The Government Forcing Morality?

[shintao]

IMHO

Having something against the law or not giving special treatment to a group, is not the same as supporting big government...

You haven't thought that through have you? You write such laws and they have to be enforced either in a state or in the 50 states by all law enforcement, court houses & lawyers, all social workers, all people in the medical and psychological fields.

Look at the government monster gun control has created.

 

[California Girl]

You are in the minority even in the R party if you hate "the Gay".

Keep beating your head against the wall for all the good it does you.

At the risk of repeating myself, the only poster on this board that I have ever seen say they 'hate' a group of people is YOU. "I hate Republicans!" Those were your words. Own them. And with them, you lost the little shred of credibility that some people may have given you when it comes to accusing others of 'hate'. You lose, truthmatters.

 

[Arawyn]

I don't view abortion to be a moral issue - it's a "life" issue. Unless one considers murder, of anyone outside of the womb, as a moral issue.

 

[johnrocks]

I'm with Goldwater....


"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

Need to drive the social/Religious mandaters from the Party along with their neo con brethren ASAP!

 

[Si modo]

You are in the minority even in the R party if you hate "the Gay".

Keep beating your head against the wall for all the good it does you.

At the risk of repeating myself, the only poster on this board that I have ever seen say they 'hate' a group of people is YOU. "I hate Republicans!" Those were your words. Own them. And with them, you lost the little shred of credibility that some people may have given you when it comes to accusing others of 'hate'. You lose, truthmatters.

Search: Keyword(s): hate: Posts Made By: Truthmatters

Showing results 1 to 25 of 499

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very well thought out post. One thing that will be brought up about your concern over going through the courts is the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50's and 60's. As I stated before this is not a good comparison, as those decisons were ones that affirmed the original intent of what the authors of the amendments wanted. All those Jim crow laws were unconstituitonal from the get go, it was just previous courts NOT following what was written down.

The Jim Crow laws came about originally because SCOTUS gutted the 14th Amendment, as you have said. Using the courts to fix a stupid ruling of the courts seems apropos, and is an exception to my general attitude. The courts exist for a purpose, but creating law is not part of that purpose.

 

[asterism]

Very well thought out post. One thing that will be brought up about your concern over going through the courts is the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50's and 60's. As I stated before this is not a good comparison, as those decisons were ones that affirmed the original intent of what the authors of the amendments wanted. All those Jim crow laws were unconstituitonal from the get go, it was just previous courts NOT following what was written down.

The Jim Crow laws came about originally because SCOTUS gutted the 14th Amendment, as you have said. Using the courts to fix a stupid ruling of the courts seems apropos, and is an exception to my general attitude. The courts exist for a purpose, but creating law is not part of that purpose.

It is immoral for me to eat meat on Friday during Lent. It's immoral for me to disrespect my mother. I'm damn sure all those teenage boys are being immoral when they look at my daughters. I would never want any of that to be any part of a government law.

 

[Charles_Main]

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative

That would depend on which way you are forcing those morals lol.

For instance some would say forcing people to fund Abortions through Tax dollars is Forcing Morality on those who do not wish to do it.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

But wouldn't opposition to theft, murder, fraud, etc. fall under the government forcing morality onto us? Or do you think the government enforces its laws because of our Consitutional rights?

The latter.

Do you believe that it is moral to extend Constitutional Rights to all US citizens? Do you believe that it is immoral to take away life, liberty, and/or justice from someone whether they are a US citizen or not?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Hi C-man. In this respect I think it is useful to provide specifics on the term, conservative. I am a conservative, but a political conservative. I am a liberal on social issues. Morality should never be legislated by the government. Some may say, and you touched on this, that because some basics of our Constitution are similar to the Commandments (no murder, no theft, etc.); that we already legislate morality; but these are fundamentals upon which most humans, regardless of religious afilliation, would agree.

So, as a social liberal, I really don't care whom one chooses to love and neither should the government, nor should laws allow for some sort of abuse/taking-advantage-of-protections by groups.

In the long run, I think government should stay out of marriage (hetero- or homosexual) completely.

I love you, Si. Wanna get married?

 

[JScott]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.

The government should not legislate morality and we should not outsource morality to the government. ...I see this as a moral issue and I don't think using the force of government in moral issues is conservative.

Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

That is your moral belief.

 

[asterism]

But wouldn't opposition to theft, murder, fraud, etc. fall under the government forcing morality onto us? Or do you think the government enforces its laws because of our Consitutional rights?

The latter.

Do you believe that it is moral to extend Constitutional Rights to all US citizens? Do you believe that it is immoral to take away life, liberty, and/or justice from someone whether they are a US citizen or not?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[asterism]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.



I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.



Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

The reason I oppose legal abortions is because I think all humans have Constitutional rights. Morality has nothing to do with it. If we allow the government to decide and enforce moral issues we then cede control of morality to it.

That is your moral belief.

No it's not. Don't tell me my beliefs.

 

[Gadawg73]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.

I don't see how empowering government to control and legitimize homosexual behavior and relationships is a good thing.

I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.



Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

Voting is mob rule for legislation. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their religious biases.
THAT is what the Constitution clearly states.
We ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On another thread I read the following:

With your permission Avatar4321.



