Sodomy & the U.S. Government

[gREATEST sTORY]

Pro 29:18 A nation without God's guidance is a nation without order. Happy are those who keep God's law!

 

[Arikay]

The problem is, that doesnt seem to be true. As There are many Nations without god (like Japan for example) that have freedom and order. often lower crime rates than the US as well.

Even though the US has a secular government, it can and has been influenced by religion, and yet some governments that havent seem to be doing better than ours.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Pro 29:18 A nation without God's guidance is a nation without order. Happy are those who keep God's law!

Well, that's not the United States (ideally) considering it is a secular nation.

As Arikay mentioned, there are several countries that get along just fine without your religion dominating society or the government, and some could arguably be better off than the U.S.

 

[feral]

I'm glad they are getting rid of the sodomy laws. I just don't see the point in governing what individuals do in their homes or in private. I'm no voyeur, so it's really none of my business and of little interest to me. I really don't understand why some people are very much against repealing these laws. What good to you think they will do? Does anyone actually believe that what adults do in bed is their concern?

 

[SUNSTONE]

Well, that's not the United States (ideally) considering it is a secular nation.

As Arikay mentioned, there are several countries that get along just fine without your religion dominating society or the government, and some could arguably be better off than the U.S.

We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident, that all men were CREATED equal.

Thats in the constitution, but "seperation of church and state" isn't. Its not even a sentence, its part of a sentence taken out of context.

Pull out the dollar bill, whats it say on top?

Goto the supreme court, whats hanging on the wall? A picture of Moses carrying the ten commandments.

What is the name of the tax, that is put on tobacco and booze? Sin tax

What is the one thing, that bush and his cabinet do before meetings? Pray


But the sodomy laws, have more than just a religious moral behind them. They have a scientific reasoning behind them.

 

[Kyubi-no-Youko]

Sunstone: Are you forgetting the Establishment Clause?

First Ammendment:

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.

Then there's the Seperation Clause:

Article VI, Section III:

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


Yes...the words 'seperation of church and state' aren't directly said in the Constituation. I could post oddles of stuff on it, but I'm tired. Need sleep XP

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

This is a secular nation whether you like it or not. And no, there is no extrareligious reason why equal rights should be denied to a certain proportion of the population.

 

[jon1101]

We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident, that all men were CREATED equal.

Thats in the constitution, but "seperation of church and state" isn't. Its not even a sentence, its part of a sentence taken out of context.

Err, that quote you gave is absolutely not in the Constitution of the United States. It's in the Declaration of Independence, which is a rhetorical document, not a legal document. Our nation's supreme legal document, on the other hand, is really very secular.

Pull out the dollar bill, whats it say on top?

I think the answer you want is "In God We Trust."

Goto the supreme court, whats hanging on the wall? A picture of Moses carrying the ten commandments.

Yes.

What is the name of the tax, that is put on tobacco and booze? Sin tax

"Sin" is not exclusively a "Christian" word.

What is the one thing, that bush and his cabinet do before meetings? Pray

Indeed. Bush and, I suppose, his cabinet are devoted Christians, so it doesn't suprise me that they pray.

But the sodomy laws, have more than just a religious moral behind them. They have a scientific reasoning behind them.

Not to mention loads of bad political theory. I find it quite interesting that, while the founding fathers were *not* united in some attempt to establish a Christian nation, this supreme court decision rests firmly on the principles on which they were united to establish this nation, namely the principle of protecting each individual's natural rights. Of course, one of these rights that thinkers of that time identified was the right to liberty, which, according to Frederic Bastiat, is "the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so." Hence, a law prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults is a violation of liberty.

You mentioned scientific evidence, probably that sodomy isn't healthy. Now, is it really the job of the government to make sure that their citizens live their private lives healthily? Because, if it is, the founding fathers were pretty darn misguided.

-jon

 

[Lizquest]

Wow! If we call ourselves Christians, how can so many "support" the law passed on this? To support this law that was passed means that we are defying Gods Law. He created men and women to be together. Not men and men, women and women. I would like to know if all of you, if you had the chance to vote, would vote Yes to something like this? If so, then I'm sorry, that isn't Christian like. I know that we really have no say over what happens in the supreme court. I guess, speaking for myself, all I can do is try and raise my son the Christian way and tell him/how him God's word. I pray that will be enough along with showing by example.

I know that everyone has a constitutional right for things, and that is one of our nations strong points. As a Christian I do find it disturbing that this law was passed, but I guess that is just something that I will have to live with.

 

[Arikay]

To support the law passed means that you beleive that even if you believe it to be wrong, that the government shouldnt be in this type of bussiness.

