'Gay'-rights bill lets court define church's 'purpose'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 7, 2007 | Bob Unruh

[VxH]

[Being overweight harms society and raises insurance premiums. Are you advocating that the government should have the power to force us to exercise? ]

Nope. I’d have no problem at all if people were penalized on their health insurance premiums based upon the results of a yearly physical exam. If you’re too stupid to maintain your own health, I shouldn’t have to pay for your indiscretions. The same applies to people who are stupid enough to indiscriminately swap bodily fluids and contract HIV or other STDs.

Actions have consequences and the price for them should be paid by the actors.

I used to be tolerant - then I saw homosexual activists in action up close, in the workplace. Queer nepotism concentrates their numbers far beyond the 1 percent population distribution. Michael Eisner was stupid enough to brag about it being 40 percent at Disney.   It mat vary, but from what I've seen, once they get a foothold they will increase their numbers through reverse-descrimination.

If our society allows its reproductive fitness to be further lowered, our enemies WILL take advantage of the weakness and the point will be moot.

 

[VxH]

[ If you aren't tolerant enough to leave people alone in their own homes,]

They aren't keeping in their own homes.  They are forcing the doctrines of Transhumanism and Postgenderism to be taught to our children in public schools. 

[Lucky Dog]

I'm not going to chase every sentence you wrote or question that you tried to raise.

That’s too bad. You’ve missed some points of judicial and legislative importance. Chief among these points is that no individual “right” is “absolute” or completely “unabridged” by the “needs of society.”

The question of sex between consenting adults is none of your business.

You are decidedly in error. As I tried to illustrate for you with some obviously pointed questions, laws already exist which regulate or restrict sex among consenting adults. The operative question becomes exactly what restrictions are appropriate and how should they be enforced.

You may not like the thought of homosexual sex, fornication, or heterosexual sodomy, but those acts do you no harm.

You assumption concerning my personal likes and dislikes is irrelevant. As to your assertion about whether or not these activities harm me or not, you are, again, in error. Does the drug trade or prostitution or incest do me any harm, even though I chose, personally, not to indulge in these activities? The answer is, decidedly, yes in that these activities adversely affects the society, in general, in which I live. Furthermore, these activities currently cause the misdirection of my tax dollars away from constitutionally mandated government functions that directly benefit me such as national defense. Therefore, it is appropriate for me, personally (and others), to demand, on behalf of society, that it protect itself through laws prohibiting certain activities regardless of whether these activities are between consenting adults.

Neither AIDS nor any other sexually transmitted disease is easily passed to those who do not engage in risky behavior.

A very astute observation… but off the point, nonetheless. As long as these activities generally degrade my society or my tax dollars are used to provide care for any of those who contract these “diseases of risky behavior,” then I, and all of my fellow citizens, have a vested, constitutional interest in legally prohibiting these activities.

A quarantine on people who could easily pass diseases to the innocent general public can be justified. A quarantine against people who have a disease that is unlikely to be passed to anyone except another person engaged in risky behavior is not justified.

Do expectant mothers infected with AIDS frequently pass the disease along to their children? (Yes.) Are these children “innocent” members of the general public who have not engaged in any “risky behavior?” (Yes.) Using these facts, by your own reasoning, AIDS infected people should be forcibly quarantined to prevent the spread of the disease to “the innocent general public.”

Conspiracies to commit a violent crime or a property crime are "closed door" activities that lead to real, measurable harm against other individuals. They are a completely different from a pursuit of pleasure that you happen not to like.

My point was that neither “closed doors” nor the non-constitutionally existent “right to privacy” constitute sufficient grounds for society to ignore a harm that is perpetrated upon its “innocent membership.” Apparently, it is the definition of “real measurable harm” that is the sticking point in this debate. Using your implied standard, obscenity laws, prohibitions against public drunkenness (excluding operating a motor vehicle, etc.), public nuisance ordinances, etc. could not exist.

This proposed law is an attempt by the homosexual activists to reach into areas that are none of their business. While they are free to criticize what the church teaches, their using the government to force their ideas on the church is wrong.

On this much, we agree.

They need to mind their own business just as those who want to kick down doors to arrest homosexuals need to mind their own business.

On the first clause of your assertion, we agree. However, we assuredly disagree on the second clause.

They are doing the very evil that you are trying to justify. They are refusing to respect others' right to believe and act differently from themselves. Both of you need to change if our country is going to remain a free nation.

As I noted earlier, none of our liberties are completely “uncircumscribed” by legal boundaries. For example, the much vaunted, “freedom of speech” does not extend to falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Similarly, the freedom of religion does not extend to those religions which would mandate forcible human sacrifice of one’s enemies.

In similar fashion, the “right” to engage in sexual activity can be legally restricted as much as is reasonable in the eyes of representatives freely elected by a majority, or even a plurality, of voters. If these representatives judge that it is prudent and reasonable to restrict homosexual activity, then such becomes the law of the land just as much as restricting polygamy or incest.

As John Adams noted: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.