I don't see how Prop. 8 isn't doing exactly that (beside legitimizing).

And yours, asterism.



Using the government to force moral issues IS conservative, in my opinion. Look at abortion. If the word conservative hadn't appeared in asterism's quote, one would think it was a liberal's posting they were reading.

I don't see how this is the government forcing anything on anyone. It seems more like the government staying out of it. The government didn't defend Prop. 8. Proponents of Prop. 8 legislation defended it in court.

The people of California said they don't want official same-sex marriage allowed in their state. It was challenged. It's in court. I believe eventually it will go to the SCOTUS. If they strike down Prop. 8 as unconstitutional, then the same-sex marriage will be allowed to happen and not forced on anyone. It the SCOTUS upholds Prop. 8 then the government will force homosexuals to not get married. So, on whom is the government forcing anything? Proponents whose marriages will not be affected or homosexuals whose marriages will be so affected as to become non-existant and impossible? Something tells me that it will be found unconstitutional. Something about that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing. If it is, then the government simply steps out of the picture. People of the same sex can get married. No government interference. Anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry someone of the same sex, just like, currently, anyone who doesn't want to isn't forced to marry at all.

Conservatives talk often of wanting "smaller government" but then want to outlaw abortions, same-sex marriage, marijuana (at least keep it illegal depdending on where you live), and other social issues.

I don't get it.

Conservatives want small government except when it comes to our personal lives?

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

Voting is mob rule for legislation. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their religious biases.
THAT is what the Constitution clearly states.
We ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Did you even read my post before you posted, or did you just react with knee jerk predictability?

 

[Charles_Main]

I say again. Forcing people to accept and help fund Abortion is exactly the same as forcing morals on people.

Or in this case a lack of them.

 

[Charles_Main]

Couple of problems I see here.

I love it when someone pops up with the idea that the government cannot, and should not, legislate morality. What else does the government do? The very existence of government thrives on legislating morality.

Let us take an example everyone should be familiar with and see what the government does to legislate morality.

Let us look at how these actually play out in laws we all accept.

1. Treason.
2. Counterfeiting
3. That is a freebie here in the US, but not everywhere. Lots of countries lock you up for speaking out against the government.
4. OK, you got me on this one, I cannot think of an example.
5. I wonder how long it will be before they start taxing people to put their parents in nursing homes.
6. Murder is obvious.
7. Adultery is still a crime in most states, especially if you have a vindictive ex.
8. Theft, another easy one.
9. Perjury
10. Tricky one again, but I will toss out privacy as an example here.

Since the government obviously has an interest in legislating morality it becomes a question of which morality gets legislated. All the high sounding arguments to the contrary, every time does anything it negatively impacts someone. What we should strive for is making the government impact as small as possible.

Allowing SSM has a negative impact on a larger percentage of the population than prohibiting it, but blocking it has a greater negative effect because the people who are negatively affected are denied a benefit available to others. The ideal solution to this is to remove government entirely from marriage. This would eliminate taxes and fees that the government collects as a result of recognizing marriages. That is not going to happen at this stage of the game, so we have to do something else.

Civil unions could be legally defined as the equivalent of marriage, and be available to everyone. If people want the legal benefits of marriage they would have to register their civil union with the state, and if they do not, they will not. This would have to be phased in, but it would work, if we were reasonable enough. Again, I do not see this happening because people are too hung up on the word and want marriage.

That means that, eventually, we will allow SSM. It is inevitable, and everyone who can think knows it. That leaves the question of how to get there.

Getting there through the courts is not the right way, and is not the method intended by the founders. Using the courts to force the issue is a progressive tactic, and it is one that rankles the spirit of every American who believes in freedom. It should only come about through voting, or through the actions of our representative government. If this makes me a conservative, then I will gladly accept that label, because this is what is right. It is how we went from slavery to freedom, from women not being able to vote to them running for president.

Progressives want to force their morality down the throats of everyone, then they sit back and claim anyone who opposes their methods is a conservative who wants to impose their morality on everyone. The part that amazes me is that some of them do not even see the hypocrisy of their tactics.

Voting is mob rule for legislation. We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their religious biases.
THAT is what the Constitution clearly states.
We ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Did you even read my post before you posted, or did you just react with knee jerk predictability?

Semantics, we are a federal Constitution Republic.

Go look up Democracy. A republic is widely considered one form of Democracy.

Hell we are taught in school that Greece invented Democracy. Well I have news for you. Greece was a republic.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The latter.

Do you believe that it is moral to extend Constitutional Rights to all US citizens? Do you believe that it is immoral to take away life, liberty, and/or justice from someone whether they are a US citizen or not?

Yes. What's your point?

Now hold on there - I ain't on the attack.

I was only attempting to understand your perspective, is all, by making a contrast between the Constitution and human rights, and morality.

And it sounds as though either you believe the Constitution, basic human rights are moral, or that your morality and the Constitution and basic human rights are closely aligned.

For me to try to go any further along the line of thought is murky at best and should probably be left at that. Unless you have anything you would like to clarify for me or any other readers.