The government's role

[Jerok]

How about forcing immorality on everyone else? Right and wrong do require religion, and religious views should never be excluded from the public debate.

Forcing immorality is obviously wrong as well. The government forcing anything on anybody is almost always wrong, although some force is necessary for the preservation of life and liberty. And it is your opinion that right and wrong require religion. I agree completely, at least that it requires God, but others claim we get rights and our moral code from our humanity, and I know many moral atheists.

Homosexuals do not have compatible body parts for sex. Men and women do.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Remember, we’re not trying to prove it right or wrong, just legal or illegal.

The legalization of drugs would cause easily provable harm to users and the public at large.

I believe this is very wrong. First, when is the last time you have heard of death from marijuana… virtually never… but cigarettes are legal killers. Currently, if someone sells marijuana 3 times, they can get life in prison. Prisons are privately owned businesses who push for harsher drug laws, causing thousands of substance users to waste away their life in prison, causing a few to get rich and many to lose their lives. It is a corrupt business and it is one of the primary reasons marijuana laws have not been taken off the books.

Question: do you support the criminalization of alcohol? There is no doubt that it is more dangerous than marijuana.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How come you don’t use that argument against straight marriage?

Because I, as a tax-payer, and enough like-minded tax-payers with me, have decided that we don’t mind letting our tax dollars go to subsidize straight marriage. This is our decision to make. Our decision may be informed by our faith, or it might be simply our best judgement.

 

[Jerok]

1. The government has more of a responsibility than that.
2. The state has a right to defend marriage. Allowing same-sex “marriage” does just the opposite.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be dealt with religiously. In reality, it seems we do have to regulate, and I agree with leaving it up to the states, as this allows people to vote directly in a localized area and those who do not like State law to move to another state. This is a great improvement over the federal system.

1. Alcohol can be good in moderation. Homosexual relationships can’t be good.
2. Drugs have a terrible influence on society and the government should outlaw illicit drugs.

Where are you basing your assumption that alcohol is ‘good for you’ in moderation, but marijuana is not? And I would argue that the main reason drugs have a terrible influence on society right now is their criminalized status.

1. Since you are a new Catholic I strongly recommend reading the catechism and other Church documents to get the Church’s view on this. Because the Catholic Church absolutely does not support gay marriage since it is horrible to society and children.

Well, I have a bachelor’s degree in theology from a Catholic college, Benedictine College in KS. I know my way around the catechism fairly well, at least. Don’t want to brag you brought it up

On that note, let us try to help those with homosexuality see the Truth by living Christian lives. We wouldn’t like it if someone else forced their definition of marriage on you, so don’t force yours on others. Note - force - as a Christian we should be trying to spread the message of love, not force it down people’s throats.

 

[sedonaman]

… We wouldn’t like it if someone else forced their definition of marriage on you, so don’t force yours on others. Note - force - as a Christian we should be trying to spread the message of love, not force it down people’s throats.

Excuse me, but that is exactly what is happening. What you are advocating is a political vacuum. Ultimately, the law is going to force some group’s will on the rest. That’s what the law is suppose to do; it’s the whole idea behind the law. The only question is, whose will.

 

[JIB]

The best solution is for the state to cease to try to regulate religious sacraments. The government has not and cannot sanction marriage. The problem was thinking they could.

The argument exists that the state should regulate marriage because it is “socially beneficial”. That’s troublesome because “socially beneficial” is obviously not objective. If I think marriage is a socially beneficial (and I do) and try to use the force of government to make others conform to that I can’t be mad if someone thinks abortion is socially beneficial and wants to force me to go along with it via tax dollars.

Government is a big, dumb beast. Feeding it makes it larger. Don’t complain when it bites you if you have happily been feeding it.

 

[cmforte]

It’s amazing how many times posters here resort to the false dilemma argument. You either have extreme A or extreme Z [Which is it?]; there is no other choice.

It is impossible to “get government out of peoples’ lives.” Since people are sinful, what happens when the inevitable conflict occurs? The only thing we can do is reasonably limit government’s intrusion.

Then my fellow Conservatives better stop using the sound bite and slogan of, “get government out of our lives!!” And instead say, “let’s limit the intrusion of government into our lives!” Otherwise we just sound like hypocrites.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Because I, as a tax-payer, and enough like-minded tax-payers with me, have decided that we don’t mind letting our tax dollars go to subsidize straight marriage. This is our decision to make. Our decision may be informed by our faith, or it might be simply our best judgement.

So, if a majority of “tax-payers” support something, then that makes it right?

Besides, we w are not discussing who’s decsion it is. We are discussing the role of government. Why should it be in the marriage business at all, as other posters have pointed out?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

The best solution is for the state to cease to try to regulate religious sacraments. The government has not and cannot sanction marriage. The problem was thinking they could.

The argument exists that the state should regulate marriage because it is “socially beneficial”. That’s troublesome because “socially beneficial” is obviously not objective. If I think marriage is a socially beneficial (and I do) and try to use the force of government to make others conform to that I can’t be mad if someone thinks abortion is socially beneficial and wants to force me to go along with it via tax dollars.

