Matters of life and death are clear cut. I don't want someone to kill me. That deprives me of my life, my right to life. Therefore, I won't kill others and deny them the rights I expect to enjoy. I won't allow others to kill if I can prevent it. Genuine matters of human rights are just that objective.
Matters of morality are a lot more subjective. That's why they should remain the realm of the home and church, not the state. You may think someone smoking pot or having sex with the wrong person is "damaging to society", but I hope you can admit that that's decidedly subjective. The guy who sits in his house and smokes a joint Saturday afternoon does me no harm. I have no standing to prevent him from making that choice, even though I think it's an unwise habit.
No doubt there are people (perhaps even you) who think MTV, miniskirts, and alcohol are damaging to society and would choose to outlaw those if they had the political power to do so. But we live in a free nation that respects differences and strives for a utilitarian coexistance. Imposing your subjective morality on others when there is no clear force or fraud commited against you or others is an illegitimate usurpation of government force for the purpose of imposing your values on others.
I'm all for morality. But I think it's dangerous, futile, and unconstitutional to put moral enforcement in the hands of government.
If there is a moral law, they are not subjective. They may be difficult to determine, but they are not subjective. You can't do a repeatable experiment, but you can observe, deduce, and finally argue for change. That's the way we do things in this society and the way we should.
There has been a change recently to normalize homosexuality. Note: not to criminalize it, to normalize it. This change has been made and it was a moral change. But it was not made with argument and pursuasion, it was done with violence and threats combined with a general effort to cover up the facts. That's far more dangerous than any other social change made in the name of a morality than anything the religious have suggested.
I'm all for morality. But I think it's dangerous, futile, and unconstitutional to put moral enforcement in the hands of government.
And yet, all laws are moral laws. Everything the government enforces comes from a moral position. I might argue that if you can't defend your life you don't deserve to have it, and for the good of our country we should decriminalize murder. That would be a particular moral position. Thankfully nobody has convinced our population that it is the correct one.
A moral change was made. Its enforcement is being put in the hands of government (there are far more laws being suggested to punish any negative thought regarding queers than there ever have been to punish queers). A case in favor of that change needs to be made and it has not been.
And I think it was a bad decision. I will continue to argue so.
Shalom.
So will you let someone molest others if you can prevent it? That is what the whole 'gay' agenda is about. Their desire to molest our children. Some of them are willing to wait but a significant proportion aren't. They have a much higher (5-20 times) incidence of child molestation than non-homosexual behavior practicing people do.
Would you let someone spread a disease that is uniformly lethal or should they be quarantined? How long from now must the death take place until it falls out of your protection? next week, next year, five years?
(not to be a stickler but according to Webster's you may be using objective incorrectly here. I find definitions of objectiove as an adjective and none really seems to fit. Perhaps I'm reading your statement wrong. Please clarify)