Another kool-aid drinker…

It really is a bigotted, closeminded, feeble minded person who equates 2 people of the same sex in love as a criminal activity (polygamay, prostitution). Shame on you. As for the relatives, there are overriding health issues there.

That’s the problem with bible thumpers is that if you’re not like them, then they want a constitutional amendment to limit you the same freedoms that they are entitled to.

Hitler was Catholic and in the name of Jesus tried to eliminate all Jews. During the Spanish Inquisition…or any inquisition…no one knows the true number of how many people were tortured and killed. How many women were labeled witches in Salem by religous folks…a handful of them were even killed in the name of God….Of course we can the shift over to the Crusades and discuss the millions of “savages” killed in defense of the Holy Land…and of course today’s Modern Crusade (so named by Pres. Bush)…how many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed? Outside of alll of that….how many wars have been fought over religion? So, those equivalents this letter writer tried to make, well, as we can see, either side of the argument can make the same points.

Eric P., do you mean how many innocent Iraqis have been killed by their Muslim brothers? I didn’t see you mention all the Muslims killing non-Muslims for not, well, being Muslim and following their strict laws. How come you left that out? How come they get a pass from you?
Hitler was born a Catholic, but I believe he became an atheist as he embraced Nazism.

In fact, why have any laws at all? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to be pedophiles, or rape or murder or steal or anything. Why is one law okay, buy not another?

Good for you, Centrist. Hitler denounced Jesus Christ and was going after Christians too. Someone needs to read history.

Eric P. fails to mention the overwhelming millions killed by atheistic Communists–way more than even the Nazi thugs. And in ancient history, how many were killed by the pagans and heathens? And in primitive cultures, how many were killed by the animists?

.

Thanks for the help HL - you are so much more knowledgable than I am on world religious matters.

“Eric P., do you mean how many innocent Iraqis have been killed by their Muslim brothers? I didn’t see you mention all the Muslims killing non-Muslims for not, well, being Muslim and following their strict laws. How come you left that out? How come they get a pass from you?”

“Eric P. fails to mention the overwhelming millions killed by atheistic Communists–way more than even the Nazi thugs. And in ancient history, how many were killed by the pagans and heathens? And in primitive cultures, how many were killed by the animists?”

So Christianity has no moral high ground over Islam, paganism, animism, etc. I think Jesus Christ would be horrified to hear that his followers feel it’s ok to kill people because pagans, heathens, Muslims, etc. feel it’s OK to kill people. Call me crazy, but I think he’d expect a lot more.

“In fact, why have any laws at all? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to be pedophiles, or rape or murder or steal or anything. Why is one law okay, buy not another?”

The basic flaw in this statement is that all of the things you mention are harming someone else. A consentual homosexual relationship harms no one else and more than a heterosexual relationship does. The Constitution, as I recall, provides for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all people. Period. No exclusions for homosexuals. Any interpretation that it DOES exclude homosexuals is an “activist” interpretation.

Morality, which laws should, theoretically, be based upon, is very simple: people should be able to do as they wish so long as no one is harmed. The government should either recognize unions between same sex couples as it does for opposite sex couples and provide the same benefits, or it should recognize none and provide no benefits (my favored position, actually).I also fully believe that churches should be able to perform and recognize the marriages they wish, but that should be completely separate from legal recognition.

Personally, I see the whole marriage vs civil union argument as a church/state issue: The certification of the state that grants Ministers the privilege of performing marriages as an encroachment by the state on religion.

When a Minister says, “by the authority vested in me by the State of ___”, he is performing a government function in the church, is he not?

This is why I don’t have any problem with essentially creating a dual situation: A church can marry whomever they want, according to whatever doctrinal determinations float their boats. If a church wants to forbid cross-racial marriages, no problem.

On the other hand, the state should, in the name of equal justice under law, create a system where any two ADULTS can make a legal union, that sets up the whole ‘marriage’ thing: next of kin, automatic beneficiaries, property rights, the ‘marriage penalty’ in taxes, etc.

These are separate functions, separate statements, and should remain so. The state should get out of the business of telling churches what they may or may not do.

Marriage isn’t a right, its recognition and subsequent benefits are a privilege extended by elected bodies or the electorate itself. I don’t agree with any argument to outright ban the practice, nor do I agree with any argument that it is a right or that not acknowledging it is a Constitutional violation.

Like most issues that draw such strong “moral” opinions these issues should be left up to the voters in each state. I think its the same as the abortion issues. Opinions vary. Some would say its a womens rights issue and some would say its a right to life issue. Its too complicated a moral issue to have a legislative or judicial body definately rule on.

I do have a question with the guy that called prostitution a criminal matter. Why isn’t it a womens rights matter. Again, it is her body and shouldn’t she have the right to do with it as she pleases, including selling it? We know biblical arguments against it, what are the secular arguments against it? I have the same question about polygamy. If, say, Hugh Hefner wanted to marry all three of his girlfriends and they were ok with it (I doubt they wouldn’t be) why shouldn’t they have the right? They all may love each other. If you are enlightened enough to say two loving men can get married, what is the secular argument against multiple people? Is it your religious upbringing or just the fact that it is a crime currently that perpetuates your opinion? I doubt it. I think your just intellectually dishonest.

RCJ: I’ll take a run at your questions.

From a purely secularist perspective, I don’t see why prostitution should be a criminal activity. That being said, I’d suggest that pimping probably should be a crime, because it ties in to other serious criminal activities. I’d argue that, if the Spitzer and “DC Madam” cases tell us anything at all, that high end prostitution is a huge piece of the black market economy. Eliminating the criminal aspects would do a lot towards bringing that part of the black market into the real marketplace.

Polygamy, again, is probably hard to justify as illegal from a secularist perspective. The problems arise when (as in the recent Texas case), you’re dealing with underage girls being exploited sexually as part of the overall picture. At some point, society has to say that certain things are inappropriate. Now, I think there needs to be a serious and rational conversation about statutory rape, for example. The recently highlighted case (in Sylvester Brown’s column) about the immigrant boy who is in prison for statutory rape while his MOTHER is raising his girlfriend’s children, for gosh sakes, strikes this reader as just bizarre.

hs - I like your reasoning. Your honest enough to point out that there isn’t an inherent secular argument about why those two activities should be crimes. However, there are aspects that can be crimes, that is to say the assualt, wrongful imprisonment and statutory rape.

But in our own personal opinion, be it formed by only secular arguments or faith or just personal common sense these become moral matters. There are instances when a traditional religious person can be pro-choice or a someone on the secular line can think prostitution is abhorent. Would you agree with my assessment then that these should be states rights voter decided issues rather than federally involved constitutional issues?

RCJ-

This statement has been bothering me: “If, say, Hugh Hefner wanted to marry all three of his girlfriends and they were ok with it (I doubt they wouldn’t be)” - - -

Are you saying the 3 girls would be okay with marrying the 80 year old ?