In short, no one can enforce rules on people that have none of their own.

I don't understand this sentence.

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.

Not really. If someones personal liberty or life is endanger then it is all of our concern. If what they are doing does not infringe on my personal freedoms or life then they are free to do what they want.

So we're on the same page...

* You think man poking (outside of the wrestling arena) is wrong but a fun loving liberty

Morally it is wrong but in a free society if I do not see it (infringes on my personal pursuit of happiness) Then I can't say that there should be a law against it.

You think the church is not doing its job so it doesn't matter what the definition of morals is

Christian morals are based on the Bible. We have tons of churches who base their beliefs on other things. So yes, the church in general has failed.

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

That is too broad of a statement. Example, if my neighbor likes to dress up as a penguin and fills his bathtub with ice, then its okay. Its his choice and he can live like he wants.

If my neighbor the penguin man has a child and forces him to eat raw fish and sit in a bathtub of ice then it is wrong. The neighbors actions are endangering the freedom and liberties of the child.

If my neighbor finds another adult who likes to dress as a penguin, eat raw fish and sit in a bathtub of ice, then that is their choice.

If those two neighbors start to harass me for not eating fish and sitting in bathtubs of ice it is wrong. They have no right to force their views on me and this infringes on my personal liberties.

Quote:
In short, no one can enforce rules on people that have none of their own.

I don't understand this sentence.

Exactly. You say b/c they don't believe it's wrong there should be no rules against it.

I disagree

You forgot your visual aid for your analogy

skatchkins wrote:Exactly. You say b/c they don't believe it's wrong there should be no rules against it.

I disagree

No I did not say that. If their actions don't infringe on the rights of liberties of another person then it is okay. The minute their actions infringe on the rights and liberties of another person then it is wrong.

I still put forth you can't say it's not wrong, but it is wrong.
And that you can't say morals have no bearing on our laws, only liberties that themselves are not construted from morals, only thoughts on what affects you personally.

I believe that morals are the fabric of society. They are the foundation of anything we build our laws upon. I believe that only morals that can be traced back to God's law are justified b/c man will justify what he himself sees fit to his own accord.
Liberties are just constructs, detours if you will, that people build as supplements or even as moral replacements. They lead at best to a shaky belief system for use in justifing their own actions sidelining what is truely right and wrong.

Because I find homosexuality morally wrong as defined by the bible, gay marriage cannot get my vote

I would like to say one more thing. Chris you use the kid and fish thing but who are YOU to tell me how to raise my child? I have a ton of friends who are gay and they know I dont think its right. The one thing you for got to say is if the gay couple you are not worried about gets married and then dies they still go to hell. Now dont you think you should be more worried about saving them then worring if its wrong or not.........

nate wrote:I would like to say one more thing. Chris you use the kid and fish thing but who are YOU to tell me how to raise my child? I have a ton of friends who are gay and they know I dont think its right. The one thing you for got to say is if the gay couple you are not worried about gets married and then dies they still go to hell. Now dont you think you should be more worried about saving them then worring if its wrong or not.........

I cant tell if you are agreeing with me or saying Im wrong.

I can't either.
So I'll say it. Your're wrong :)=)

WOW. I'm out of the loop for 12 freakin' hours and this thing explodes!

I have to agree with Bob... you owe me a new drink too, Mike. I spit mine all over the keyboard with the Tom Jefferson crack.

Chris - great job of trolling and getting a rousing debate going. Very spirited and lively. That was your objective, right? You did it well.

Side note: when are we wheelin' again? :)=)

Alan stop Hi-jacking. :O

alanzona wrote:WOW. I'm out of the loop for 12 freakin' hours and this thing explodes!

I have to agree with Bob... you owe me a new drink too, Mike. I spit mine all over the keyboard with the Tom Jefferson crack.

Chris - great job of trolling and getting a rousing debate going. Very spirited and lively. That was your objective, right? You did it well.

Side note: when are we wheelin' again? :)=)

hah, without opposing views and debates our country wouldn't exist

Ok, question, if I feel that people of the same sex getting married infringes upon my liberties by diminishing the meaning based on the biblical definition, does that count?

nate wrote:I would like to say one more thing. Chris you use the kid and fish thing but who are YOU to tell me how to raise my child? I have a ton of friends who are gay and they know I dont think its right. The one thing you for got to say is if the gay couple you are not worried about gets married and then dies they still go to hell. Now dont you think you should be more worried about saving them then worring if its wrong or not.........

So whose job is it to minister to gay people and make them be straight so they don't go to hell?

That's just not gonna happen. In the history of mankind it hasn't and won't happen, so honestly the church's thinking of ignoring it is better than trying to change people in that way.

Ok so i'm late to the party again. Haven't been on the board in a few days but wanted to put in my two cents. I actually completely agree with Chris. I don't believe the government is in place to enforce morals. Our government is supposed to ensure our freedom...to believe, express, and pursue whatever you want as long as it doesn't keep others from doing the same. Sure sometimes ensuring freedom is a good moral thing, like in the case of murder. Believing it is wrong to kill someone is a Christian moral and is necessary to ensure everyones freedom to live. But what freedom does keeping homosexuals from marrying ensure? It is not the governments job to make us a Christian nation. It's their job to ensure a non-Christian has the same right to practice what they believe as I have as a Christian. God has called me to be a witness not an enforcer. Legislation will not change people; just look at our prisons, but seeing Christ in me might change people. Forcing my beliefs on others generally pushes them further away. I think to truly change people you have to come from a place of respect and telling someone what they should do is treating them like a child not with respect.

Thought this fit the topic. It was the ad while viewing this page 8|

I still think that marriage is to be a man and woman only. The definition of marriage was taken from the Bible, therefore we should not be changing it.

While I agree it is not the governments job to force any religion down anyone's throat they should not deminish what marriage is.

Therefore I still stand by the belief that they can coin a new bond between people who are not of a traditional marriage, something along the lines of a civil union, and that would allow them the same medical and tax benefits.

While I totall disagree with the choice they have made in their lifestyle I am not the judge and neither is the government so by our constitution I would say we have to allow them some sort of union, but I firmly believe that Marriage as defined is specific to a man and woman and some other term should be used for unions that are not man and woman.

JMO