RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Irishknight -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 10:00:57 PM)

Since polygamy is a part of my religious belief am I not having my religious rights infringed upon by being denied a 2nd wife?  Since I am not seeking to marry an underage girl, why am I being discriminated against?  I can see, and agree with the age laws but where does it become religious bigotry as opposed to something else?  DOMA has no basis if you take away the religious backing. 
As far as taking morals from the bible, no thank you.  I think thats what has caused the problems we have now.



Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 10:08:33 PM)

As pointed out in the now deleted 'poor polygamists' thread, holding a religious belief that you aren't allowed to exercise, isn't always a denial of religious freedom.

And where in the world would you get the idea that I'm advocating any biblical point of view by noting its absence in the legal side of things?

Marriage is not an exclusively religous institution, it is a recognition of status relevant to survivorshep etc.by the government.  People can dress up and and recite litanies and run around in rituals all they want within 30 days of getting a marriage license, it is still a secular matter.

We can suspect that Clinton was motivated to implement DOMA and DADT by his religious beliefs, but we can't prove it.



Irishknight -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 10:17:25 PM)

That was a quick post, not directly pointing at you.  Sorry bout that.

Twas not you who espoused taking morals from the bible. 




Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/1/2008 10:19:53 PM)

Thank you for the clarification.[:)]



xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 4:27:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Of course, we had to come up with morals, and ethics from somewhere. A bible is definitely a good place to begin.

This is why DOMA may be viewed as an intrusion by the state into what is essentially a religious arena.

Laws define what is legal.  Laws do not--and cannot--define what is moral.  Laws like the DOMA are a bad idea because they are a foolish attempt by government to intrude into the moral arena that should be the exclusive province of churches and similar spiritual institutions.



I believe that when laws attempt to do what is in the public good, they do have to define, at least to a certain extent, morality.
Do I believe DOMA is moral?
Uhm...not necessarily.



dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 5:01:56 PM)

quote:

We can suspect that Clinton was motivated to implement DOMA and DADT by his religious beliefs, but we can't prove it.


Possibly, though I've always chalked them up to political cowardice.



dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 5:04:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

If they are two atheist men or women, wanting a civil license for a civil ceremony, how are their religious rights affected by this ruling?  


Where I see religion coming into play is not in the faith (or lack thereof) of individual couples, but in the faith-based legislation denying some of those couples the right to marry.



Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 5:08:37 PM)

So is every piece of legislation approved by Clinton faith based?  Or just the ones we don't agree with?



dcnovice -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 5:11:49 PM)

Well, prohibiting or containing gay marriage seemed to call forth a measure of religious passion that, say, NAFTA didn't.



Alumbrado -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 5:18:48 PM)

I agree with you that DOMA and DADT seem calculated to appeal to the religious doctrines of specific voting blocs. Personally, I doubt that career politicans are all that morally sincere to begin with.



celticlord2112 -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 6:05:46 PM)

quote:

I believe that when laws attempt to do what is in the public good, they do have to define, at least to a certain extent, morality.

Laws should reflect the public interest.  There is no public good.



xxblushesxx -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 6:08:24 PM)

We *may* be arguing semantics here; or perhaps not.
Then again, I believe that any country that rules without morality is doomed to failure more surely than one who does not attempt to do what is 'right'.

*edited for stupidity*



Irishknight -> RE: The 'Good Intent' Road to Dictatorship (6/2/2008 11:06:59 PM)

But who should decide what is "right?"

Bush?  Clinton?  Rosey O'Donnell?  The Michelin Man? 

Some things are easy to decide.  Killing productive members of society for sport and pleasure is wrong.  Why is it wrong for one man to have 2 wives?  Who does it hurt?  Does it in some way hurt your relationship?  Morals should not be legislated ... especially by the immoral we elect to do so.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875