Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
I read everything Santorum was saying. He was contradicting himself all over the map.
The case he was commenting on was one where police entered the bedroom of consenting adults and arrested them for sodomy.
To say he supports those laws without the ability of police to enforce them is incoherant.
It's not a straw man argument at all, but precisely what the case was about that Santorum was commenting on.
The police enter the bedroom of consenting adults and arrested them for sodomy.
Santorum's response supported the rights of states to keep things like adultery and sodomy illegal.
There is absolutely no point in his argument if these laws cannot be enforced.
The whole purpose of anti-sodomy laws is to keep such behavior out of the mainstream, out of the public view. That way fewer people will be seduced into it, and if such sodomy practitioners try their skills in, say, public bathrooms they can then be arrested. Why don't you see this? Why are you so attracted to the idea of sodomy and/or same sex acts being protected?
Go back and read my posts again. I addressed Santorum's position that adultery and sodomy etc should be illegal.
Do you believe the police should be able to bust down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arrest them for adultery?
How about if we start stoning homosexuals and shooting women in the head on the sidewalks for unfaithfulness, like the Taliban?
That's the kind of country you want to live in?
And please don't give me these alternate purposes for making these behaviors illegal, that have nothing to do with actually enforcing the law. That is not what laws are for.
From 196: Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty.
You demonstrated with crystal clarity in this statement that you haven't the foggiest idea what Calvinists actually believe. I believe Warmoose sufficiently addressed the point.
This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.
And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.
There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.
This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.
And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.
There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.
This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.
Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.
And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.
There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.
Perhaps you may want to study about the Son of God and the work He performed. Because of His work, when we have have faith in Him, we may have a relationship with God, not by our work, but by the Holy Spirit. Man's will, when now returned to righteousness is provided numerous assets as a member of His royal family.
To deny man who is faithful in Christ that royalty, is arrogant in the face of God's gift.
Jesus Christ chose Judas. Do you claim the Son isn't one with the Father?
Now you are beginning to reason well. No man will ever go to Hell or eternal damnation because of sin (Disobedience to His Will)(other than the rejection of God Himself in the Holy Spirit).
The penalty of sin is death, or in the Hebrew a state of separation.
If we sin, spiritually we are separated from the Holy Spirit or not in fellowship with Him. If we have never believed, then we are already dead or separated spiritually from Him because of Adam's death from the fall in the Garden.
When Christ died on the Cross, being a perfect man, body, soul and spirit, He had a perfect Spirit which could be sacrificed to make atonement for the original sin.
There are other issues regarding the body and soul, but in regards to the God breathed spirit, only upon Christ's sacrifice was it possible for a living righteous spirit to re-enter man. Given by God, the Holy Spirit, when we have faith in Him, we have not done anything which would require God to be inconsistent if He chose to enter us.
Now by remaining Soveriegn and immutable, just and righteous, the spiritual sin has been atoned and He may again breath that new life into us.
That new life is not unrighteous. Man, now who has faith in Jesus Christ, God the Son and His saving work, has now performed something nonmeritoriously, not a work deserving a wage, but a simple belief, a faith in Christ, which the Holy Spirit may now use to perform an effective salvation within us.
Good which we perform while in fellowship with Him, now may count towards divine righteousness. Without that fellowship, our good works are nothing but filthy rags.
The universal position that all of man's works are unrighteous fails to give credit to the work of Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ is nothing more than a Plush Toy Genie Jesus to the saved, and through the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism (Pessimillennialism coined by others) Jesus Christ ironically "loves" the reprobate through remarkably profound violence and destruction.
Would that be "Rapture" stuff?
The Lawrence case was a set-up. Three homosexuals lived in the apartment. One made a false 911 call that the other two were assaulting each other, I can't remember if he also lied that there was a gun. Then the other two committed sodomy with the door unlocked and open so the police would come in and see, arrest them, and they could take the case to court. In fact, the threesome had even tried the same set-up several times before - false 911 call, sodomy so the police would see, etc, but the cops never came at the right moment before.
To say he supports those laws without the ability of police to enforce them is incoherant.
Of course police would enforce them, but police can't even go into peoples' houses for drug use or any offenses with warrants and all kinds of legal red tape. What makes you think that police would conduct house-to-house searches for in-the-act sodomy??? All the law would do (if it meant anything) would be to keep sodomy private.
Funny, I can just picture some homosexual philosophers arguing such a point in Sodom and Gommorah just before the fire and hailstorm.
No. But I also don't believe that the direction our culture is going - the moral relativism slippery slide, with ANY KIND OF SEXUAL DEVIANCY AND IMMORALITY glorified, normalized, accepted, and shoved down everyone's throats including schoolchildren is going to lead to anything except 1. first anarchy, and 2. then tyranny.
How about if we start stoning homosexuals and shooting women in the head on the sidewalks for unfaithfulness, like the Taliban?
I think you need to investigate your own mind and heart, because your comments are seriously irrational.
That's the kind of country you want to live in?
All I can say is straw man.
Would you deny that giving food to a starving person is doing good ?
Do you think Jesus was telling us that no one can do good when he told of the Good Samaritan ?
Do you mean to tell us that God made man without the capacity to do good, and then was displeased with His creation when man did not do that which man could not ?
Do you really believe God created man unable to do good so that He would have a reason to sacrifice His Son on the cross ?
I say again, God created man(and woman) with free choice ;and that means each may choose good or evil, may choose to obey or disobey,and will be judged on his own choices.
Would you also care to discuss the problems caused by the Western tradition of stating the commandment "thou shall not kill" when killing in self-and national defense is ordered by God elsewhere ? I think much anguish might have been avoided were the commandment stated as "thou shall not murder", which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
pram; I think you need to investigate your own mind and heart, because your comments are seriously irrational.
You need to investigate reality, because the fact is these things DO occur under some authoritarian religious theocracies.
Jorge "That's the kind of country you want to live in?"
pram; All I can say is straw man.
All I can say is you obviously can't answer questions directly.
The fact is the great majority of people in this country agree with me, and don't want to live in the kind of world I described above.
We don't want religious zealots letting lose the sex police on the rest of Americans.
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.