USA To Use Foreign Aid To Promote Gay Rights

[aegsm76]

Here is my bottom line on the issue.
If you redefine "marriage" to include two individuals of the same sex, then you have no argument against multiple partner marriages.
And the end of that path is madness.
I see a lot of argument on here about "liberty" and "freedom".
I see some of you who say that we as Christians should not oppose them.
Do you really believe that this is the end of the argument?

Do you believe that the government has the right to make some drugs illegal?
Do you believe the government has the right to say abortion is not ok in the third trimester?
These too are "liberty" and "freedom" issues.
I could go on with many more examples.
Amazing.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So Justice is defined as "do unto others as they did unto you, your ancestors, or people like you".

T2W - this has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. By using this argument, I should be able to go back to Georgia and kick off the people that are on the property that the U.S. government stole from my family.
Would that be justice?
Also, any black person whose ancestors were slaves should be able to make you, (assuming you are white), their slave.
That would be justice too, in your world.
Ridiculous

To answer your question I am not white.

Also I am not using justice in the same context you are. I am simply saying that when the majority forces their will upon the minority in matters of personal freedom then when the minority becomes the majority they will do the same.... Playing by the same rule book, if you will. We are called to MERCY, especially when we are in the majority. We have failed to live up to that and I can only hope that this new anti-Christian majority will be kinder to us than we have been to them.

[Aquila]

God’s word articulates justice. I’ve often pondered… every seven years slaves were to go free and the land was to be left fallow. Every 50 year Jubilee slaves were to be set free…and lands returned to the families originally issued them by Moses. No doubt such a transfer of land and property would leave those who had been gaining into a position of loosing, and those who had been loosing into a position of gaining.

I think it’s important to remember that “justice” isn’t necessarily always “fair”. It is what is “just”. For example, if you have two children and one is responsible at 12 years old you might buy them a bicycle. Yet if the second child isn’t responsible you might not buy them a bicycle when they turn 12. Why? Because the irresponsible child may ride in the street or do something to endanger themselves on the bicycle. The first thing the second child will say upon realization that they didn’t receive a bicycle at 12 years old is, “THAT’S NOT FAIR!” Of course it isn’t “fair”. But it’s “just”.

We often import our wimpy notions of fairness into our concepts of justice. Justice isn't always fair.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Here is my bottom line on the issue.
If you redefine "marriage" to include two individuals of the same sex, then you have no argument against multiple partner marriages.
And the end of that path is madness.
I see a lot of argument on here about "liberty" and "freedom".
I see some of you who say that we as Christians should not oppose them.
Do you really believe that this is the end of the argument?

I’ll present a solidly conservative libertarian perspective on this. First, who defines marriage? Some divorcees are remarried. Many would never define their union as a “marriage” in that they don’t believe divorcees can remarry after divorce. Can I define anyone else’s marriage? Can they define mine? In the Bible we see several forms of marriage, none of them necessarily condemned, and many of the most holy men of God had one form or another of these marriages:

• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother marrying her was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.

Now, the NT puts forth the ideal marriage as being monogamous because marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church. One Lord, one faith. Even those listed in Hebrews 11 as being great men of faith often had more than one wife. Even King David had multiple wives, as did his son Solomon. Think of this… when writing the Psalms or the Proverbs, either one of these holy men of God may have spent the evening with a woman who wasn’t the woman he spent the evening with prior. And it had no bearing on their “holiness” before God...as long as the union was legal and binding.

Now, if in a free society people choose to enter polygamous marriages, what business is it of mine? Is it my job to vote and use the police force of GOVERNMENT to control other people from doing what I disagree with? They may live together as a family anyway. Do I support banning any residence with more than two adults (male and female) just to try to use GOVERNMENT to prevent this? As for me, and my home, we will obey the Word of God. Government isn’t the answer. In fact…liberty is and I’ll show you why.