An example I used earlier,

How would you feel if a law was passed that said Christians had to Pray like a specific pagan group and that it was now illegal to pray like a christian?

Would you not feel like your rights had been violated?
Thats a close equivilent of what the law was doing.

Wow! If we call ourselves Christians, how can so many "support" the law passed on this? To support this law that was passed means that we are defying Gods Law. He created men and women to be together. Not men and men, women and women. I would like to know if all of you, if you had the chance to vote, would vote Yes to something like this? If so, then I'm sorry, that isn't Christian like. I know that we really have no say over what happens in the supreme court. I guess, speaking for myself, all I can do is try and raise my son the Christian way and tell him/how him God's word. I pray that will be enough along with showing by example.

I know that everyone has a constitutional right for things, and that is one of our nations strong points. As a Christian I do find it disturbing that this law was passed, but I guess that is just something that I will have to live with.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Wow! If we call ourselves Christians, how can so many "support" the law passed on this?

I'd argue that many Christians are able to separate their personal belief system from the actions of the government, which are supposed to be of a secular nature. As a Christian, I would think that your actions would be under your own regulation and judgement, and it doesn't require that you force everyone else (Christian or not) to adhere to your illogical moral system.

To support this law that was passed means that we are defying Gods Law.

To support that law means that one is supporting Constitutional law.

I know that we really have no say over what happens in the supreme court. I guess, speaking for myself, all I can do is try and raise my son the Christian way and tell him/how him God's word.

That is your right, but it is not your right to have the rest of society adhere to the "Christian way" by law.

I know that everyone has a constitutional right for things, and that is one of our nations strong points. As a Christian I do find it disturbing that this law was passed, but I guess that is just something that I will have to live with.

That, of course, is exactly the point. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but everything to do with Constitutionality. Maintaining such a law would be unconstitutional, and that's the only thing that matters. It doesn't really affect you.

 

[jon1101]

Lizquest, this is not about whether or not I think homosexual sodomy is in line with Christianity. Rather, it is about political philosophy. I'm really quite suprised that you and so many others view a belief in liberty as essentially unchristian.

-jon

 

[Jedi]

First, disagree with either statement 1 or 2?
Second, are you:
A: Arguing that minors can at times (or always) give consent and/or
B: Agreeing that minors cannot effectively give consent?

I am arguing against the idea that all minors cannot effectively give consent whereas all adults can, since age and wisdom do not necessarily go hand in hand. However, I think it’s understandable why the government might generalize the younger crowd as naïve, and the older crowd as wise, although there are bound to be cases where this generalization is incorrect for both parties.

Basically, the slippery slope comes in different degrees. You argue that the connections you make are legitimate, I argue that they're not. So, this point stands or falls based on the debate over point 1.

Quite right, however, like I said, there hasn’t been anyone who has denied that this case concerning homosexual sex won’t be used as a precedent by Muslims to promote polygamy or by others to promote widespread prostitution. It’s like a game of connect the dots here, where one thing can, and in this case, probably will lead to another.

Since there really is no rational basis from which you can say homosexuality is immoral, morality is not thrown to the winds, as you say. God is still irrelevant to the discussion.

Haha, no rational basis, huh? And how does the “If it doesn’t screw with other people it’s okay” philosophy act as a superior basis of moral judgment than scripture? I’ll elaborate on this in the next quote.

As a Christian, I would think that your actions would be under your own regulation and judgement, and it doesn't require that you force everyone else (Christian or not) to adhere to your illogical moral system.

Illogical? Hardly. The basis of morality is not whether or not something screws with another person’s liberty, but rather, whether or not a given action is good or evil in and of itself. The only real basis to judge whether or not something is moral is by listening to goodness itself, that is, to God. If the ultimate authority of morality is against homosexuality, then it really seems quite silly to say, “It’s morally illogical to say homosexuality’s wrong.” As C.S. Lewis writes, “There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on” (Mere Christianity, 52-53).

Furthermore, your assertion here is contradictory. You say that one cannot force his “illogical” (Christian or not) moral system onto other people; however, the government enforces what it sees as the moral goodness called “liberty.” Saying you cannot infringe on someone else’s liberty is, itself, a moral judgment as it presumes fairness is better than unfairness, liberty is better than suppression, and seeks after it. To try to separate morality and the government, as some here seem to be trying, is utter folly.