Government is a big, dumb beast. Feeding it makes it larger. Don’t complain when it bites you if you have happily been feeding it.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be dealt with religiously. In reality, it seems we do have to regulate, and I agree with leaving it up to the states, as this allows people to vote directly in a localized area and those who do not like State law to move to another state. This is a great improvement over the federal system.

Where are you basing your assumption that alcohol is ‘good for you’ in moderation, but marijuana is not? And I would argue that the main reason drugs have a terrible influence on society right now is their criminalized status.

1. Since you are a new Catholic I strongly recommend reading the catechism and other Church documents to get the Church’s view on this. Because the Catholic Church absolutely does not support gay marriage since it is horrible to society and children.

Well, I have a bachelor’s degree in theology from a Catholic college, Benedictine College in KS. I know my way around the catechism fairly well, at least. Don’t want to brag you brought it up

On that note, let us try to help those with homosexuality see the Truth by living Christian lives. We wouldn’t like it if someone else forced their definition of marriage on you, so don’t force yours on others. Note - force - as a Christian we should be trying to spread the message of love, not force it down people’s throats.



-Chris

 

[sedonaman]

Then my fellow Conservatives better stop using the sound bite and slogan of, “get government out of our lives!!” And instead say, “let’s limit the intrusion of government into our lives!” … -Chris

OK by me. Unfortunately, everything has to be distilled down to a bumper sticker so people will at least read it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So, if a majority of “tax-payers” support something, then that makes it right?

No, sometimes the majority gets it wrong, as in slavery as was pointed out earlier. But if they are wrong then that has to be shown on the merits of the case. And if you were to argue for gay marriage on those grounds, then your job is harder. You would have to show that gay marriage is a positive good to society so as to justify the societal approval and subsidies. But that is not the argument that was being made. The argument offered was that it is none of government’s business who can be married. I say it certainly is government’s business for the reasons I gave before. The burden of proof is on the gay marriage advocates to show it is good for society, not on the government to show it is bad.

We are discussing the role of government. Why should it be in the marriage business at all, as other posters have pointed out?

-Chris

On that point I feel inclined to agree with you. But you realize that means no more separate tax brackets for married, etc.

 

[Bill_7154]

It is not a matter of the government preventing anything. It is a question of doing something. The government actively does something when it declares a couple married. It actively does something when it confers certain rights upon those that are married (like the right to file your taxes as a couple). The government already doesn’t interfere if two people want to live together and share their life whatever their sex. They can call themselves married privately. They can do whatever they want privately. But when you ask the government to “let” them be actually married you are asking the government to step in and take an active part in that union. If you really wanted to limit the role of government in marriage you would be asking for the institution of marriage as recognized by the government to be abolished for everyone. Is that what you want?

This is just a general post, the majority of it is not meant to be addressed to you specifically.

What is so important about the government regongizing people’s marriages? I care about GOD’s laws myself, much less so about man’s laws. Government is out of control. It seems to me government exists in order to make more and more laws and then tax more and more to regulate and enforce the laws they make. Laws take away freedom, government PR always presents it as keeping us ‘safe’, but it removes choice, removing freedom.

I’m probably for 100% of the laws that exist that 98% of the population supports. The ‘important’ laws. Like not hitting people, not doing violence against people, not stealing from people. Those sorts of things. But there are so many laws in existance today it is ridiculous. And there is no end in sight as government keeps on churning out more and more laws, putting more and more power over your life and my life in the hands of a select minory of people who employ other people to carry guns and stick guns in our faces (dramatic to make my point) to collect money to pay for their enforcement.

I’m against drugs. I think they are basically harmful and think people should not do them. However, I am even more against the war on drugs. So are a growing number of Law Enforcement: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.leap.cc Two trillion dollars spent over the past 40 years enforcing it, millions upon millions of families ripped apart via the husband put in prison, tens or hundreds of thousands murdered because… drugs are a prohibited substance. So people who make and sell them can not go to the police for protection like people who make and sell non-prohibited products. So if they wish to say in business they must be their own protection. And unlike those who make and sell non-prohibited products, they do not have the luxury of being able to take out insurance for their business. Nor do they have the luxury of having others pay for the investigation, prosecution, and punnishment of those who steal from them as do businesses that sell non prohibited products.

Do you think drug dealers are going to kidnap (arrest) and put the thief in a private prison they build themselves with their own money, pay guards to guard them, pay doctors and nurses to provide medical care for them, pay cooks to cook and feed them, etc all the while there is a ‘missing person’ who is alive and kidnapped making them subject to the punnishment of breaking that law while going through the financial burdens listed?

It’s been 40 years and we can not even keep drugs out of ONE single Maximum Security Prison in the entire country!

Doctors and social workers should be in charge of dealing with the drug problem. End the drug war and we end the crime and violence problem. Don’t believe me? Ask the law enforcement officers who are members of www.leap.cc

That is just one policy that comes with massive costs and is not only not helpful, it is harmful. End the drug war and increase the safety of your family. What are the chances of someone who is a cigarette addict or an alcohol addict breaking into your house in the middle of the night to rob you to pay for their drug habbit? I suggest it is very low, because those drugs are legal and therefore affordable. The police don’t help people stop using drugs. Drug counselors do. And the rate of drug addiction has remained the same in the USA since before the Harrison Drug Act in the 1920’s when there was not one single illegal drug in this country.

