Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 02:10:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest./ihatespam/net
|
Viewed:
|
1291 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> John Neal wrote:
> >
> > Scott-
> >
> > As a fellow Christian, I am curious as to which ideas of the LP you find unchristian.
>
> I'll answer for him, leaving it open for him to answer for himself.
>
> The LP is religion neutral to the extent that it recognises that
> individual belief systems vary and should be respected. But it has some
> thoughts on behaviours that may be considered a bit anti-christian. (I
> know Pat Robertson would consider them as such)
>
> Here is one for you that I know gets you, John Neal, all spun up:
>
> - Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a sin. As such, it is no
> better and no worse than any other arrangment that consenting adults
> make about how they will live together, share assets and approaches,
> raise a family if they so choose, and commit to each other. As such it
> should not receive special treatment, whether preferential or
> discriminatory, by the government.
If a Democratic government decides (ie the will of the people, the *majority*) to sanction
hetereo marriages and not homosexual ones, what's wrong with that? I think a case can be
made that the traditional nuclear family is a good foundation on which to build a stable
society. You are free to shack up with a horse if you want; just don't expect equal or
special considerations, because the majority don't want it.
> Here's another:
> - People have the right to die by their own hand if they so choose.
> Christianity views suicide as a sin.
Well, Christians uphold life, our greatest gift. If you want to end yours, that's between
you and God. But again I see nothing wrong with a society deciding that it will be life
affirming.
> Here's another more generic, from which the others derive:
> - Nothing, repeat, NOTHING, that a person chooses to do of their own
> free will and which does not infringe on the rights of others should be
> forbidden. It may be stupid, it may be life threatening, but so be it. I
> is not the place of government to legislate morality, except in that the
> proper function of government is to help ensure non-infringment (by
> enforcing the common law prohibitions against things such as murder,
> rape, assault, burglary, arson, etc..) of individual rights.
A lot of people do stupid things and their lives are train wrecks. A lot of people are
unhappy. Christianity offers a way to lead a meaningful life, not judgment of an empty
one.
> Some important corrolaries that a lot of christians have trouble with
> are ideas like it is not proper for government to legislate morality,
> including such things as what the operating hours of stores are (Grand
> Rapids until recently had ordinances prohibiting Sunday operation of a
> wide class of stores), what sort of businesses are legitimate, and what
> sorts of interpersonal relationships are appropriate.
Again, if a community gets together and says, "we don't want 24 hour businesses in our
town", shouldn't they have the right to restrict it? Democracy in action, not morality
legislation. Why, all of the sudden, do you question motive? Isn't that beside the
point? You don't want a opera singer for a tenant. Period. The reason is irrelevant.
-John
>
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
> lugnet.
>
> NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
> will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| Whew. Where to start? (...) It is legislating consensual behaviour. And that's wrong. No avoiding it. (...) True. So what? (...) First off, why does government have a monopoly on sanctioning marriages? Aren't they merely a contract between people? (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) OK - I'll bite on that one. I would agree that the traditional nuclear family as a good foundation on which to build a stable society. However, I can't see any reason why a family with - say - two gay men at its head shouldn't be equally good, (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) I'll answer for him, leaving it open for him to answer for himself. The LP is religion neutral to the extent that it recognises that individual belief systems vary and should be respected. But it has some thoughts on behaviours that may be (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