First, Christians should oppose sin. Condemn sin. But we do it selectively when it comes to GOVERNMENT. Why? We have divorcees in our churches who are married and allowed full fellowship…when biblically they NEVER had the right to remarry according to many theologians. Yet we give a wimpy, “God will forgive.” attitude and move about our day. However, historically, if two persons of a different race wished to marry… we’d oppose it socially and politically. Why? We wanted to use the police force of GOVERNMENT to punish those we disagree with. And we do it today also. Do I agree with gay marriage? Emphatically NO. However, I disagree with lowering the Christian ethos to dependence upon GOVERNMENT to put a gun to people’s heads and MAKE them live as we desire them to. I’d rather leave such work to the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe that the government has the right to make some drugs illegal?
Do you believe the government has the right to say abortion is not ok in the third trimester?
These too are "liberty" and "freedom" issues.
I could go on with many more examples.
Amazing

Ah…but you’ve forgotten the proper role of government over a free people. Government’s role is to protect the boarders, life, liberty, and property. Beyond this the GOVERNMENT should have no say. No power. If gay marriage threatened the integrity of our nation, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the lives of innocent citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the liberty of free citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the property of free citizens, we should expect GOVERNMENT to intervene.

I know gays living down the street from me. They live together. And they have yet to endanger the boarders, my life, my liberty, or my property. In fact, their part of the neighborhood watch and have helped to protect my property (home and personal effects).

Drugs are a different animal. Drugs are highly addictive and are used to enslave drug users. Many women have been forced into prostitution, adult entertainment, and human slavery to support their drug addiction. Addicts are rarely rational individuals. They will rob, steal, and even kill to gain the resources necessary to support their habit. Therefore drugs are a threat to the life, liberty, and property of a free people.

As for abortion, if life begins at conception, we should expect the government to protect said life.

The role of government is to protect the boarders and the life, liberty, and property of citizens. Government’s role is not to enforce a given “morality” based upon a specific religious interpretation upon citizens. We run a serious danger when we allow it to do so. Why? It is because in a democratic republic wherein officials are elected to represent the governed the pendulum of power often swings the other way. Consider this… Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Do we allow the GOVERNMENT to legislate social morality based upon religious principle or religious interpretation? It might sound like a good idea… as long as the majority of voting citizens are Christian. However, within the U.S. there are already Islamic political action committees forming. Their goal is to consolidate an Islamic voting block as they have in England and other European nations for the purpose of officially recognizing and even enforcing Islamic law. Please know this… a principled and Constitutional form of LIBERTY will stop them cold. But that means that we might have to allow for liberty in areas wherein we strongly disagree… just to set the precedent of preventing GOVERNMENT from becoming a tool to enforce religious moralities.

I promised above to demonstrate how liberty is the solution. As assuredly as there will be gay marriage…there will be gay divorce. The divorce rate among gay couples in foreign countries is far greater than non-gay couples. For example, a study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men (Andersson, Gunnar [February 2006]. The Demographics of Same-Sex "Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden. 43. Demography. pp. 79–98.) Allowing them to marry might be the greatest weapon we have AGAINST their lifestyle. Because as a greater number of these marriages go up in flames… we can assail the health of a normal heterosexual marriage with a scientific argument as it relates to the fabric of our society. Frankly, it will cause traditional marriage to shine as a more stable and enduring institution. It’s like free market economics. Let them put their product on the social stage next to traditional marriage. I assure you that our society will not like the taste of what they have to offer and you’ll notice something that’s been seen in other countries…after the initial boom in gay marriages... you’ll begin to see more and more gays shy away from them and the legal, social, and emotional problems they present. Also society will not take them very seriously and a “gay marriage” will not be regarded as a civil rights victory… but rather like a freakish train wreck. You’ll see a growing number of gays that don’t wish to get “entangled” in gay marriage. Until such liberty is granted to evaluate their social proposal in all it’s ugliness… this will continue to be a civil rights battle against two ideals and two opinions.

Liberty is a solution. Just as GOVERNMENT wrecks the economy when it intervenes to legislate business… GOVERNMENT will ultimately only cause more damage socially as we attempt to use it as a weapon to socially engineer society to control and/or punish those we don’t agree with.

