Santorum in defense of his beliefs - It is impossible for a law to be intolerant

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you want to regulate my behavior, then ALL...100%...of the burden of proof falls on you.

Not really. Government has power over you. It has power over giving you or denying you rights. If it decides to deny you rights it doesn't have to justify jack. YOU, on the other hand, have to justify to the government why it should give you certain rights.

LoA: I agree with your positions. But most people do not.

[Ben Kenobi]

LoA:

It's pretty simple, look at the words.

Monogamy

Polygamy

Bigamy

"gamy" = to marry

Mono: 1
Bi: 2
Poly: Many


Hence, Bigamy means to marry more than one person at the same time and polygamy means to marry many people at the same time.

Monogamous is also used to indicate relationships outside of marriage, that are stable, and faithful.

What is wrong with Polygamy?

Polygamy is outside of the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Both polygamy and bigamy fall outside this definition.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thanks for the definition. And I agree, polygamy falls outside the traditional christian definition of marriage, but our government is supposed to be secular, meaning that they should accept all types of tradition and when it comes to marriage and that means mormon, muslim, raelian etc.

[uh Clem]

Imran, you've already stated that "might makes right," in threads dealing with foreign relations. When I mentioned a republican form of government, I was talking about a political order in which that was NOT the prevailing ideology. A bit old fashioned, so 20th Century, I know.

Is the government a lot more powerful than I am? Well, duh. But when I demand that a burden of proof be met, I had in mind something more than, "because we say so, and we're a bunch of bigoted *******s, and there's nothing you can do about it." (Although, come to think of it, a lot of Scalia's opinions could be boiled down to this.)

A state can, of course, give me precisely that response, but if it does, then there really isn't any need for the Supreme Court. Laws, either, for that matter.

Don't worry, guys like you are the wave of the future.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for the definition. And I agree, polygamy falls outside the traditional christian definition of marriage, but our government is supposed to be secular, meaning that they should accept all types of tradition and when it comes to marriage and that means mormon, muslim, raelian etc.

I see where you are headed, but why should the state accept all types of tradition? Why should a secular state approve of a Muslim tradition, or a Mormon tradition in society?

[korn469]

Imran

you reread what he said, he is implying that his views in this particular instance aren't intolerant simply because they are in agreement with the SC, otherwise here's what he's saying

i don't hate insert ethnic or racial group i just hate insert ethnic or racial slur

his position is highly intolerant of homosexual practices, which if you ask any gay member of forum, are highly important to them...why should the law say that two consenting adults who love each other lack the right to physically demonstrate that love?

while i consider myself a fairly tolerant person, i could really care less less about Santorum's views on gays, he could be the biggest homophobe ever, and I wouldn't care, it is his implication that laws are inherently tolerant that irks me! according to that definition the roman soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross weren't intolerant, because roman law basically outlawed declaring yourself king of the jews. i feel that Santorum if he was an official in nazi germany certainly would have stuck to the "I was just following orders" defense. That attitude sickens me.

So does his "gay acts are destroying our nation!" but that is just secondary sickening.

Lincoln

They can't seem to tolerate anyone expressing their opinion without raising a storm of protest. They obviously cannot stand opposing opinions. That is a definition of bigot

according to dictionary.com

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I don't see how homosexuals saying that they are offended by Santorum supporting laws that lock them up for who they are and disagreeing with his position on that matter are bigots. Now maybe if they wanted to pass a law saying that all PA senators should goto jail every time they goto the capital (we don't think being a senator is bad, just carrying out his duties), then maybe I'd agree with you.

obiwan18

my first paragraph that you quoted wasn't so much a position as a question. Are adultery and incest crimes in the same way sodomy is?

You do not understand the point. The whole idea behind love the sinner, hate the sin is that one's sexuality does not equate one's identity. Therefore, in removing homosexual practice, one would still accomodate the person.

well that isn't supported by the bible, according to Matthew 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

that means if you like men, and liking men is a sin, then simply being gay no matter if you act on it or not is sinful, and therefor there is no difference between the person and the practice

HolyWarrior

your statement doesn't apply to me, if Santorum wants to be a bigot then fine, i support his right to free speech on the matter, and i said this earlier in the thread

uh Clem

If you want to regulate my behavior, then ALL...100%...of the burden of proof falls on you. It's not up to me to justify my behavior; it's up to you to prove why it deserves condemnation. As I said, I don't appeal to a court under some "right to privacy." Rather, I demand that these government employees justify their intrusion into my life.

