- May 26, 2004
- 549,102
- 56,600
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Which is my point. Laws are society's determination of moral absolutes.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A Depraved Mind
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
- Status
Which is my point. Laws are society's determination of moral absolutes.
Not quite. What it actually prohibits is federal government established religion. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits any state from declaring itself Christian, Buddhist or whatever.
Upvote
0
Red herring. That the US government is not founded on Christianity hardly implies any blanket separation of church and state.
Upvote
0
Assuming for a moment that a god existed I would have to agree: that would be obvious. It´s not as obvious, however, who that would be.
Upvote
0
No, laws are societies application of compromise to ensure order. Morality and law are not always the same thing, nor are laws always considered "morally absolute"
Heck, consider marijuana, some places, you go to gaol if you own any, unless you have a doctor's certificate, in which case you can own all you want. Laws are by necessity a compromise to deal with the shifting contemporary needs of the majority. To consider them anything else, especially to be about morality or moral absolutes, is not only misguided but inherently dangerous. That way lies secular legalism, which is, if anything, WORSE than Biblical literalist legalism
Upvote
0
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't pretend to understand all the intricacies of the US system) but doesn't the Federal constitution trump state governments? That is, a state government can't make a law that breaches the Federal constitution?
Upvote
0
I don't suppose sex between an adult and an animal necessarily hurts anyone either.
See above.
Because people who practice it come (or remain) under the influence of a dark force.
Upvote
0
[edit] Establishment of religion
Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".
Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".
Upvote
0
*under breath* not THIS again... look, animals cannot give their informed adult consent, homosexual adults can. Lets stick with reasonable comparisons, shall we?
Care to provide any actual, definable objective evidence to back up this wild assertion?
Upvote
0
That's all true, but the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." - applies only to the feds.* The tenth reserves any powers not explicitly granted to the feds to the states or the people.
*It's argued that first amendment rights are incorporated as a consequence of the 14th amendment; but that can't apply to the establishment clause, which is not the enumeration of a right.
Having said all that, our Supreme Court has not seen fit to take the Constitution at its word in this matter, but that's not unusual.
Upvote
0
Then you think eating meat is immoral. Right?
No, but it's true all the same.
Upvote
0
CreedIsChrist
Well-Known Member
The Church has done this for over 2000 years now and has always declared homosexual acts to be sinful and disordered. Not one apostle, saint ,mystic, or early father has denied it.
Objective evidence? well taken the fact that homosexuals cannot produce children poses a big objective problem there. It closes the door to procreation; no procreation = extinction. And then we can go into the high HIV and STD rate as well as the social and societal problems concerning the raising of children with a missing mother or father.
Upvote
0
Nope, greatest good for greatest number. Although I WILL say that killing an animal, even for food in a way that causes unnecesary pain or distress to the animal IS immoral[/QUOTE]
What are you basing this on?
Upvote
0
I'd like to address these one at a time if I may?
Can you think of any other long held positions within the Church, even those held by the early fathers that have been revised, even abandoned in more recent times? I can think of a few. Without any digging, slavery, geocentrism, Creationism, capital punishment of disenters or heretics, and limbo spring to mind as doctrine/ideas held acceptible by the church that it has later abandoned. Saying "we've always condemned homosexuality, therefore we will always condemn homosexuality" does not strike me as a valid enough reason to hurt so many people. If we're going to condemn millions of people, I think we need a much better reason than "its the way we've always done it"
You are creating a false dichotomy. Your homosexuality=no procreation=extinction fails because it implys that accepting homosexuals necesitates EVERYONE being homosexual. This simply is not the case. Depending on which study you believe, between 5-15% of people are homosexual. that leaves between 85-95% of people to get on with procreating. Further, condemning homosexuality does not cause homosexuals to procreate, so condemned or accepted, homosexuals still aren't going to contribute to the procreation stakes, and finally, if an ability to procreate determines righteousness in the eyes of God, does that mean that infertile couples are fornicating everytime they have sex? If procreation is such a desired thing that any loving couple that can't procreate is unrighteous, why does Paul speak so highly of celibacy?
Do you really want to make a statement to the effect that disease rates indicate sinfulness? You can do it, but you won't like where it leads, I warn you now.
Well a. That would seem to be an issue relating to homosexual adoption which is not necesarily the same thing.
b. If you are so concerned about the social problems of children missing a parent, I take it you are campaigning equally strongly against single parents, including widows and widowers, having children in their care? if not, why not?
c. I'd like to see your evidence that any such issues, infact, exist, because there seems to be a fair bit of objective evidence that says that adequately supported single parent or same sex parent families are perfectly able to raise healthy well adjusted children as the nuclear model. Also, minor point, but all this "the nuclear family is GOD's WILL" rhetoric that goes around is utterly non-Biblical, if we all to subscribe to Biblical "family values" we'd all be living in multi generational extended family households, so lets take it easy claiming that the nuclear family is the be all and end all to child raising, because it is, in fact, quite a recent inovation in social terms.
Upvote
0
The law assumes that it hurts the animal. A reasonable assumption, I would say.
Okay, what you seem to be saying is that while homosexuality in itself does not cause any harm, its practioners are influenced by evil and do evil in other ways. Am I interpreting you correctly?
Upvote
0
Rubbish. There are no exclusively homosexual societies.
Can you explain the extremely high HIV rate among heterosexual Africans? Is it immoral to be African?
Stop talking drivel.
Upvote
0
But, truth to be told, creating such a society is one of the predominant goals of the GayAgendaTM.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