So I propose that we them the liberties they think they so desperately want right now. They’ll learn that the problems are endemic to their moral choices, not social status. Yet, we use all time and resources at our disposal to protect our rights to speech and conscience within our churches.

I hope that offers a little perspective from my position.

If we successfully defeat their "civil rights movement". I'll be pleasantly surprised. I just don't see it happening. Courts have rarely ruled to curtail personal liberties. As long as it remains a civil rights issue, I see this as a loosing battle.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

To answer your question I am not white.

Also I am not using justice in the same context you are. I am simply saying that when the majority forces their will upon the minority in matters of personal freedom then when the minority becomes the majority they will do the same.... Playing by the same rule book, if you will. We are called to MERCY, especially when we are in the majority. We have failed to live up to that and I can only hope that this new anti-Christian majority will be kinder to us than we have been to them.

What personal freedom does the current minority not have?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I’ll present a solidly conservative libertarian perspective on this. First, who defines marriage? Some divorcees are remarried. Many would never define their union as a “marriage” in that they don’t believe divorcees can remarry after divorce. Can I define anyone else’s marriage? Can they define mine? In the Bible we see several forms of marriage, none of them necessarily condemned, and many of the most holy men of God had one form or another of these marriages:

• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother marrying her was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.

Now, the NT puts forth the ideal marriage as being monogamous because marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church. One Lord, one faith. Even those listed in Hebrews 11 as being great men of faith often had more than one wife. Even King David had multiple wives, as did his son Solomon. Think of this… when writing the Psalms or the Proverbs, either one of these holy men of God may have spent the evening with a woman who wasn’t the woman he spent the evening with prior. And it had no bearing on their “holiness” before God...as long as the union was legal and binding.

Now, if in a free society people choose to enter polygamous marriages, what business is it of mine? Is it my job to vote and use the police force of GOVERNMENT to control other people from doing what I disagree with? They may live together as a family anyway. Do I support banning any residence with more than two adults (male and female) just to try to use GOVERNMENT to prevent this? As for me, and my home, we will obey the Word of God. Government isn’t the answer. In fact…liberty is and I’ll show you why.

First, Christians should oppose sin. Condemn sin. But we do it selectively when it comes to GOVERNMENT. Why? We have divorcees in our churches who are married and allowed full fellowship…when biblically they NEVER had the right to remarry according to many theologians. Yet we give a wimpy, “God will forgive.” attitude and move about our day. However, historically, if two persons of a different race wished to marry… we’d oppose it socially and politically. Why? We wanted to use the police force of GOVERNMENT to punish those we disagree with. And we do it today also. Do I agree with gay marriage? Emphatically NO. However, I disagree with lowering the Christian ethos to dependence upon GOVERNMENT to put a gun to people’s heads and MAKE them live as we desire them to. I’d rather leave such work to the Holy Spirit.



Ah…but you’ve forgotten the proper role of government over a free people. Government’s role is to protect the boarders, life, liberty, and property. Beyond this the GOVERNMENT should have no say. No power. If gay marriage threatened the integrity of our nation, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the lives of innocent citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the liberty of free citizens, we should expect the GOVERNMENT to intervene. If gay marriage endangered the property of free citizens, we should expect GOVERNMENT to intervene.

I know gays living down the street from me. They live together. And they have yet to endanger the boarders, my life, my liberty, or my property. In fact, their part of the neighborhood watch and have helped to protect my property (home and personal effects).

Drugs are a different animal. Drugs are highly addictive and are used to enslave drug users. Many women have been forced into prostitution, adult entertainment, and human slavery to support their drug addiction. Addicts are rarely rational individuals. They will rob, steal, and even kill to gain the resources necessary to support their habit. Therefore drugs are a threat to the life, liberty, and property of a free people.

As for abortion, if life begins at conception, we should expect the government to protect said life.