Under what was once quaintly called "a republican form of government," this would not be a controversial or exceptional position.

I completely agree!
too bad actually wanting to exercise your rights and have a non tyrannical government is such a controversial position these days

[Lincoln]

Yes, it is to bad that people cannot express their opinions these days without enraging self righteous bigots. Gays really are not the epitome of morality regardless of the assertions from their more radical element. They have tried to silence their opponants with their intolerance toward opposing views in the name of "tolerance" but people see through their scam now.

The battle is one of national morality. Show me a nation that does not legislate a moral code and I will show you an anarchy. Gays are not the only voice allowed in this debate. They want to turn the previous moral standards upside down. Their intolerance will be opposed regrdless of their attempts to mandate a conformity to their opinions.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

The issue is the so called right to privacy. There is no such absolute right. You cannot privately abuse your children for example.

Do you understand the word "privacy"? It assumes, within the context of this issue, personal or consensual conduct by or between adults.

"Getting the government out of our bedroom" is a great idea for a pep ralley but after the emotion wears off we are left with the real world where people do a lot of things illegal in their bedrooms (such as conspiring to commit a felony or having unprotected sex if you are an aids victim).

Taking "getting government out of the bedroom" out of it's context as you've done, then we could argue government can regulate or ban ALL activities in the bedroom. But if we keep the phrase within it's obvious context, we don't mean a right to murder or assault people in our bedrooms.

Unfortunately Santorum made the mistake of saying anything at all against a "gay" lifestyle.

No, he said people should be punished for engaging in homosexual acts.

That makes him an automatic "homophobe".

Makes him immoral and hypocritical.

Funny that there is no such thing as a conservativeaphobe.

Haha.

Maybe we should just call the people who hate anyone who has strongly held religious beliefs a bigot.

Sorry, you got that wrong too. He's not being attacked for having a religious belief, he's being attacked for advocating the use of violence to impose his religious belief on others. The Taliban were a bunch of bigots, not because they had religious beliefs, but because they forced those beliefs on others.

Imran -

Congress can probably ban ice cream using the commerce clause, as long as it has a rational basis for that claim (btw, it would be a similar reason as to why Congress can ban drugs).

Why does Congress need a rational reason? Where in the Constitution did you find that caveat? And the commerce clause is the INTERSTATE COMMERCE clause, a rather important distinction. Furthermore, the Constitution says Congress can REGULATE interstate commerce, not ban it. Do you really think the Framers and the states that ratified the Constitution were giving Congress the power to ban all intertstate commerce? The Framer's intent for such a power was to correct a perceived flaw with the Articles of Confederation that allowed the states to engage in trade wars. The Framers wanted to create a free trade zone among the states, not turn Congress into a socialist body.

This really isn't different from what I said, berz.

I know, but you then argued the states could deny us our rights.

The Ninth says Congress can void other rights (such as those granted by state consitutions) simply because it isn't in the federal Constitution.

I suspect you meant Congress cannot void other rights.

No, it was based on the proposition that SC Justices wanted to expand the 'rights' that people had and wanted to severly limit states rights, so they basically decided to make something up that is no where in the Constitution.

You think only justices wanted to expand our rights? You're wrong, substantive due process derives from the premise that even if Congress can take away a person's right to life or liberty via trial, Congress cannot do it prior to conviction for a crime by simply outlawing our rights. As I said, if Congress wanted you dead, it cannot write a law forbidding you to live and then have you executed for violating the law. That's where substantive due process enters the picture, by determining if your rights were substantively taken by the law prior to any indictment and trial.

As DD said, they pulled it out of their collective asses.

So you're both wrong.

Btw, the court CAN take away your life, liberty and property. Life: Death Penalty, Liberty: Name a regulation, Property: Eminent Domain.

I didn't say they couldn't, I said they couldn't write a law depriving you of your right to life and then execute you for living.

There is no 'right' to privacy, abortion, marriage, family, etc. as the Framers wrote the document. Those things were to be decided by the states (they were big states rights people, you know).

Sheesh! Where in the Constitution have you found the phrase "state's rights"? Of course the issue of our uneneumerated rights was left up to the people and the states, THAT CHANGED with the 14th Amendment. That amendment took power away from the states and gave it directly to the people with Congress as our protector against state infringement.

