Posted on 01/23/2002 8:43:27 AM PST by tdadams
Well then why haven't people simply stated their views and then moved on? I have been blasted from several sides for having a contrary opinion...so be it. As far as liberarians, I feel that they don't want control over anything at all (if it feels good do it) which cause anarchy (in my opinion). I have strong religious beliefs that I express freely, and all I am trying to do is keep this nation strong and more or less moral for our children. No where in the Constitution does it state that consenting adults are free to do whatever they please, and I think this omitted for a reason.
I am a christian, and I am human I get mad, I make mistakes. Unfortunately if it involves homosexuality then shame on me (not my opinion, but several others have expressed this opinion).
The Constitution does not enumerate those things that we, as citizens, are permitted to do. It is a restriction on what the federal government may do.
It's interesting that you'd state your case that way, because I've seen two arguments on this thread:
1. Let all people do what they want, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights
2. Make homosexuality illegal.
Now tell me, who wants it their way only?
Likewise, if a state decided to recognize gay marriage, that would be acceptable under the Constitution as well.
As far as I know, no one on here is calling for a federal law to ban homosexuality.
No, but there is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which seeks to deny gays an acknowledment of their marriage, should it become available, by circumventing the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
The best thing conservatives can do to defend marriage is to quit getting divorced!
I'm not a resident of California and am not familiar with that.
You're making the same error that Antonius just made. The Constitution does not enumerate those things which we citizens are permitted to do. It merely places a restriction on what government cannot do. Otherwise, you may need the government's permission to go on vacation or buy a new car. The possibilities are limitless.
With a comment like that, I'm betting you spent very little time with any college athletes. Try keeping an athlete's schedule for a week and you'd change your mind.
So who decides? Like I stated before if I can get someone to allow me to kill them then it doesn't violate anyone's rights (by your arguement). Kind of like Euthanasia (illegal) and Abortion (mostly legal). The issue is that it does cause harm, so it should be illegal (homosexual marriages are mostly illegal). Homosexuality is not a normal relationship, otherwise it would be accepted freely throughout the world and they would be able to reproduce.
Attempting to equate taking the life of another with homosexuality is a faulty analogy, at best.
Refusing to state-endorse perverts through marriage licenses is a good constraint, because it is a societal way of sayiing that sadomasochistic "alternative" lifestyles are destructive, and thus not something society wants to give credence too.
If you feel like you're being persecuted, I can't help that. Personally I see this as a lively and enlightening discussion.
For what it's worth, you may be surprised to know that my opinion is not as divergent from yours as you might think.
For instance, I do not support homosexuals marching through the streets wearing disgusting and revealing clothes, I do not support teaching aspects of homosexuality in schools, I support the right of the Boy Scouts to include or exclude whoever they want.
However, as a matter of principle, I support the right of peaceful and private people to be left alone, no matter who they are.
I don't think anyone should be arbitrarily fired for being gay. I don't think they should be denied hospital visitation. I don't think they should be denied the right of survivorship when they've been in a long term relationship. All of these things do happen. It's not just hypothetical. With every injustice committed against homosexuals, more and more public sympathy turns toward them.
I do not think it's wise for conservatives to advocate extreme prejudice and arbitrary discrimination against homosexuals. You may feel you're standing up for Christian values, but I see that you're only providing ammunition for those who are seeking to statutorily protect the rights of gays. Mistreatment of gays is counter-productive.
I agree that we are mostly similar in beliefs, and I DON'T want a church run Govt. At times it does seem that way, but I don't. I just grow very weary of having to convince my kids that just because the homosexuals have taken control of the TV and the media doesn't make them a normal or majority of society.
Peace and God be with you.
The only constraint government may morally place upon individuals, is the prohibition of the violation of the rights of others.
You mean like have your "jail all the homos" position critiqued?
I clarified this in a previous post, their activities are already illegal, I don't want that changed. I don't want them jailed, that was a mistake from a previous post (my sin shining through). What they do in the privacy is their business, though illegal, just like seatbelt laws.
The homocaust is an overly exaggerated falsehood. Though you probably know this since you are the owk.
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.