A nation and society has a right to defend itself from the destructive impluses of its members. Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved. In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting.
Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Which people will be happier, freerer, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.
Sorry, thats wrong. Neither fed/state/local governments were ever granted such a fiat power to decree things or acts to be 'criminal'. Booze prohibition required an amendment, repealed when sanity was restored.
What are you talking about? Booze prohibition required an ammendment because they wanted to make it a FEDERAL law. Each state could proibit it if they wanted. Heck, I still live in a 'dry' county.
Yep, harmful criminal acts are the basis for law. What you believe to be 'sins' are not.
Don't tell me what I can have as my opinion for a basis for law. I have just as much right as you do to decide where the lines should be drawn. Gay men have a life expectancy about 30 years less than heterosexual men. They take antibiotics by the handful to continue the unnatural acts they ingage in without constant infection. This does nothing but make the petri dishes for resistent strains that are a threat to us all. Most sex outside of marriage is exploitative of one or the other. The state has a vested interest in preventing exploitation.
"Arbitrary" and "Unreasonable" are vague terms that activist judges can use to subvert the plain meaning of the 10th ammendment. Their ruling in this case was far more arbitrary and unreasonable than the law in question.
Yet here you are using those same words to castigate "activist judges rulings". Circular argument idiocy.
Our rights are given as gifts from our Creator. It then follows that you don't have the "right" to do what is wrong.
If you followed your Creators precepts, You wouldn't be forcing your version of 'right' upon others.
A nation and society has a right to defend itself from the destructive impluses of its members.
Of course they do. Establish destructive criminality, and write constitutional law to regulate such impulses. You'll have my support.
Take two nations that have equal resources in every other way. In one, the laws of Texas apply, go beyond it even, cohabitation is illegal and there is no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce when children are involved. In the other nation, half the population engages in sodomy and prostitution. The other half is cohabiting. Which nation will be the greater nation 100 years hence? Which people will be happier, freerer, and more prosperous? There is no doubt in my mind that nation whose laws best conform to the actual moral order of the universe will be the nation whose citizens are most blessed.
Prohibitional 'laws' on sin have always bred contempt for the rule of law from my reading of history.
Neither fed/state/local governments were ever granted a fiat power to decree things or acts to be 'criminal'.
IE. - Booze prohibition required an amendment, repealed when sanity was restored.
What are you talking about? Booze prohibition required an ammendment because they wanted to make it a FEDERAL law. Each state could proibit it if they wanted. Heck, I still live in a 'dry' county.
Commercial/public activities in alcohol use can be, and are, severely regulated by fed/state/local governments. - But booze cannot be outright prohibited for private uses. Same 'right to privacy' principle applies..
Yep, harmful criminal acts are the basis for law. What you believe to be 'sins' are not.
Don't tell me what I can have as my opinion for a basis for law. I have just as much right as you do to decide where the lines should be drawn.
I'm not telling you, the constitution is; -- we are all bound to support & defend its principles on where the lines are drawn.
Gay men have a life expectancy about 30 years less than heterosexual men. They take antibiotics by the handful to continue the unnatural acts they ingage in without constant infection. This does nothing but make the petri dishes for resistent strains that are a threat to us all. Most sex outside of marriage is exploitative of one or the other. The state has a vested interest in preventing exploitation.
You are over the line in calling for governmental controls over such individual rights.