Ask any law professor, and they will tell you how weak the textual support is for Substantive Due Process is, no matter what their political beliefs.

When the Framers said no one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process (5th Amendment), did they mean Congress can write laws outlawing your life, liberty and property? No, they meant Congress could not take these from you without the constitutional authority which includes trial by jury. Substantive due process deals with whether or not the Congress has the constitutional authority to take our rights by writing future laws.

It's a Bill of Attainder, so no.

I'll rephrase my question. If Congress wanted you dead, can the Congress write a law saying you can't live and then - after a trial - execute you for living?

[Lincoln]

I really do not know what Santorum believes as far as imposing his religious beliefs on others. He certainly does however have the right to express his support for a legal argument before the Supreme Court. The intolerance is from the gay camp. They are opposing the expression of his opinion. I think someone called those types of people "thought police."

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I see where you are headed, but why should the state accept all types of tradition? Why should a secular state approve of a Muslim tradition, or a Mormon tradition in society?

I think the question should be more 'Why should they not accept Muslim/mormon/Christian/Jewish tradition in society.' Marriage and traditions like Channuka, should all be accepted because they are consensual and they do not infringe on the rights of others to practice their own religion. Traditions such as the Sharia Law should not be an acceptable way of resolving disputes because that law is a religious law and its inclusion will make the government no longer secular.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

A right to privacy that allows freedom from the government in the bedroom cannot prohibit polygamy except for good (compelling) reason.

Where in the Constitution did you find "except for a good (compelling) reason? Does the 1st Amendment begin with the words, "Congress shall make no law, except with a good reason"?

Obiwan -

Polygamy is outside of the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Both polygamy and bigamy fall outside this definition.

"Traditional definition"? Don't you mean biblical (NT)? Face it, the reason bygamy and polygamy are illegal is because "Christians" decided to use violence to impose their religion on the rest of us, even some people who claim to be Christians - the Mormons.

I see where you are headed, but why should the state accept all types of tradition? Why should a secular state approve of a Muslim tradition, or a Mormon tradition in society?

Freedom. It's not about approving of traditions, it's about allowing them because people are free. I don't approve of people praying in public for the reason Jesus condemned the practice, but it should be allowed in the name of freedom.

[Ben Kenobi]

Korn:

Are adultery and incest crimes in the same way sodomy is?

AFAIK, incest has similar punishments, but not adultery.

"Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "

Sorry, not what I meant by sexual practice. Practice implies action. You will always have lusts to deal with that you should not act upon. Christianity helps you to deal with this, to understand why you act in the way that you do. When you learn this, you will gain greater control over your actions.

Secondly, should crimes in the heart be punished by society in the same way as crimes of action? No. So this point is irrelevent to the question of what should we do about sodomy.

Berzerker:

Taking "getting government out of the bedroom" out of it's context as you've done, then we could argue government can regulate or ban ALL activities in the bedroom. But if we keep the phrase within it's obvious context, we don't mean a right to murder or assault people in our bedrooms.

You highlight an important difference between sodomy and polygamy.

The state does have the right to regulate marriage, because marriage is a social institution recognised by the state.

Sodomy is quite different, as sex between two men.

This right to intervene wrt marriage means that bigamy and polygamy fall outside the 'privacy' concerns with sodomy, hence Santorium's arguments fall apart.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

I really do not know what Santorum believes as far as imposing his religious beliefs on others.

Isn't it obvious? He's a catholic and believes he can use violence to force the rest of us to behave in accordance with his religious beliefs (at least when he can get away with it).

He certainly does however have the right to express his support for a legal argument before the Supreme Court.

He gave up that right when he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the legal argument he supports is unconstitutional.

The intolerance is from the gay camp.

WTF? Are you nuts? He advocates punishing people for having sex without his approval and you accuse his victims of intolerance?

They are opposing the expression of his opinion.

So he can express his opinion but they can't?

I think someone called those types of people "thought police."

Is Santorum being arrested for expressing his opinion? No, but he wants them arrested.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bezerker, up high!

[Lincoln]

"He gave up that right when he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the legal argument he supports is unconstitutional."

This is a real stretch. He thinks his argument is constitutional. Is he entitled to his opinion or not?