not immoral, thus it should be left up to the states. Homosexuality is a sin, and the states have proven they can’t all ban it. So let the feds do it. It may not be written in the Constitution, but morals are a stronger governor than the Constitution. If society is falling apart via the states’ failure to ditch gay marriage, I am not willing to sit around and wait for them all to comply. Something needs to be done. Morality comes first, Constitution second. That is my take, your opinion is your opinion and I respect that. I’m willing to agree to disagree, 1. because I’m sick of typing, and 2. debating all night isn’t going to change much.
Then let's start with the basics. How about a federal law to criminalize failure to comply with the First Commandment?
It is? I know plenty of Baptists that say it's immoral and a sin since it's not doing what one should with the 'temple of the body'
Homosexuality is a sin, and the states have proven they can’t all ban it. So let the feds do it. It may not be written in the Constitution, but morals are a stronger governor than the Constitution.
And thank you for playing...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people
That is my take, your opinion is your opinion and I respect that. I’m willing to agree to disagree,
No your opinion is based on 'feeling' and not the intent of the Framers. While I respect it (and even used to believe it), I now realize how much long term damage can be done by handing over another power to the federal government.
I'm not saying you don't have a correct stance when it comes to homosexuality but get it done at the state level
Huh? The first amendment isn’t a moral issue the way homosexuality is.
The fear, msm and the other candidates, is so thick you can see it, feel it, and smell it.
....tacticalogic or billbears—if either of you respond to my posts, don’t expect a reply until tomorrow. It’s late here and I’m off for the night.
No, come on, obviously not.
I am just as adamant as you, maybe more.
“You want your kids growing up in a society that says, “Oh, having kids is an option. If you really want to. And if you marry someone of the opposite sex.”
I was a single parent of two girls for 16 years, their male friends would bring their dad’s to my house instead of coming alone. LOL
Both are married to good men, and have contributed to our family’s carbon footprint...4 times so far. :)
But I disagree that FRed is enabling it. The States are enabling it, and the libs are enabling it.
Not the First Amendment, the First Commandment.
Well, thanks to the first amendment, not everybody follows the Ten Commandments.
There is no state religion, so punishing people for not following the Commandments cannot be done.
What happened to morality first, Constitution second?
When I say morality, I mean standing up for basic things like marriage and life, not simply anything that has to do with religion. This ban would not criminalize people for being gay and engaging in gay behavior, rather it prevents them from getting married and so their union cannot be recognized.
As far as religion goes, several different ones are practiced. Lots of different ideas, and you can’t force people into one or the other, they have to decide for themselves. But generally all of them view homosexuality as immoral. Those that don’t aren’t moral. The Ten Commandments apply only to Christians, so criminalizing everyone wouldn’t be possible. Seeing homosexuality as immoral applies to everyone (except atheists or those who don’t practice their religion), so banning it would be done on a moral ground.
Another thing: The reason there isn’t a law criminalizing those who don’t follow the Ten Commandments is because you can’t force Christianity upon them, they have to discover for themselves that it is the religion they want to follow. When forced upon them, they are not really following it, they’re just doing so because they have to.
With gays, again you can’t regulate what they do in their private lives regard homosexuality, there’d be no way to keep track of everybody and possibly enforce it, but you can work on a public scale and prevent them from getting their unions recognized.
I'd say the same argument you're using for this could be used to rationalize virtually any exercise in federal social or cultural engineering.
Lots of things are sins, and you can’t legislate against all of them. Homosexuality is a grave sin, and with things like it along with murder and abortion, you can and should legislate against them.
Or if you want to take out the word “sin”, we could say that it violates a basic principle that has held society together throughout its history—marriage.
From that standpoint, it needs to be banned. As for why we shouldn’t ban everything that goes against Christianity or the Ten Commandments, see post 115. But homosexuality should be banned not only because it goes against them, but because it is dangerous to society.
Who gets to decide what’s a “little” sin, and legislation subject to constituional constraints, and which ones are the “big” sins that get a pass?
If they pose a threat to people and to society, they’re “big” sins. Thus, gay marriage, abortion, murder, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia out to be banned.
By the way, are we arguing over whether it should be banned period, or whether it should be banned at the state or federal level? Because if it’s the latter, the states DO have a role in the amendment process, so banning it at the federal level would not ignore the states (see Tailgunner Joe’s post).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.