 

[Bill_7154]

They are always the same, at least in our system of government. The law is nothing more than the codification of someone’s concept of what’s right and wrong. Ex.: speed laws. They are based on the moral notion that you should not unduly endanger other peoples’ lives. And so it goes; the law specifies what you should or should not do; IOW, it is a moral code. This is why you vote for one candidate you agree with over his opponent: to have your beliefs coded by him instead of someone else’s by his opponent. So, every time you vote, you are attempting to “enforce your morality” on everyone else. It’s only a question of whose morality.

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t vote. I’m not interested in backing a system where I ‘hire’ or support someone to go around sticking a gun in other people’s faces, requiring them to pay for the wonderful service of me forcing my morality on them.

 

[Bill_7154]

The legalization of drugs would cause easily provable harm to users and the public at large.

Peace,
Ed

The Prohibition of drugs causes significant harm on society over and above the harm caused by the existance and use of them. Ask the professionsals, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: www.leap.cc

 

[Bill_7154]

So, if a majority of “tax-payers” support something, then that makes it right?

Besides, we w are not discussing who’s decsion it is. We are discussing the role of government. Why should it be in the marriage business at all, as other posters have pointed out?

-Chris

That’s what democracy is: 2 wolves and 1 sheep ‘voting’ on what’s for dinner.

Fortunately we live in a constitutional republic here in the USA and not a democracy. Unfortunately, we do not act like it.

 

[djames99]

The government obtains it’s authority from God and has God’s sanction in so far as it follows the rule of God. If it doesn’t, then eventually it will fall the way of other governments of the past since they cannot stand alone on the rule of fallible man.

BTW: We have often heard the statement “separation of God and state”. This is nonsense. I’ll say it again,… this is nonsense.

The government should exercise and enforce God’s rules on His behalf and is mandated to do so. This includes restricting citizens if need be.

Also, the Catholic church is the only Church recognized by God to teach and guide governments.

 

[edwest2]

Forcing immorality is obviously wrong as well. The government forcing anything on anybody is almost always wrong, although some force is necessary for the preservation of life and liberty. And it is your opinion that right and wrong require religion. I agree completely, at least that it requires God, but others claim we get rights and our moral code from our humanity, and I know many moral atheists.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Remember, we’re not trying to prove it right or wrong, just legal or illegal.

I believe this is very wrong. First, when is the last time you have heard of death from marijuana… virtually never… but cigarettes are legal killers. Currently, if someone sells marijuana 3 times, they can get life in prison. Prisons are privately owned businesses who push for harsher drug laws, causing thousands of substance users to waste away their life in prison, causing a few to get rich and many to lose their lives. It is a corrupt business and it is one of the primary reasons marijuana laws have not been taken off the books.

Question: do you support the criminalization of alcohol? There is no doubt that it is more dangerous than marijuana.

False. Should we start laying off policeman because the “War on Robbery” has obviously failed? The “Three Strike Law” does not just apply to people who sell illegal drugs.

And I invite everyone to get the facts regarding the illegal drug crisis in the United States:

nationalmethcenter.org/STATES-HI.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The Prohibition of drugs causes significant harm on society over and above the harm caused by the existance and use of them. Ask the professionsals, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: www.leap.cc

treatment-center.com/drug-alcohol-info/marijuana.php

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

From George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bill_7154]

The government obtains it’s authority from God and has God’s sanction in so far as it follows the rule of God. If it doesn’t, then eventually it will fall the way of other governments of the past since they cannot stand alone on the rule of fallible man.

BTW: The oft heard statement “separation of God and state”? This is nonsense. I’ll say it again,… this is nonsense.

The government should exercise and enforce God’s rules on His behalf and is mandated to do so. This includes restricting citizens if need be.

I like your post. I’ve just very recently returned to God and the catholic church after being away for many years. I went to confession for the first time in 17 years a couple of months ago. I’ve been praying for a couple of hours daily since. The benefits have been amazing for me. I feel blessed and wonderful that I have renewed my faith and embrace it daily. I have been away from God and the church for a long time and have much to learn. I’m enjoying it so far but have a long way to go. I know that man has fault and God does not. I do not think that a very select minority of men (the powers that be in government), backed by another small group of extremely wealthy men (i.e. the bilderberg group or those with massive fortunes who have some sort of personal investment in wanting to control other people- and are able to do it by owning the government) can be trusted with so much power.

I wonder how many of them have you and I in their prayers as they lay their heads to rest at night? How many of them give 10% of their income to their church? How many of them really, really care whether or not someone suffers and dies as long as they can make a nice profit out of the situation?

Show me the high level government official or uber rich person with some sort of stake in controlling other people who gives away 1/2 of their total wealth each year until they are down to say 10 or 20 million dollars and then, maybe, I will open my ears to listen to what they have to say without assuming they speak with fork tounge.

What are God’s laws, aside from the 10 Commandments?