Sometimes a sentence can require many pages of response…
I told someone else, who complained that I wrote long responses to simple statements, that sometimes it’s necessary and is NOT a sign that my statements are weak
A little while back I talked about abstraction in one of your posts, and to honest I don’t want to talk anymore about the nature of truth. Instead, I will point out that the process of discovering truth is the bread and butter of scientific inquiry. That is the language that the justice system works in. The idea of morals is just not the same language. Speaking of morals in a judicial setting is like talking Portuguese in Spain, yes there is some overlap but everyone is going to be a little confused and annoyed.
I had said that law is the legislation of a people’s morality, whether religious or secular
You can say anything you want, and no one will impinge on that. The belief that homosexuals are sinners can be preached from the mountaintop. Even lies like “homosexuals are rapists and pedophiles” (something I hear disturbingly often in religious circles) can be said. However, when you try to separate a class of people you ABSOLUTELY must have some argument in a language the court understands. Proponents of Prop 8 put their collective might together, and failed to even make an argument (much less a compelling argument) in the court of law.
Could he perhaps be right on this point? I hope not!
That is what happens. There was no judicial activism. There was no innovation. There was no fundamental destruction of democracy. This was how the justice system was designed to work. Saying otherwise is disingenuous.
You want to influence the public discourse…fine, but don’t force us to speak your language. There is a universal way of communicating, and that is the entire goal of the American experiment.
Oh by the way, accusing the opponents of Prop 8 of histrionics is kind of insulting. Also [Lotus], I have spent nearly a year watching your posts. It has become quite clear to me that your goal is to create a political system based entirely on Catholicism (hell your political affiliation on facebook is Papist). Not only do I find that line of thinking extremely dangerous, I think it is intellectually dishonest to say that you are interested in freedom.
Why, yes, actually, I am interested in creating a Catholic society. I’m not stopping either. And do I care about freedom? Not if it means a wholesale turning away from God, then absolutely not.
[Female friend], at one time in the past I talked about integrating Catholic values with the American legal system. Everyone in this thread was there for that, and I really don’t feel like reiterating it.
Suffice it to say, that your [plural] marriages have not changed. If they have, then it is your responsibility to show that it has.
