Posted on 12/07/2009 7:56:22 AM PST by MNDude
I’m so glad you know what it is that I want (being a social liberal). I want the government to stop dictating your morals on those who do not hold them to be true. You can ramble on about a tirancal moraltiy, however your inablility to allow others to live with the same so-called rights as you do, is very hypocritical in my eyes.
By allowing abortion (as the law allows) nobody is forcing you to have an abortion.
By allowing gays to marry, is not forcing you to marry someone of the same sex.
By allowing others to smoke pot, does not force you to smoke pot and so on and so forth.
Your conventional morality is tyranical in our eyes, so yes, in our eyes, you are a hypocrite.
Then who created the world? You? If not God’s law, whose law? Ayn Rand? We can glorify selfishness and man. Isn’t this is also called idolatry? Then you can make your own rules and justify cheating on your spouse like Miss Rand did. Wonderful!
I consider myself a "social liberal/fiscal conservative" in the sense of not minding what people do as long as they don't harm others or demand that I pay to subsidize it. The last part may have many decree that I'm not that "socially liberal", but I don't care.
Nice strawman. Rand? When did I bring her up? ROFL.
If a spouse cheats on their SO, then it’s up to the So to deal with it, there are many avenues they can choose. Why do you care if someone cheats on their spouse as long as you are not part of the cheating? The government certainly has no buisness in the scenario.
God’s law? LOL, sorry, I prefer man’s law. The same one that prohibits muder theft and the like. With man’s law...a priest isn’t allowed to hide behind their church to protect their pedophile ways.
There are many reasons why we have laws regulating personal behavoir. Illegal drugs (including pot) destroy your body, make you sick, are highly addictive, compel you to steal, impair your judgement.
Homosexual behaviour is also highly addictive and unhealthy and spreads deadly diseases and emotional disorder. Yes many are seemingly “normal” and appear to live respectable lifestyles and are in monogamous relationships. But with homosexuals that is far from the norm.
Abortion slaughterss innocent human life. You don’t need to be religious to see that, just look at an ultrasound.
Yes, these are the laws now, but what if the government got out of the marriage business? The Church would not compel you to comply with a secular law that did not exist.
As I see it, the problem is not what people want to call themselves. The problem is the government using the force of law to compel people to recognize these things as valid and true. What right does the government have to compel me to recognize what I consider an abomination as valid?
Ok then, if man’s law—who and where if not from the Bible?
If not traditional values, we have to go with secular values. And, where should get these secular values from? Even the Framers of our Republic, understood that our rights come from God not man. If man could could give us our rights, then he could take them away as well. No?
I agree in principle, but the government may one day decide that to be Catholic is harmful. Unless and until the day comes that everyone that makes laws in this country is a Catholic Saint, who would only make laws to conform with Our Lord's laws, I'd rather they just stick to protecting my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The government is there to make sure that you are of legal age, you’re not already married. They may also require that you have been tested for STDs. There are many reasons why government regulates marriage—most of them appropriate and common sense as far I can tell.
Allowing abortion, particularly as a constitutional right, erodes our commitment to the inherent moral value of human life and leave our society at sea without a moral compass. Allowing homosexuals to “marry” promotes destructive confusion about what marriage, and more broadly, sex are for. Any society that approves of homosexual unions is losing contact with the most basic and essential facts of human life. Allowing drug abuse countenances the waste of human lives and manufactures clients for the welfare state.
Conventional morality can’t be tyrannical. It’s conventional because most people accept it. People don’t need to be forced into thinking abortion, homosexuality, and drug abuse are wrong. The shoe is on the other foot. Social liberalism is inherently tyrannical and your whole view of social issues is completely incoherent.
Read Adams’ quote “if men were angels”...
If all men were saints/angels, there would be no need for government. Since they aren’t, we need government to restrain behavior, but, also since they aren’t, we need the men in government must be restrained as well.
That’s where a Constitutionally defined government comes in.
Unfortunately, those same “non-saints” have of late chosen to ignore those restrictions, and will soon require the people to put them back in their box.
Oh no, pot destrys the body...maybe there should be laws to ban the use of Mcdonalds, automobiles, or maybe let’s ban drinking and smoking altoghether? We know how baning alcohol in the past has worked.
Highly addictive? Really? So someone can catch homosexuality like a cold? I’d love to see the research that backs that up.
When a human life is determined to be at the moment you define it, well then, I would agree it is murder. Until then, it’s a legal medical procedure.
Kind of like “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but...”
Really. "Man's laws" are based on "conventional morality." Murder, theft, battery, assault, rape, etc. are immoral behaviors and thus illegal. So, who is picking and choosing what laws the government should enforce?
The behaviors you want to have the freedom to engage in will ultimately lead to the tyrannical government you mention. As society suffers the consequences of these "anything goes" behaviors, the government will be expected to provide services and programs to remedy a large portion of society.
The government that is given powers to fix and provide for these needs, has the power to restrict and remove the basic rights of the populace to control the societal ills your "freedoms" will create. What an ugly, destructive society your "freedoms" will wrought.
You keep refering to God. Until God can be proven to be a true thing, your point is moot. The bible was written by men. Men are not infallable. You are attempting to use “God’s law” to regulate my behavior. I’m sorry, but I and many other people do not believe in your God. What if the Muslim’s god is the true god. How would you feel if we used their Sharia Law instead? Personally, I’d rather stick with “man’s law”.
Did you finally leave the Mormon religion, or are you still Mormon?
Yes, I left the Church.
In my opinion, being "pro-choice" is antithetical to libertarianism. While liberty allows the freedom of action, it does not, and can not, release one from the results of those actions. Once the creation of another human has occurred, which is at conception when a unique DNA is formed, the "choice"has been made. I look at it as a matter of "the right to swing my fist ends at another person's nose." Since the "freedom"of the person to not be pregnant can't occur without depriving the baby of the freedom of life, and would result in making someone else bear the consequences of one's own action, one is restrained from making that choice, and the state is obligated to act protect the life of that new person. If the state can not act to protect the most basic of liberties, that of life, what liberties can it protect? And if people are free to do whatever they want to whomever they want regardless of the other person's rights, that is not libertarianism, but anarchy.
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.