If the Bible is not the foundation of right and wrong...what is?
The continued controversy over Gay Rights and Homosexuality marriage is a rejection of the Bible. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Saturday, August 14, 2010
If the Court decision to reverse the referdum in California stands, the decision will not only represent a major defeat for the idea of self-rule, but will continue America down the road away from the Bible as the foundation for its moral center.
The usurption of power by the Court on this very controversial issue, where every state referendum has defeated the concept of Gay Rights by large marginsplaces serious doubt about whether the people of this nation govern, or whether a tiny judicial elite dictate our nation's policies. America may not havekings, but this decision clearly illustrates the unrestrained power of the judiciary ... more then equal to any king of the past.
And second, and even more important about the nature of the American nation, is the Court's decision to once again set aside the Bible as the foundation of morality in this nation. Roe v. Wade did it, and this decision does it. Like the people in the old Testament, the Courts in America are worshipping a golden calf, their own power.
If Gay rights are ok, why not polygomy, why not man - child relationships, why not any contrivance as being worthy of marriage?
The system which governs America seems incapable of providing Christian leaders.
Secession continue s to reveal itself as the rising solution to the political lunacy of our time.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Are you illiterate? You seem incapable of catching even simple typos and spelling errors in your own prose. Perhaps your poor command of English is why you have such narrow views.
"If Gay rights are ok, why not polygomy, why not man - child relationships, why not any contrivance as being worthy of marriage?"
The answer is simple to anyone who has actually opened their eyes.
1. The state has no business in the business of marriage.
2. Any relationship is ok as long as "agressive force" is not used to coerce actors.
That is why any arrangement is only the participants concern other than your mention of man/child, which is a use of agressive force on a child [children do not have the ability to interpret harm at the same level as adults].
Your incessant need to control other people's action is also agressive force and miles away from the Libertarian worldview.
Posted By: gmorris70
Date: August 18, 2010 02:37:42 PM
The good thing about the Christan right is they do not believe in the Constitution when it comes to them. They believe that all other religions do not have Religious freedom. We should support them. Maybe someday we will not allow any religion to have Constitutional Freedoms. We could Tax them and our deficit would go down.
I don't believe the Bible is the foundation of right and wrong. Like Plato and Aristotle, I believe that right and wrong are fundamental meta-ethical principles (applied in the form of moral principles to our universe because of the way it is constructed). God, by definition, knows all of these principles, and the Bible is his way of making sure we know them as well.
While I agree that homosexual marriage is a rejection of the Bible, the more important political problem is that it is the rejection of the universal (I use the philosophical word here, as opposed to particular) concept of marriage which, by definition, requires both a husband and a wife, and has been recognized as such by hundreds of religions and thousands of cultures, across thousands of years.
I'm not sure the State should be in the business of marriage at all, but if it is, it ought to at least get the meaning of the word right. Better yet, would be being neutral about marriage and just giving a civil union contract to any person or group of people that wanted one regardless of gender or blood relation.
Posted By: BusterSiren
Date: September 25, 2010 10:02:45 PM
"If Gay rights are ok, why not polygomy, why not man - child relationships, why not any contrivance as being worthy of marriage?"
The answer is simple to anyone who has actually opened their eyes.
1. The state has no business in the business of marriage.
2. Any relationship is ok as long as "agressive force" is not used to coerce actors.
That is why any arrangement is only the participants concern other than your mention of man/child, which is a use of agressive force on a child [children do not have the ability to interpret harm at the same level as adults].
Your incessant need to control other people's action is also agressive force and miles away from the Libertarian worldview.
Guess what genius -- if the state's not involved in marriage then only Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists will be able to get married. All Atheists which includes most gays, will be completely unable to get married. Don't you get it? There's a reason the state's involved. And it has nothing to do with a need to control other people's lives.
And by the way, no gay groups are asking for the state to get uninvolved. They're asking for the state to get MORE involved!
Posted By: BusterSiren
Date: September 25, 2010 10:08:12 PM
I'm not sure the State should be in the business of marriage at all, but if it is, it ought to at least get the meaning of the word right. Better yet, would be being neutral about marriage and just giving a civil union contract to any person or group of people that wanted one regardless of gender or blood relation.
Dan, that all sounds good in theory and I even quite agree with you on a few things here. But your last paragraph about the state not being involved and just giving a marriage contract to anyone who wants one... did you guys ever stop to consider there might be a reason we've ended up in our present situation with regards to the government and marriage? Did anyone ever stop to wonder what in the world could have brought us to a point where government does have some say in marriage?
I would submit to you that back when anybody and everybody could marry whoever or whatever they wanted, that society decided that's not such a great thing. men marrying cows (and not just the human kind!), men marrying men, men marrying children, men marrying many women... do you get the gist here? Men, men, men. Men are always in control of these things and sometimes women or children are very hurt by it.
Why do you think polygamy which used to exist pretty much everywhere eventually came to an end? Could it be that societies finally recognized the tremendous harm that's done to women, children and families through that evil system.
Yes, there's a reason why government's involved in marriage. And you really don't want to have to find out why for yourself! We're all much better off leaving thigns the way they are.
Posted By: Walt
Date: October 19, 2010 08:33:17 PM
Guess what genius -- if the state's not involved in marriage then only Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists will be able to get married. All Atheists which includes most gays, will be completely unable to get married. Don't you get it? There's a reason the state's involved. And it has nothing to do with a need to control other people's lives.
And by the way, no gay groups are asking for the state to get uninvolved. They're asking for the state to get MORE involved!
Nonsense. My wife and I are not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist. We don't fit any of your categories. Yet, we managed to get married anyway, and we would have gladly done so without the state's involvement. What you don't seem to understand is that our marriage is between the two of us. The notion that we must require either religious or state sanction in order for our marriage to mean to us what it is...well, the notion is offensive, to say the least! Real marriages require neither priests nor politicians nor judges.