 

[Jet Black]

This is the first step toward marital & relational chaos. So… it has begun.

this is the "slippery slope fallacy"

 

[Jedi]

this is the "slippery slope fallacy"

Ah, but I've clarified what I meant by my use of "chaos" here (allowing things such as polygamy & prostitution). Again, this is not a slippery slope, and oddly enough, it seems people here only yell out that phrase to try to discredit this line of reasoning when they actually don't believe it's irrational. I have yet to see anyone here say that this case for homosexual sex will not be used as a precedent by Muslims to legalize polygamy or by others for an equally widespread legalization of prostitution, and perhaps even more cases than these.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Haha, no rational basis, huh? And how does the “If it doesn’t screw with other people it’s okay” philosophy act as a superior basis of moral judgment than scripture? I’ll elaborate on this in the next quote.

Because it's based upon effects in reality, not nonsensical religious beliefs concentrated on accountability in an afterlife.

Illogical? Hardly. The basis of morality is not whether or not something screws with another person’s liberty, but rather, whether or not a given action is good or evil in and of itself. The only real basis to judge whether or not something is moral is by listening to goodness itself, that is, to God.

Nope. You have to demonstrate God's existence first, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Furthermore, your assertion here is contradictory. You say that one cannot force his “illogical” (Christian or not) moral system onto other people;

My point was that the reasoning was based upon Christian morality, and certain parts of it are not reasonable.

however, the government enforces what it sees as the moral goodness called “liberty.”

Yes, and that is the reference point for law in this country, not your god concept. That is what matters.

Saying you cannot infringe on someone else’s liberty is, itself, a moral judgment as it presumes fairness is better than unfairness, liberty is better than suppression, and seeks after it. To try to separate morality and the government, as some here seem to be trying, is utter folly.

Obviously the point was missed, but it doesn't matter. I have no desire to discuss this further really.

You say sodomy should be criminalized or that the overturning of these laws is improper and society is going in the trash can all because of your irrational religious beliefs.

I say we should look to the constitution to protect the rights of all citizens. Religion doesn't come into play here, as it is a secular government.

 

[sad astronaut]

Personally,
I don't see many similarities between gay sex and interracial marriage and rights of minorities, specifically blacks. Yes, back in the day, and even now, people look down on interracial marriages in much the same way that they look down on gay relationships. However, it all goes back to the Bible. The Bible does not prohibit interracial marriage, any perceived wrong with interracial marriages is in the eye of the reader. The Bible does, however, condemn gay relationships -- I realize that may be a debate within itself. My point is just to show that there is a difference between protesting interracial marriages and gay marriages.

 

[Arikay]

But the thing is, our laws are not based on the bible.

Your opinion may be based on the bible.
Or when you want to know if something is good or bad it may be based on the bible.

However, the laws are not dirrectly based on the bible, even though some people try to get the bibles laws inserted into government, Government is not run from the bible.

So what the bible says doesnt matter, as much as what the law makers and public, etc. Say.

The same Slippery Slope claims that are being made now, have been made before, about Interracial Marriages, Yet Marriage doesnt seem to have slipped any.

As I have been asking others, No matter what your opinion of Gays is, do you think it is fair to discriminate against them?
Would you think it would be fair if the government decided to ban Christian Prayer and tell christians they must Pray like a specific Pagan group?

Personally,
I don't see many similarities between gay sex and interracial marriage and rights of minorities, specifically blacks. Yes, back in the day, and even now, people look down on interracial marriages in much the same way that they look down on gay relationships. However, it all goes back to the Bible. The Bible does not prohibit interracial marriage, any perceived wrong with interracial marriages is in the eye of the reader. The Bible does, however, condemn gay relationships -- I realize that may be a debate within itself. My point is just to show that there is a difference between protesting interracial marriages and gay marriages.

 

[jon1101]

I am arguing against the idea that all minors cannot effectively give consent whereas all adults can, since age and wisdom do not necessarily go hand in hand. However, I think it’s understandable why the government might generalize the younger crowd as naïve, and the older crowd as wise, although there are bound to be cases where this generalization is incorrect for both parties.

I understand this argument, as I said "I agree that a certain 17 year old may be more "adult" than a certain 18 year old--this is a problem--but what better distinction between children and adults can we legislate than age? Or should all human beings of all ages and maturity levels be seen as adults to the government?" Surly we both agree that your average 10 year old cannot consent and that a 35 year old having sex with a 10 year old is a violation of that child's rights. So, where ought the line to legally be drawn? You argue that the ability to consent is not a function of age, and I concur, but what, therefore, ought we to do? What should the law say? What better way to legally differentiate between children and adults than on the basis of age?

Quite right, however, like I said, there hasn’t been anyone who has denied that this case concerning homosexual sex won’t be used as a precedent by Muslims to promote polygamy or by others to promote widespread prostitution. It’s like a game of connect the dots here, where one thing can, and in this case, probably will lead to another.

