However what right do I have to impose my morals on someone else through a law?

Yes, if you have a foundation on what is truely right. As defined by what though?
I ask you, Why is it wrong for me to kill someone? How would justify your answer towards me if my morals disregard murder as wrong? I'm a suicide bomber- convince me. Oh and remember I don't share the same bible as you.

What if Islam was the major religion here? Would it be okay for them to make it a law to wear a hijab?

What if it was. Would you still live here? Guess we wouldn't move to the UK: http://www.higherground4x4.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1551&highlight=allah
Aren't we granting more and more rights to any and all other religions/thinkings while stripping Christians of theirs? Again where should we pull our morals from. Or can't we all have our own beliefs in right and wrong based on what we feel? :'(

There is no "American Church." If you are looking to church to impose morals, you and I both know they will at some point fail. When compared to the absolute word of God, man's words/actions will always let us down especially when given more authority.

From a personal liberties standpoint...blah blah blah

Define personal liberty besides "letting people do whatever they want to do as they see fit."

You keep saying

I really believe this entire issue is just another example of how our country is morally bankrupt.

But then you say nothing should be done about

I'm going to go kill some people. Just look away and then you won't be responsible.

offroadaz wrote:If the majority of people wanted to kill babies born with birth defects is that okay? If the majority of people wanted everyone over the age of 60 to be euthanized is that right?

It worked for the people in Sparta...

I have to agree with Dozzer (did I just say that?).

The Bible defines what a marriage is, the states took their definition from the Bible. To me it should stand alone.

As for the benefits I see those that are not insured as a huge burden on our tax dollars. While I may not agree with their life style, as much as I don't want them to shove (this is a bad choice of words :red|) their life style down our throats, I don't have the right to shove my beliefs down theirs. So for me creating a Domestic Partnership as a defined relationship that allows people choosing an alternative lifestyle to get benefits to me seems like a good fit.

My struggle then becomes if I endorse the Domestic Partnership and say it is ok, am I then going against the Bible. This is where my quandry is.

In either case I am voting for it.

Define personal liberty besides "letting people do whatever they want to do as they see fit.

I'll start with this since it forms the basis for the rest of my views.

My quick summary, everyone should be able to live their own life as long as it does not endanger someone else, or infringe on my personal liberties. Now lets define liberty.

Liberty is based on the principles of self ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life then you do. No other person, group of person owns your life. Also you do not own the life of someone else.

You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.

A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labor, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.

At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and titles.

You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.

You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.

Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

Yes, if you have a foundation on what is truely right. As defined by what though?
I ask you, Why is it wrong for me to kill someone? How would justify your answer towards me if my morals disregard murder as wrong? I'm a suicide bomber- convince me. Oh and remember I don't share the same bible as you.

Based on the principles of liberty it is obviously wrong to kill someone as you do not own another person nor does someone own you. Additionally killing someone infringes on that persons right to live as defined in our constitution.

I really believe this entire issue is just another example of how our country is morally bankrupt.

But then you say nothing should be done about

I'm going to go kill some people. Just look away and then you won't be responsible.

Again this is a failure of the church. Throughout history the majority of people were taught morality by the church. People have been influenced morally by TV, movie stars, political leaders and whatever feels good to them. If the church had stayed relevant and done its job this would not have happened.

The church in general needs to find a new way to reach people. Christians need to be more involved in the community and outreach programs. You can not force your morals on someone, all you can do is lead by example. Unfortunately the church has failed to lead that way. Divorce rates, pornography, adultery are just as high in the church as they are in society.

offroadaz wrote:
Again this is a failure of the church. Throughout history the majority of people were taught morality by the church. People have been influenced morally by TV, movie stars, political leaders and whatever feels good to them. If the church had stayed relevant and done its job this would not have happened.

The church in general needs to find a new way to reach people. Christians need to be more involved in the community and outreach programs. You can not force your morals on someone, all you can do is lead by example. Unfortunately the church has failed to lead that way. Divorce rates, pornography, adultery are just as high in the church as they are in society.

I cannot disagree with what you have said, however we also have to combat the ever changing and in my opinion the missuse of the Term Christian.

We are not getting these piecemeal and feel good churches, that are taking bits and pieces of different religions, they make you feel good, but look at the true content and it is every bit everything the Bible teaches us about looking out for false prophets and those trying to lead you down the wrong path. No morals, no reprocussions, incorrect information about how you get into Heaven. Yet they toss on the Christain tag and people follow it like crazy.

I agree we need to do more in our communities to lead by example. I think that is a great way to take ownership and take a stand.

