Should sins be illegal? I don't think so.

 

I believe a fundamental principal of religion is free will. A person chooses to follow his or her religious beliefs and to abide by his or her religion's teachings.

 

When Christians use the threat of law to get people to follow Christian beliefs, aren't they taking free will out of the whole process? If I disagree in my heart and mind 100% with Christian beliefs, but comply with Christian teachings only because I don't want to go to jail, am I saved? Will I get into Heaven? I don't think so.

 

My view on this issue is similar to govt legislation attempting to regulate how I live my life: namely, educate but don't legislate. I think, for example, the NY city govt should educate people on the harm of drinking huge quantities of sugary softdrinks. Ban them? No way. I've got zero problem with Christian leaders preaching and advocating their interpretation of the Bible. They should not attempt to turn those interpretations in civil law in my opinion. If people choose using their free will choose not to sin, I believe God will judge them favorably. I do not believe God will look down favorably on those that don't sin only because sinning is a civil crime.

 

As a young Marine officer years ago, I was told by a grizzled old Master Sergeant: Lt, you can force your enlisted to comply with your orders. It's the law because of your rank. But if you truly want to lead them, you'll have to convince them, by your actions and leadership, to follow you. If you can do that, then and only then, will you be a Marine Officer.

 

If religious leaders want people to truly follow God and not sin, it won't be because sins are illegal. It will be because those religious leaders have educated people on how they can voluntarily follow Christianity's teachings.

 

And to the point of polygamy: I'm not interested in the concept. No thanks. But I do not think it should be a crime.

 

Help me with something, ln. From a legal perspective would it be good to judicially define marriage (whether it be between 2 individual people or however you see it playing out), but it does not lead to this "slippery slope" theory everyone keeps talking about. If it is defined under the law with no wiggle room isn't that a good thing? I think people often go to doomsday prepper mode once something is proposed to combat it. I think about all of these alcohol votes across the state and locally. People were saying there will be people laying in the streets, rampant prostitution, and that the safety of our children is at stake. Obviously none of those things happen, just trying to draw a parallel here.

Help me with something, ln. From a legal perspective would it be good to judicially define marriage (whether it be between 2 individual people or however you see it playing out), but it does not lead to this "slippery slope" theory everyone keeps talking about. If it is defined under the law with no wiggle room isn't that a good thing? I think people often go to doomsday prepper mode once something is proposed to combat it. I think about all of these alcohol votes across the state and locally. People were saying there will be people laying in the streets, rampant prostitution, and that the safety of our children is at stake. Obviously none of those things happen, just trying to draw a parallel here.

 

Would defining it be a good thing? I don't know. For purposes of understanding me, I have very strong libertarian beliefs. In my simple brain, in order for me to be on board with any law, there must some strong societal need that can only be achieved by that law if it restricts my liberties.

 

Is there a societal need that could only be accomplished by defining marriage as between a man and a woman? I believe that families are critically important to society. No doubt about that. But I'm not convinced that a family can only be comprised of a male Dad and a female Mom competently raising children and teaching children the values that must be taught to them.

 

I realize that same sex marraiges violate some folks' religious beliefs and I'm totally understanding of that. But I'm not sure how society is harmed by same sex marraiges. I've haven't spent a lot of time considering the ramifications of same sex marraiges on society, but would be interested in reading others' thoughts on that issue. How would polygamy be harmful to society?

Would defining it be a good thing? I don't know. For purposes of understanding me, I have very strong libertarian beliefs. In my simple brain, in order for me to be on board with any law, there must some strong societal need that can only be achieved by that law if it restricts my liberties.

 

Is there a societal need that could only be accomplished by defining marriage as between a man and a woman? I believe that families are critically important to society. No doubt about that. But I'm not convinced that a family can only be comprised of a male Dad and a female Mom competently raising children and teaching children the values that must be taught to them.

 

I realize that same sex marraiges violate some folks' religious beliefs and I'm totally understanding of that. But I'm not sure how society is harmed by same sex marraiges. I've haven't spent a lot of time considering the ramifications of same sex marraiges on society, but would be interested in reading others' thoughts on that issue. How would polygamy be harmful to society?

I am more just talking from a legal perspective, personal beliefs aside. No matter how you define it, it does not lead down this "slippery slope" does it?

How would polygamy be harmful to society?

 

In the article linked above, the advocate of legalized gay marriage states that plural marriage/polygamy almost always involves a man with multiple wives. He continues that such relationships on a large scale would disrupt the approximately 50:50 male female population of available mates denying many men the ability to marry. While it is true that in small fundamentalist mormon communities this does happen quite often, polygamy would have to become rather common for this to occur on a large scale.

In the article linked above, the advocate of legalized gay marriage states that plural marriage/polygamy almost always involves a man with multiple wives. He continues that such relationships on a large scale would disrupt the approximately 50:50 male female population of available mates denying many men the ability to marry. While it is true that in small fundamentalist mormon communities this does happen quite often, polygamy would have to become rather common for this to occur on a large scale.

 

Thx Bert. I'm not on board with the advocate's rationale.

I am more just talking from a legal perspective, personal beliefs aside. No matter how you define it, it does not lead down this "slippery slope" does it?

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking: if by not defining marriage as between a woman and a man the result will be, due to the slippery slope, men being able to marry multiple women or women being able to marry multiple men? I can see the legal argument being made that if marriage isn't defined as just between a man and a woman, that polygamy should be legalized. But unless I learn of compelling reasons why polygamy would be harmful to society, I don't have any problem with polygamy being legalized. Polygamy is surely a sin in the eyes of some, and I'm again fine with that, but I don't think we should equate sins with crimes. A crime to me is an action by one that causes harm to another. As long as polygamy is between consenting adults, I'm not sure anyone is being harmed. Heck, if a man has 3 or 4 live in girlfriends that he's not married to but receives benefits from each and all (and I'm not just talking sex here), is the relationship criminal? It wouldn't be in my definition of a crime.

Would defining it be a good thing? I don't know. For purposes of understanding me, I have very strong libertarian beliefs. In my simple brain, in order for me to be on board with any law, there must some strong societal need that can only be achieved by that law if it restricts my liberties.

 

Is there a societal need that could only be accomplished by defining marriage as between a man and a woman? I believe that families are critically important to society. No doubt about that. But I'm not convinced that a family can only be comprised of a male Dad and a female Mom competently raising children and teaching children the values that must be taught to them.

 

I realize that same sex marraiges violate some folks' religious beliefs and I'm totally understanding of that. But I'm not sure how society is harmed by same sex marraiges. I've haven't spent a lot of time considering the ramifications of same sex marraiges on society, but would be interested in reading others' thoughts on that issue. How would polygamy be harmful to society?

 

This.