polygamy only has to do with marriage....but HOOKING up 1 girl 2 guys is OK...just ask penthouse and any other actor/tress that provide us with the examples of 'non-polygamy'....
polygamy IS religious the only reason it was 'outlawed' was for tax collecting and hard/socioeconomic views....
I could care less if you marry 2 folks, have an abortion, marry gay etc etc........
if your church forbids it either : 1.leave 2. change
NO ONE MAKES ANYONE DO ANYTHING.....compelling social movement via laws whether religious or not is what ANYONE we place above us as masters is practiced at.
so Box being the grand cheerleader has decided to place those elected ABOVE him/herself through faith in their abilities....STILL A RELIGION....fine with me.
just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong just because something is legal doesn't make it right
Marry a couple women, a dog and a duck, it doesn't affect my life at all, unless you get to claim them as dependents.
They have morals. They merely allow people to choose to act on their morals without government mandated rules.
The extreme right has similarly inhumane morals, as judged by the lefties.
Right wing pro-lifers support the killing of the innocent, without arrest, trial or conviction.
Surprisingly, a lefty named box, a well known pro-choicer, also supports the killing of the innocent.
How is the stance of abortion as murder, any different than the stance, that drones and collateral damages of war, are murder, morally?
Invoking religion into the argument, one must apply it to both sides.
Using God in the arguments is using the name of the Lord in vain.
Morals need to be taught by government example; that human lives are precious, not disposable threats to the government.
Morality needs no legislation. It exists with or without legal authorization.
Is it moral, to impose your morality, on those with different beliefs and morals?
Answers:
Lefties=no Wingnuts=yes
The entire argument boils down to defining, is it legislating morality, or inflicting morality based laws on others?
These are the two opposing positions on morality based laws.
I have to side with the liberals on whether the government should be regulating morals.
The government should be teaching morality through it's own actions. People would then follow their good example.
Forcing your morals on others does not work.
It's been tried for centuries all around the world and has failed miserably.
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about since the extreme left HAS BEEN LEGISLATING MORALITY for years -- and believes that is the government's role to tell us what is morally right and what is morally wrong.
As for your fallacious comments about Right to Lifers supporting supporting the killing of innocent people without a trial -- that is completely false. The Right-to-Life Movement opposes abortion, euthanasia and CAPITAL PUNISHMENT .... furthermore the Catholic Church and others have consistently taught and spoken out against the collateral killing of non-combatants.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
As for your fallacious comments about Right to Lifers supporting supporting the killing of innocent people without a trial -- that is completely false. The Right-to-Life Movement opposes abortion, euthanasia and CAPITAL PUNISHMENT .... furthermore the Catholic Church and others have consistently taught and spoken out against the collateral killing of non-combatants.
You can't be pro-life while being pro war and drones.
How about age of sexual consent and statutory rape laws, are those stupid?
Well of course they are.
Parents should be deciding factor, not the government.
Parents shouldn't be depending on the government to prevent teenage pregnancies.
Obviously they are, because the pregnancies exist even while being illegal.
The law is a waste of words.
Parents need to program the children with what they believe to be morally correct, not the government.
The government allows the parents to do so. Most parents fail miserably and leave it up to the government.
The only interaction between morality and the government should be the government behaving in a morally acceptable manner; thereby teaching by example, good moral character.
Not one law regulating the behavior of minors actually works.
They never have, and they never will work. Children act on, or directly against, their own parentally programmed beliefs.
Children should be allowed to vote, allowed to drive, and allowed to work when they demonstrate the ability to do so safely.
Age restrictions contain too many variables that punish those who have the ability to act as adults at an early age; thereby homogenizing the entire generation into sub-standard coddled clones of the irresponsible ones the laws seek to prohibit.
The laws, in fact restrict the law abiders, and totally get ignored by those the government targets with the law.
Laws don't teach values. They can't.
It is the parents obligation to prepare their own children for life.
The government passes laws reflecting the performance of the irresponsible, and inflict it on the law abiding children.
You can't be pro-life while being pro war and drones.
Trying to drag the morality of war issue into a discussion of Abortion is a red herring.
And your response about age of consent and rape -- like so many of your post -- indicates that you really are grossly misinformed and not really up to an actual debate on the issues.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion. No one FORCES them to get a blood transfusion... but suppose they managed to make their RELIGIOUS ideals, a LAW in the USA. Because of one religions beliefs, NO ONE IN AMERICA COULD GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!
Extreme huh!
The same thing is happening with the few religions who prohibit abortion. Their religious views are being forced on the rest of America. Because those few religious sects ban abortion... they want it banned for ALL OF US!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion. No one FORCES them to get a blood transfusion... but suppose they managed to make their RELIGIOUS ideals, a LAW in the USA. Because of one religions beliefs, NO ONE IN AMERICA COULD GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!
Extreme huh!
The same thing is happening with the few religions who prohibit abortion. Their religious views are being forced on the rest of America. Because those few religious sects ban abortion... they want it banned for ALL OF US!
The Jehovah's Witnesses certainly have the Constitutional Right to try to influence state legislatures or the Congress to pass such legislation.
Just like you have the Constitutional Right to make utterly extreme and quite frankly asinine statements.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Bottom line in box's thinking is, if you belong to any organization and follow their philosophical beliefs, be it Planned Parenthood, ACORN, N.O.W., Code Pink, or any of the litany of special interest organizations, you can legislate and vote based on those beliefs. But, if you belong to a religious organization you must check you beliefs at the door of every legislative house.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion. No one FORCES them to get a blood transfusion... but suppose they managed to make their RELIGIOUS ideals, a LAW in the USA. Because of one religions beliefs, NO ONE IN AMERICA COULD GET A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!
Extreme huh!
The same thing is happening with the few religions who prohibit abortion. Their religious views are being forced on the rest of America. Because those few religious sects ban abortion... they want it banned for ALL OF US!
the government has rolled over parents who refuse transfusions for their children......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Bottom line in box's thinking is, if you belong to any organization and follow their philosophical beliefs, be it Planned Parenthood, ACORN, N.O.W., Code Pink, or any of the litany of special interest organizations, you can legislate and vote based on those beliefs. But, if you belong to a religious organization you must check you beliefs at the door of every legislative house.
PP advocates that all women have access to safe legal abortion. All women of all religions. They don't force their views on anyone. If you don't want an abortion... don't get one.
The Religious fanatics want to restrict those who DON'T SHARE THEIR VALUES. They want to force others to follow the values of their religion.
PP makes the option available to all... The Religious Right Prohibits the procedure to all...
A huge difference.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
PP advocates that all women have access to safe legal abortion. All women of all religions. They don't force their views on anyone. If you don't want an abortion... don't get one.
The Religious fanatics want to restrict those who DON'T SHARE THEIR VALUES. They want to force others to follow the values of their religion.
PP makes the option available to all... The Religious Right Prohibits the procedure to all...
A huge difference.
Illegalizing abortion would be the American version of Sharia law.
Logged
