Posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:28 PM PDT by papasmurf
The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at update08.foxnews.com ...
out=ought
In that case, there’s no need to present an argument that the need to enforce morality overrides the constitution.
Well here’s what I meant by that: If the states should be the ones to impose bans, they aren’t doing their job. Mass and Iowa for example come to mind first. So if they won’t, the federal gov’t should intervene in an ‘emergency’ situation (that is, one where basic things like life and marriage are ubder attack) and ban it on a national level. However I suppose that whole argument is moot because of Tailgunner’s post that I mentioned—the states have a role in the amendment process.
The question was who gets to decide whether they're "big" sins, not on what basis you decide they are. Personally, I'd say sloth and gluttony can pose a threat to people and society, but I don't think the federal government was intended or authorized to exercise control over those things.
Under what enumerated power would you propose the federal government enact such a ban, assuming it becomes necessary?
Let me rephrase that: if they pose an immediate threat to people. Gluttony is not an immediate threat the way murder is, and people can change their minds about it and quit. It’s unlikely that a killer is going to change his mind in the middle of a gunfight or right before an abortion. Also, gluttony is something done in your private home, where the govt has no business. Murder and abortion and gay unions and all the others are done on the public scale, where the govt does have influence.
Also the govt has the choice of authorizing funding to things like stem cell research. They are in the position to ban it, and should. They are not, however, in the position to ban gluttony.
There is no power written in the constitution. Instead that power is written in a higher governance; basic morality and good and evil.
Now before you ask why we shouldn’t ban everything that goes against this, see post 128.
Also the founders never gave anyone the specific power of banning homosexuality, because it was assumed that everyone abided by basic moral laws and didn’t do that.
While I don't like the idea, I'm not seeing gay civil unions posing an immediate threat to people. You're opening a door to a standard for ignoring the Constituion and the separation of authority that's entirely too subjective to suit me.
Gay marriage is an immediate threat to themselves, and done on a public scale.
Because it’s a public operation, the govt has the authority to intervene.
When you start making claims about the founder's reasons for what was and wasn't written into the Constitution, I'm going to ask for references and sources.
In what way is it an immediate threat to themselves? What risks do they assume by going through a farce of a ceremony that they weren't already assuming before that?
OK, that statement I can withdraw from my argument, as you are right that it was an assumption on my part.
It opens the door for them, now that they’re “married” to engage in gay behavior in their private life. Also the person presiding at the wedding is setting a bad example in doing such a thing and is probably an advocate for gay rights.
It’s also a danger to society, because gays can’t have children thus they give nothing back to society yet they live off it—they’re like parasites.
You expect me to believe that this would actually stop them from doing anything in private they wouldn't do anyway?
That depends on the person—whether they believe they should wait to get “married” first.
If you have to call yourself "influential", you aren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.