Posted on 04/22/2003 12:41:35 AM PDT by U.S.Zorro
“We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident” By: Chris Tremoglie
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is the First Amendment of the Constitution. As we all know it entitles us Americans to certain liberties and freedoms that are not granted to other people around the world. This is an Amendment for ALL Americans - even government and legislative officials. So when Rick Santorum makes a comment about homosexuals and he gets asked to resign because of them, I ask you, where is the Freedom of Speech? Similar to the attacks on Reggie White several years ago for comments depicting homosexuality as a sin in certain religions, the same unwarranted attacks have befallen on Mr. Santorum. Again, I reiterate, don't all Americans have Freedom of Speech? Unless “words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in (Schenk v. United States) 1919, all Americans are entitled to freedom of speech. That is unless the topic or speech of homosexuality. It seems people are allowed to be pro-homosexual but if someone raises thought or feelings against homosexuality, or dare I say anti-homosexuality, one is castrated and targeted as an enemy and thus apparently loses all their constitutional freedoms. It will make the most non-violent peacenik turn downright ugly. Pardon me a second while I put on my Eminem CD. “May I have your attention please: will the real homosexuals please stand up?” Contrary to what people over at GLAAD may believe, people are entitled to be anti-homosexual. As I recall, homosexuality is a sin in the bible and therefore by expressing sentiment AGAINST homosexuality, one is doing nothing wrong. It seems as if just being accepted is not enough. The homosexual population now wants special consideration to wipe out freedom of speech and religion if it is against them. The people at GLAAD want it to be okay to stand and shout, “Hey, I am a homosexual” but want to hush those who say “Hey, I am a heterosexual and proud of it.” With all of the current events recently, I did not know our First Amendment privileges had been altered to say only positive things about everything. I didn’t realize that a Marxist utopia overtook our capitalist Republic. Our country has not changed and our principles have stood. Our country was founded as a Judeo-Christian country and since its inception, has expanded to include many different religions. In one religion, adultery is a sin. In another religion, not facing Mecca to pray daily is a sin. In another religion, eating pork is a sin. And in another religion, homosexuality IS a sin. As it says on their web page, “The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.” This is all well and good no matter how many people disagree or agree with homosexuality. When a United States Senator is asked to resign because he is adhering to his religion that is wrong. When a Pro-Football Hall of Famer is criticized for doing nothing more then speaking his mind, giving his constitutionally protected opinions, and abiding by his religion, it is reverse discrimination in its NASTIEST form. A homosexual is a human just like everyone else and is entitled to the same unalienable rights as everyone else. However, to expect everyone to like and promote homosexuality even when it goes against religious principles, that is where the line MUST be drawn. Promoting equality yes; promoting homosexual ADVANCEMENT – no!
The 9th Amendment does not guarantee a right to sodomy or adultery. Both crimes were very strictly punished by all the states at the time of the adoption of the amendment.
The notion that you are free to do what you will so long as you don't violate the rights of others is fatuous. Society has always placed restrictions in this area regarding bigamy, adultery, polygamy and polandry, prostitution, staturoy rape, homosexual conduct, bestiality, and similar.
Don't get me wrong. I do think that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eye. I just don't like the measures that the government would have to take to enforce laws against it.
The enforcement of the laws would not be through the government snooping in your bedroom, but from sworn complaints by people who are victimzed by these acts, or if the police would observe somebody performing these acts in public (such as homoexuals at rest stops and public bathrooms).
We need to move beyond the childish idiocy that sees a government agent peeking in your bedroom at night to ensure you aren't comitting adultery. In the real world, it will be your spouse, not the government, who swears out a criminal complaint against you.
Not true. Speaking strictly on a socio-political plain, allowing homosexual sex to be legal allows its consequences, rampant venereal diseases, to spread through society and cause society financial burdens and social harms. The AIDS pandemic is a perfect case in point. We've been spending BILLIONS each year to cure a disease which is purely voluntary in its infections. Current expenditures are up about $30 per man, woman, and child in the US. We spend BILLIONS on free health clinics, condom give-aways, needle-programs, and similar to counter the spread of this voluntarily acquired disease.
You cannot maintain with a straight face that the Public Health of society would not be better served by criminalizing and driving this plague underground. Nor can you seriously maintain that a free society will ever stand by and not attempt to stop the spread of incurable deadly diseases within its midst.
-PJ
Is fornication between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults protected? If it is, your argument is shaky. If not, why not?
See #48, Abdullah.
By the way, to speak to your hypothetical situation: I am not sure that such behavior IS "Protected": I assume it is a matter of local statute. What you are wondering, I guess, is whether I think that it SHOULD be "protected." And my answer is no. From the perspective of public order, no society should completely de-criminalize fornication between consenting unmarried heterosexual adults. The consequence of wholesale license is children born outside of the bonds of marriage, and we see the sad effects of that all over the place.
How would you propose to regulate this? Would you have jealous girlfriends reporting ex-boyfriends to the cops?
Should police patrol the halls of college dormitories?
I'm certainly not a libertarian, but you realize this is the same kind of thing the Islamist states do.
The consequence of wholesale license is children born outside of the bonds of marriage, and we see the sad effects of that all over the place.
So,should I not have a gun because I "might" kill somebody with it?
According to the laws passed down from God to Moses, adultery is illegal. As far as defending Senator Santorum's views, I don't think he's called on others to do so. And finally, you mix the words religion and absolutism as though they were synonymous. Personally, I have no use for either, but when you referred to absolutism, perhaps you were thinking of the philosophical term, absolute?
Ironically, many who think the same way you do would have been appalled at the strong Judeo-Christian views championed by this nation's founding fathers.
If the proponents of homosexuality are successful in legitimizing their behavior in the minds of the citizenry, then I believe we will live to witness the final death throes of our great republic.
"Thou shalt honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."
Shall we bring back the Blue Laws and start jailing people for shopping on Sundays? Or Saturdays? Or Fridays? Maybe force business closures on all three days, as Christians, Jews and Muslims each call them variously the Sabbath?
Freedom includes ALL actions that don't violate someone else's rights. And having me conform to your religious beliefs is NOT one of your rights. As Physicist pointed out, two adult rump rangers in the provacy of their homes are not violating anybody's rights.
LOL
Now, as to consequences. True, as long as your pistol is in its holster, you are not shooting up the neighborhood. The rhetorical, exhortative effect of a law against fornication may be positive in a similar way.
Laws should not be on the books for "rhetorical, exhortative" effects. I have a Church for that.
Keep the finger-wagging out of the legislative process; nobody, but nobody, pays attention to it anyway.
That means that, the law having also a rhetorical effect, some statute against fornication is preferable to NO statute against fornication. HOW that statute would be crafted, under what circumstances a society could carry out "search and seizure" etc etc, is a matter of another thread.
Of course it does because you don't want to be laughed off of this thread! Where would this nonsense stop?
Should we have "exhortative statutes" forbidding people from getting drunk in their own homes?
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.