Yes, the idea that consenting adults ought to be able to have sex with one another as they see fit would indeed allow polygamy and prostitution. I've acknowledged this from the beginning. So, what's the problem?

You've raised four principle disadvantages to liberty:
1. Incest
2. Polygamy
3. Prostitution
4. Adult sex with minors
5. inappropriate behavior with animals

Now, the first three are acceptable outcomes (you disagree, I know) and last two do not logically follow from the principle of liberty.

__


This debate has come down to a two key arguments:

1. The dispute over the implications of this supreme court decision in regards to other activities

2. The dispute over the legitimate purpose of government

We've developed the first argument quite well. Do you have any comments on the second? What do you believe is the proper role of government and why? Also, what gives the majority of the nation the right to deny liberty to certain minorities?

-jon

 

[Jedi]

Because it's based upon effects in reality, not nonsensical religious beliefs concentrated on accountability in an afterlife.

You do realize the coin flips both ways; it’s based on reality, not nonsensical atheistic & naturalistic beliefs concentrated on survival of the fittest and arbitrary “morality.”

Nope. You have to demonstrate God's existence first, otherwise it doesn't matter.

Morality, in the truest sense of the word, cannot exist if there is no God. Everything becomes quite arbitrary, and ultimately based on selfishness (“I help you only because I want to be helped, I don’t screw with you only because I don’t want to be screwed with, etc.”). It’s quite curious, then, why people hold selflessness to be good and selfishness to be bad.

My point was that the reasoning was based upon Christian morality, and certain parts of it are not reasonable.

I beg to differ, although I feel this would lead us into an entirely different line of debate.

Yes, and that is the reference point for law in this country, not your god concept. That is what matters.

No, no, no. Now you’ve completely switched sides. You’ve gone from a stance of “You cannot force your moral system on anyone,” to “it’s okay for the government to force its moral system on everyone because, well, it’s the government.”

Obviously the point was missed, but it doesn't matter. I have no desire to discuss this further really.

What a shame.

You say sodomy should be criminalized or that the overturning of these laws is improper and society is going in the trash can all because of your irrational religious beliefs.

You really have a very difficult time staying objective and professional about this. You constantly make it a point to bash someone else’s conclusions with an ever-present condescending tone that doesn’t help in the discussion and only serves to raise tensions. He who slings mud loses ground.

I say we should look to the constitution to protect the rights of all citizens. Religion doesn't come into play here, as it is a secular government.

A secular government completely void of morals is really no government at all, since it would have nothing to enforce.

The same Slippery Slope claims that are being made now, have been made before, about Interracial Marriages, Yet Marriage doesnt seem to have slipped any.

There’s that same “slippery slope” assertion in a futile attempt to discredit the other party, even though that for someone to continue asserting this, they would have to completely overlook my objections to such an assertion.

As I have been asking others, No matter what your opinion of Gays is, do you think it is fair to discriminate against them?
Would you think it would be fair if the government decided to ban Christian Prayer and tell christians[sic] they must Pray like a specific Pagan group?

Coming from a Christian standpoint, seeing God as the only real basis for any moral judgment, I think it is fair & just to discourage wrong and encourage right. My answer to your hypothetical situation concerning prayer, then, is no, since to do anything contrary to God, that is, to goodness, is wrong.

I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated against in the work place or anything of that nature since their actions fall into the same category as mine and everyone else’s: sin. However, just as I would encourage the support of a law against the sin of murder or theft, I would also encourage the support of a law against the sin of homosexual sex, since surely, the law’s purpose is to uphold right and prevent wrong.

So, where ought the line to legally be drawn? You argue that the ability to consent is not a function of age, and I concur, but what, therefore, ought we to do?

If we wanted to ensure that justice be carried out in as many situations as possible, we would have to take it by a child-by-child scenario. Perhaps a child could be examined by a psychologist annually to assess its understanding, maturity, etc., and if ever there was a dispute in a given case, assess the child then as well. However, understandably, this would take far more effort than assigning a given age to a law. While there are bound to be exceptions to this age standard, it would seem the most reasonable.

However, getting back to how this specific aspect of debate started, possibly using the homosexual sex case as a precedent for additional support, all someone would have to do is find some way to show how a child or group of children knew what they were doing. If that could be done, I would think they have jumped the biggest and perhaps the only hurdle in such a case.

Now, the first three are acceptable outcomes (you disagree, I know) and last two do not logically follow from the principle of liberty.

The last two would probably be the hardest, but all that would have to happen is to somehow demonstrate that a child and/or animal has enough understanding to knowingly choose to enter such a relationship. If that can be done, then because of this recent homosexuality case, it would seem to be a green light for those who wished to participate in such things.