Nice quote from http://www.objectivehappiness.com/ That guy sounds like a winner
Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the matter.

So if I don't define liberty that way... I can still kill people right?

Wow... did you hear that sucking sound? It was Mike being sucked into another pointless online battle....

skatchkins wrote:Nice quote from http://www.objectivehappiness.com/ That guy sounds like a winner
Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the matter.

So if I don't define liberty that way... I can still kill people right?

Didn't take the definition from their never seen that site before. Mine came from isil.org They have a good definition that I agree with. Not sure whats wrong with that.

Thomas Jefferson Defined it in the "Declaration of The Rights of Man and The Citizen" as: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

Thomas Jefferson was a homo

skatchkins wrote:Thomas Jefferson was a homo

You owe me a new drink... Most of it just came out my nose.

Chris do you feel the same way about abortions? If that law ever passes then its the Gov telling women what to do with their own body.

nate wrote:Chris do you feel the same way about abortions? If that law ever passes then its the Gov telling women what to do with their own body.

Absolutely not. Abortions infringe on the life and liberty of a child. Go back to my philosophy of liberty "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else....."

Ok then with that I think you just answered your own question. How will it hurt anyone by having two people who love each other get married?

nate wrote:Ok then with that I think you just answered your own question. How will it hurt anyone by having two people who love each other get married?

it wont. Did you read the thread? I said I don't see how gay marriage infringes on my personal liberties or pursuit of happiness

All you're doing is substituting the word "liberties" for the word "morals."
You haven't changed the argument at all.

You can't play the "what gives you the right card," without defining where rights come from or who defines them and then hypocritically defining what you yourself believe is right. If it's morals that determine what's right and wrong, they have to originate somewhere other than yourself. If it's liberties that determine what's right and wrong, they also have to originate somewhere else as well.
It goes both ways.
If say it's Chris Poophead that is defining "liberties," what gives him the right?

People want to take away the moral card but then what are they left with?
The thing they use as a guide is in fact their own morals only as they see fit.
You could never tell someone they were wrong again.

skatchkins wrote:All you're doing is substituting the word "liberties" for the word "morals."
You haven't changed the argument at all.

You can't play the "what gives you the right card," without defining where rights come from or who defines them and then hypocritically defining what you yourself believe is right. If it's morals that determine what's right and wrong, they have to originate somewhere other than yourself. If it's liberties that determine what's right and wrong, they also have to originate somewhere else as well.
It goes both ways.
If say it's Chris Poophead that is defining "liberties," what gives him the right?

People want to take away the moral card but then what are they left with?
The thing they use as a guide is in fact their own morals only as they see fit.
You could never tell someone they were wrong again.

Sure, liberties and the right to them are bestowed upon us by God. Deceleration of Independence says the same thing.

"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Going back to what liberty is, "the freedom to do what you want as long as it does not endanger the life of another".

Morals are different from personal liberty. Morals vary from person to person. Some think it is immoral to drink, others think it is okay. However neither of these views infringe on my personal liberty.

How does allowing gay people to marry infringe on my personal liberty? I agree it is morally wrong, but some people may not agree with my morals. Our standard for laws should be based on what our Constitution and Declaration of Independence states. "..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Denying two people to marry infringes on their right to liberty.

You're still just trying to have your man cake and eat it too.

Liberties are formed by morals. Kill them and your argument to justify doing so looses. To quote a famous gay marriage, "It's like a circle, it goes on forever. It's not like a triangle, triangle have corners. It's like a circle."
But then most of your arguments are.

skatchkins wrote:You're still just trying to have your man cake and eat it too.

Liberties are formed by morals. Kill them and your argument to justify doing so looses. To quote a famous gay marriage, "It's like a circle, it goes on forever. It's not like a triangle, triangle have corners. It's like a circle."
But then most of your arguments are.

Bottom line, you can do what you want as long as it does not endanger the life, pursuit of happiness or personal freedoms(liberties) of another person.

How does gay marriage do that?

My $.02
Again with the Bible, Marrige is between a man & a woman (Adam & Eve).... NOT Adam & Steve...

Your response to all the political q's you post are becoming increasingly alarming. "As long as it's not happening in my own house or yard, I'm not concerned." -It seems to be your favorite song.

So we're on the same page...

• You think man poking (outside of the wrestling arena) is wrong but a fun loving liberty
• You think the church is not doing its job so it doesn't matter what the definition of morals is
• You think what people do in the privacy of their home is ok as long as it doesn't affect you regardless of its content

In short, no one can enforce rules on people that have none of their own.
I find you sliding down a very slippery slope. I'd wash my hands after your fall.