Thread: Imagine how stupid you will look in 40 years

Originally Posted by Nemo

When I try to reconcile conservative ideology with the teachings of Christ, I can only wonder how the man who gave out the loaves and fishes to the multitude by the Sea of Galilee would not be branded a “liberal” today.

Because today's Liberal gives other peoples loaves and fishes to the multitude. The man who did it in the Bible gave his he loaves and fishes. Giving what is not yours is stealing.

Ergo, morals have nothing to do with law.

“Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas.”
John 18:40 (KJV)

". . . the man who did it . . . gave away his fishes . . . . " When Christ drove the money changers from the temple, that sealed his fate. The Pharisees could put up with a radical teacher who preached selling all one has and giving it to the poor; but now he was interfering with business. They had to get rid of him. It would be no different now, for nothing has changed. If Christ returned to earth today, he would be assassinated by Pat Robertson.

Originally Posted by Nemo

Ergo, morals have nothing to do with law.

Untrue. Law is but a subset of that branch of philosophy known as politics and that is but a subset of ethics/morals. A subset of is hardly the same as having nothing to do with.

All morally justified laws are rooted in but 4 Commandments: thou shall not murder; thou shall not steal; thou shall not bear false witness and thou shall not covet.

Originally Posted by darth omar

What if they are in love with more than one?

I was raised Mormon ... polygamy was practiced in the 1800's. Its still practiced today in some Islamic countries.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

Just as I'm entitled to carry a concealed weapon: because I've followed the rules.

Rules are made to be changed for just such a reason. You think you are more entitled to benefit from society because you have sex in a "special" way. The only thing special about it is its approved by those who choose to legislate morality. This has always occurred in society for those who "think" they are special, better, and more deserving of human rights. Self righteousness has always been a plague on human rights.

Originally Posted by michael h

Rules are made to be changed for just such a reason. You think you are more entitled to benefit from society because you have sex in a "special" way.

BS. Non-degenerate way is the normal way, the way our species procreates. You are guilty of inverting what normal is and supposing normal is "special" when it is abnormal, degenerate that is "special" and not the common, normal behavior.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Circular questioning. If I understand your ideology, if it was good it was Liberal, if it was bad it was all Bush's fault or bi-partisan consensus.

You are not even close, I was observing that every state has no-fault divorce laws, since there are states that have never been in the hands of a Liberal legislature, and since there are states that have never had a conservative legislature, no fault divorce seems to be like traffic laws, it's neither conservative nor liberal. It's the American way.
But I did notice the the state with the highest percentage of "traditional marriages" is Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state, and the state that has had gay marriage the longest.
Meanwhile the conservative states that defend "traditional marriage" have the largest percentage of "non-traditional marriages".

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

BS. Non-degenerate way is the normal way, the way our species procreates. You are guilty of inverting what normal is and supposing normal is "special" when it is abnormal, degenerate that is "special" and not the common, normal behavior.

Sex is not just for procreation ... fact, fact, fact. Your morals tell you what is non-degenerate ... for you. Many gays find hetero sex disgusting or definitely not preferred.

Your "special" morals ... not their "morals"

Originally Posted by Nemo

In response to your Post# 303, supra: Yes, Damn Yankee, I can.

The difficulty in applying a moral standard to the law was illustrated by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roper v. Simmons. In that case, the court ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. In reaching that decision, the court interpreted the provisions of the Eighth Amendment in reference to “evolving standards of decency” in the implementation of the death penalty that canvassed the several states as well as the law of international tribunals. In a separate dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia,who is not shy when it comes to reconciling his personal morals and religious beliefs with his legal opinions, became surprisingly secular in his views, accusing the majority of proclaiming itself the “sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards . . .” in a process that he likened to “counting Amishmen.” See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

The interesting aspect of the decision, however, was that moral standards had nothing to do with the case. Our juvenile justice system is based on the concept that minors are not culpable; not that minors are incapable of committing acts that would otherwise be punishable as crimes - even heinous crimes - but that, as a matter of public policy, it is not in the interest of society to treat juvenile offenders as criminals, however morally reprehensible. It is Utilitarianism, plain and simple. Yet for the court to base its ruling on some nebulous, moralistic consensus - however composed - was rather uncertain, not to say dubious; and in this, the court may have reached the right decision for all the wrong reasons. The decision of the court was clear; however the means applied to making its decision (viz., “evolving standards of decency”) were anything but clear. When you start applying moral standards to the law, the question inevitably becomes "whose morals"; and there's the rub.

Minors are "treated with kid gloves" because it is believed to be immoral to punish folks who have not had time to fullt develop their interpretation of morality.

Again, what laws are not based on morality?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by goober

Indeed it was, stoning people to death, offering your first born son as a sacrifice.....



the internal revenue code

1. How does that make them perverts?
2. You are a huge champion of the progressive tax system, since you believe it to be immoral to force a poor man to pay the same percentage as a rich man.

Originally Posted by michael h

Rules are made to be changed for just such a reason. You think you are more entitled to benefit from society because you have sex in a "special" way. The only thing special about it is its approved by those who choose to legislate morality. This has always occurred in society for those who "think" they are special, better, and more deserving of human rights. Self righteousness has always been a plague on human rights.

This is not about your sexual perversions.

Originally Posted by Nemo

“Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.”
Matthew 20:14 (KJV)

When I try to reconcile conservative ideology with the teachings of Christ, I can only wonder how the man who gave out the loaves and fishes to the multitude by the Sea of Galilee would not be branded a “liberal” today.

Someone beat me to the punch. Liberals would take my loaf and give it to the poor. Jesus would then chastize the liberal for thinking that got him off the hook.

Or both of us if I thought I was 'taking care of the poor' via the tax code.

Originally Posted by michael h

Sex is not just for procreation ... fact, fact, fact.

I see. You are looking at this political issue from the point of view of sex rather than from how we procreate. I learned in biology the purpose of sex is procreation. You must be referencing all non-procreation purposes which I do not care about from a political perspective unless we are talking about the legalization of prostitution, which I agree is a sexual institution that is not for procreation.