Posted on 04/21/2013 2:50:56 AM PDT by markomalley
Oh?
I guess our LAWS about MURDER, THEFT, LYING under oath, ETAL; are not MORAL laws...
I do not see this as a conclusion.
Of course you don’t. You wouldn’t advocate that the state get involved in enforcing private morality if you realized what it would lead to. But think about it.
How would you suggest the law handle the first four Commandments? Idolatry, graven images, etc are not a matter for the police. Blasphemy might be considered a crime in Saudi Arabia, but not America. As much as I could sometimes call the cops when my children are disobedient, my own parents never did on me, and that was probably for the best.
Please, try and make the Sabbath an enforced day of rest. I could use the sleep.
Then look again at the end of the Decalogue: covetousness. Setting aside the minor detail that our economic system is built on it, if we are now to make that a matter for the state, how exactly will it be policed?
Yes, the middle Commandments are properly the business of the law. Because those are the ones that govern what we must not do *to others*. Murder, theft, false witness, are all things that demonstrably and legitimately harm other people, and because of that harm those laws need the weight of the state when broken.
Much of our sin is between us and God. I can’t imagine wanting to stick the state’s nose in that relationship.
I am NOT suggesting anything.
Nothing other than NOT calling homosexual couplings some subset of MARRIAGE.
Marriage is defined.
It does NOT need some Liberal munbo-jumbo added to it.
If this country wants a LAW that says it's ok for FAGs to co-habitate; then, by GOD!, go for it.
But do NOT have the audacity to try to make it SOUND better that what it really is.
If you want the bottom to stay home and take care of the adopted kids, while the top is out working; then GO for IT!
But do try adulterate the word MARRIAGE by the sinful acts that will be performed when the kiddies are (hopefully) asleep.
And, lastly, do not expect ME to Shut Up! about it!
How would you suggest the law handle the first four Commandments?So you agree with me now? Private morality is not for the state to enforce?
I am NOT suggesting anything.
Some things probably; mostly even.
32 oz cokes; eh....
Some people have a genotype which is neither XX nor XY (X, XXY, and XXX being the most common). People with unusual genotypes (especially XXY) may have natural biological features which are neither clearly male nor female. To be sure, they aren't really a "third gender", but I would not think it unreasonable to afford such people some flexibility in whether they call themselves male or female. Of course, such people represent a tiny portion of the "transgendered" population, and are probably some of the least vocal members at that.
People were getting married long before Moses walked this Earth. God may have created marriage in the same sense that He created everything else, but the concept of marriage predates religion. A man from a tribe which has no connection with "modern civilization" might not understand much about other cultures, but would be familiar with the concept that women get exclusively paired up with men, and that having sexual relations with a woman who has been exclusively paired with another man is grossly taboo. It's doubtful, though, that such a person would understand how such a relationship could exist between two women, or between two men.
O’Reilly doesn’t care about marriage
otherwise he’d keep his willie in his britches when not with his wifey
>> non-normative tendencies
The correct term is “not normal” which sufficiently describes the abnormality. There are no “normative” rules of normality despite the naturally normal laws being violated by the abnormal behavior.
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.