The Remaking of Hillary Clinton

[Pete2]

Stu:

Truth is absolute. There is no “one group’s truth” and “another group’s truth”.

It’s great that you think the truth is in the Church. Then fight for it and don’t be ashamed.

Your argument against abortion could be characterized by those favoring infanticide as just “your truth” just as you dismiss arguments against “gay marriage”. Once again, there are absolutes.

“Gay marriage” undermines marriage, the traditional family unit and therefore the well-being of our children. There is evidence supporting such logic as well as common sense. Therefore it affects the rights of everyone else to a stable and productive society. Rebuttals that the state of marriage in the US is already degrading are fallacious. With such logic one could justify ridding society of almost all laws because some people don’t abide by them.

I am arguing the same exact thing on two different threads now, and I’ve spent way too much time on these message boards today, so I might disappear from this one pretty soon. But here’s a few thoughts:

• Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal, and so should abortion be. (sorry bad grammer I’m tired)
• Homosexual marriage is wrong. I should be cleaner with my use of terms. Marriage is a sacrament, and is holy. Gays should not be alllowed to marry.
• Civil Unions are legal contracts, that are accompanied by legal rights, and are not holy. They shouldn’t be illegal, any more than a retailer contracting to buy a shipment of condoms from a supplier isn’t illegal.

I disagree that Gay civil unions undermine marriage. I don’t follow your logic about all laws being rebutted. Having a bad marriage and getting a divorce is not illegal. Marriage is already undermining itself.

Pete

 

[Pete2]

Stu:

Truth is absolute. There is no “one group’s truth” and “another group’s truth”.

Forgot to reply to this part… In the US, from a legal standpoint, there infinitely multiple truths. Relativism is what the US is based on-- remember, freedom to practice whatever religion you want? Freedom to disagree with the government?

From my standpoint, and yours, there is one truth in the world. And I agree that it is yours and my responsibility to help people see it. But not at the expense of taking away people’s rights. Here’s an extreme example: why not have the US government outlaw a person’s right to practice Mormonism? It is clearly against God’s will…

Pete

 

[Stu]

- Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal, and so should abortion be. (sorry bad grammer I’m tired)

I agree. But someone from Planned Parenthood would say that is “your truth” and not theirs. How then do you respond? Are their absolute truths?

Pete2:

I disagree that Gay civil unions undermine marriage. I don’t follow your logic about all laws being rebutted. Having a bad marriage and getting a divorce is not illegal. Marriage is already undermining itself.

The lack of people following the speed limit is undermining those laws. Do we throw them out? Just because people fail to meet the ideal doesn’t mean lower the bar.

Pete2:

Relativism is what the US is based on-- remember, freedom to practice whatever religion you want? Freedom to disagree with the government?

Pete, with all do respect that is just “silly talk”. Our country is hardly based upon moral relativisim Rather I would submit it was based upon the moral absolute that our Creator (not the government) endowed us with certain rights that the government cannot limit.

Pete2:

Here’s an extreme example: why not have the US government outlaw a person’s right to practice Mormonism? It is clearly against God’s will…

I think that is a good question. At first blush I would say that while we are a Christian nation we are not a theocracy. And as Christians we do tolerate others beliefs and even behaviors. That does not mean we condone them by officially sanctioning them.

 

[Pete2]

Stu:

I agree. But someone from Planned Parenthood would say that is “your truth” and not theirs. How then do you respond? Are their absolute truths?

It’s a scientific fact. It doesn’t require religious arguments to successfully argue abortion, and the pro-life movement is making the progress they are making based on scientific evidence rather than quoting verses from scripture.

Stu:

The lack of people following the speed limit is undermining those laws. Do we throw them out? Just because people fail to meet the ideal doesn’t mean lower the bar.

Actually it does… in most states the speed limit has gradually increased over the years. It used to be 55 where I came from, and now it’s 65.

Stu:

Pete, with all do respect that is just “silly talk”. Our country is hardly based upon moral relativisim Rather I would submit it was based upon the moral absolute that our Creator (not the government) endowed us with certain rights that the government cannot limit.

You’re right, that the US wasn’t founded on relativism. I told you I was tired… I’m exaggerating. But our founding fathers put into place a structure that has allowed it to thrive. By granting everyone freedoms in belief and action–as long as they’re not stepping on others’ freedoms, generally-- moral relativism is alive and well.

There’s nothing in this country stopping anyone from having sex before marriage, believing in Mormonism, drinking themselves silly, denying Christ publicly, gyrating sexually on MTV half naked, and on and on.

I don’t like the picture any more than you, but people have legal rights, and if you take away freedoms from people, or fail to give people the freedoms that everyone else has just because of their race or sexual preference or creed, then you are on a slippery slope. That’s a challenge for Catholics.

Pete

 

[Lisa_N]

Pete2:

Actually it does… in most states the speed limit has gradually increased over the years. It used to be 55 where I came from, and now it’s 65.

Pete

Ah Pete you are showing your youth. The speed limit used to be HIGHER and was reduced to 55 during the gas crunch years. It’s gradually crept up but when I learned to drive (1970s) the ‘basic rule’ was in force which meant many people went 70 to 80mph on freeways and they were not breaking any laws.

Aside from that I don’t think speed limits are a very good example of laws changing due to moral issues.

Lisa N