[CS-FSLUG] Re: Activist Republican Judge Says CA Marriage LawUnconstitutional

[Andrew Minerd]

Aaron,

I believe you're contradicting yourself. Just quickly:

- You claim that government should be based upon "no divine law", yet you claim individuals have rights: a shamelessly "divine" theory stemming directly from the notion that man was created by God, in His image.

- You argue to protect the rights of the minority, however, in the same breath, you claim that the government is designed to cater torwards the majority's "demonstrable interest".

- You warn that, should the government recognize God, it will dictate on His behalf, yet you allow the government to dictate what is good for the majority - at the cost of personal rights, mind you - as long as they have a study backing it up.

Well, that's it for this outburst. :-)

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lehmann <lehmanap at lehmanap.dyndns.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:08:18 
To:"A Christian virtual Free Software and Linux Users Group."<Christiansource at ofb.biz>
Subject: Re: [CS-FSLUG] Re: Activist Republican Judge Says CA Marriage Law
	Unconstitutional

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:16:26AM +0000, timbrown at ichristian.com wrote:
> Well, we know from what Paul wrote in Romans that God put those in 
> authority over us in the  position they are in. In its context, it's 
> talking about the rule of law. Since the inception of our country, it has 
> been commonly accepted that sodomy was wrong. Yet Texas struck down sodomy 
> laws a year back or so.
> 
> I guess my question is, based on the fact that God puts people in power to 
> make laws and thus control wrong behavior, is it not only logical to EXPECT 
> laws based on some form of morality? 

It is logical that they would happen, but not necesarily that they would
be a good idea.  There seem to be two classes of laws given in the
Bible: laws about Man's behavior toward Man, and laws regarding Man's
behavior toward God.  Murder and theft are obviously man v. man,
primarily.  So is purjury.  Fornication, although it takes two to do it,
is really primarily a man v. God one, as it infringes upon God's right
to bless the union of people.  Adultery is a mix, as it is both
fornication and a purjure of the marriage vow.

Where I'm going with this is that the man v. man one's are demonstrable;
it can be shown that there is an injured party.  Immortal and wise
though He may be, God is also invisible, and difficult to bring before a
court as the injured party.

At any rate, there's a fairly important commandment about what religion
one is to have.  If the government were run by the Mosaic code, we would
be expected to convert to Judaism, or be stoned.  Unless you think we
could prove in a court of law against a truly unbiased jury (if we could
find one) that Jesus Christ truly IS God...  And that has historically
been a tall order.

Besides, people are bad at dishing out suitable punishment.  There are
very few crimes which we have a truly just punishment for, even among
the obvious ones.  Making homosexual marriage a crime (and that is what
it means for the law to deem something 'unacceptable in society') would
necesitate a system of punishment.  The current "punishment" of being
homosexual would seem to me to be more than enough.

> Besides -- the laws, as far as I know, don't say it is 'sin', they say it 
> is unacceptable in our culture...specifically that "a marriage is a union 
> between a man and a woman". That is not a reference to religion per se. 

True.  Why is it unacceptable.  Tradition?  There have been lots of
traditions which have been tooppled, because they were bad, and it hurt
to see them go.  The current tradition of homosexuality (sodomy,
although properly a combination of fellatio and buggery, I believe, has
come to mean only the latter, and not too many people believe the former
is wrong anyway) being wrong is just that, a tradition.  Do you really
WANT the government dictating sexual mores?

> 
> I suppose my most pointed question would be if it's not the government's 
> job to 'convict of sin' why can't we go to the logical conclusion that they 
> have no right to speak on other things that are sin...such as murder? 
> 
> (This isn't aimed at you, Aaron) It's funny; all these activists want the 
> 10 commandments out of the public arena...yet they don't want the crime 
> that the 10 commandments condemn...such as murder and theft. It's not ok to 
> murder but you can't say "Thou Shalt Not Kill". 

Well, since our government is based on no divine law, the only reason to
put them up would be as a monument to the history of civilization and
law.  At which point, we need to hang up monuments to the Code of
Hammurapi, and there's probably quite a few epochal sayings of Mohammed,
and we can't forget the Bhagvad Gita, and I bet there's some old
writings of Horace and Homer, and Plato that would be good, and while
we're at it...

Laying aside the fact that we probably won't agree with everything
that's posted, I really think our justice system has better matters to
tend to.

> 
> Twisted thinking. 
> 
> Anyway Aaron, Let's remove same-sex marriage from the mix. Replace it with 
> the word 'murder'. Would you use the same argument? The Ten Commandments 
> were put in force by God to show the sinfulness of the human heart and the 
> need for the Savior. If we dump the 10 Commandments from the public arena, 
> we nullify one more thing that the Spirit uses to convict of sin! 

The 10 commandments don't speak about homosexuality.  As far as murder,
the government exists to protect the rights of its citizens.  Murder,
rape, theft, cutting someone off at an intersection... these are all one
person infringing upon your rights (not to say I believe people have the
moral right to murder, but where nothing is forbidden, everything is
permitted).  Occasionally the government curtails what would ordinarily
be the right of an individual, such as not shouting "Fire" in a crowded
building, speed limits, and stops signs, for the public good.  They also
curtail the rights of vendors of products, forcing them to meet quality
test and sometimes list ingredients, and not to lie about likely side
effects of ingestibles.  There have been times when a person was even
forced to do something they would not ordinarily do, in the case of a
draft.

The basic reason for all of these government actions is this:  It was in
the demonstrable interest of the public good.  If you can show me
evidence that homosexual marriage is detrimental to the public good,
that can be recognized by a government that does not accept God as a
higher authority, I'll switch sides.

It is vital however, that the government NOT recognize God.  The minute
it does, it will start to speak on his behalf.  It will probably begin
by saying things that God's people have been saying, and have been
looked down on for for a long time.  Then, it will say less pleasant
things.  Before long, it will be breathing hellfire in the name of God,
and all of public Christendom will have to support it, because it's
gotten so many good things from this God-fearing new regime, and it
doesn't want to end up in the position of all the "heathen" religions
that have already been stepped on.

Beware, Focus on the Family.  Supporting the government in its move
against homosexuals is the first step toward supporting its move to
mandatory sterilization for the genetically disabled.

> What of the government deciding to use another standard? They already 
> are...it's called moral relativism. 

I know.  And this is bd.  But if there's anything good about the fact
that they're following a different paradime from us, its that they can't
define our paradime.

> Don't misread what I'm saying, I'm not attacking you one bit. Just trying 
> to express myself and not incredibly good at it. :) 

No problem, Tim.

Aaron Lehmann

_______________________________________________
ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
Christiansource at ofb.biz
http://cs.uninetsolutions.com

Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.