The role of government is to protect the boarders and the life, liberty, and property of citizens. Government’s role is not to enforce a given “morality” based upon a specific religious interpretation upon citizens. We run a serious danger when we allow it to do so. Why? It is because in a democratic republic wherein officials are elected to represent the governed the pendulum of power often swings the other way. Consider this… Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Do we allow the GOVERNMENT to legislate social morality based upon religious principle or religious interpretation? It might sound like a good idea… as long as the majority of voting citizens are Christian. However, within the U.S. there are already Islamic political action committees forming. Their goal is to consolidate an Islamic voting block as they have in England and other European nations for the purpose of officially recognizing and even enforcing Islamic law. Please know this… a principled and Constitutional form of LIBERTY will stop them cold. But that means that we might have to allow for liberty in areas wherein we strongly disagree… just to set the precedent of preventing GOVERNMENT from becoming a tool to enforce religious moralities.

I promised above to demonstrate how liberty is the solution. As assuredly as there will be gay marriage…there will be gay divorce. The divorce rate among gay couples in foreign countries is far greater than non-gay couples. For example, a study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men (Andersson, Gunnar [February 2006]. The Demographics of Same-Sex "Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden. 43. Demography. pp. 79–98.) Allowing them to marry might be the greatest weapon we have AGAINST their lifestyle. Because as a greater number of these marriages go up in flames… we can assail the health of a normal heterosexual marriage with a scientific argument as it relates to the fabric of our society. Frankly, it will cause traditional marriage to shine as a more stable and enduring institution. It’s like free market economics. Let them put their product on the social stage next to traditional marriage. I assure you that our society will not like the taste of what they have to offer and you’ll notice something that’s been seen in other countries…after the initial boom in gay marriages... you’ll begin to see more and more gays shy away from them and the legal, social, and emotional problems they present. Also society will not take them very seriously and a “gay marriage” will not be regarded as a civil rights victory… but rather like a freakish train wreck. You’ll see a growing number of gays that don’t wish to get “entangled” in gay marriage. Until such liberty is granted to evaluate their social proposal in all it’s ugliness… this will continue to be a civil rights battle against two ideals and two opinions.

Liberty is a solution. Just as GOVERNMENT wrecks the economy when it intervenes to legislate business… GOVERNMENT will ultimately only cause more damage socially as we attempt to use it as a weapon to socially engineer society to control and/or punish those we don’t agree with.

So I propose that we them the liberties they think they so desperately want right now. They’ll learn that the problems are endemic to their moral choices, not social status. Yet, we use all time and resources at our disposal to protect our rights to speech and conscience within our churches.

I hope that offers a little perspective from my position.

If we successfully defeat their "civil rights movement". I'll be pleasantly surprised. I just don't see it happening. Courts have rarely ruled to curtail personal liberties. As long as it remains a civil rights issue, I see this as a loosing battle.

A lot of words here Aquila and I will try to respond.
I am not a wordy kind of guy. The talent that I do have is to take available information and predict what actions we need to take. "We" being my company. But I digress.
Marriage - in our western culture it has meant one man and one woman for many years. As a matter of fact God said that was what it should mean. This has been fairly successful for western civilization. Now some want to change it. And change it without seeming to see the end result on the culture.
You believe it is actually a good thing to do this, but it will not stop with same sex or multiple partner marriages.

Now onto your point that we should not use the government to enforce our morality. You are saying that the governments laws and our morality should never match up. If any law matches up with our morality and any segment disagrees with this because they have a different morality, the law should be stricken from the books.
That is crazy.
Do we then let the Muslims then marry girls as young as they wish, because our morality is not superior to theirs?
Now to drugs. Drugs are not addictive to all individuals. So why should the government regulate this, in your world. If the government can ban drugs, why would it not ban alcohol, tobacco or even food, because some people become addicted to them?
And in your world, what would be wrong with prostitution? If it is all about personal liberty and keeping government out of the morality business, then what is wrong with prostitution? After all it's that person's body and should be their decision on what to do with it.
You cannot have a government without having laws that are based in some morality. Most of our laws are based in Christian morality. If we try to shift, we will fail. Look at Europe now. They are struggling with how to handle a culture that ignores their laws and doesn't have their basic sense of morality.
Too many words for me.
I have to get back to work.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A lot of words here Aquila and I will try to respond.
I am not a wordy kind of guy. The talent that I do have is to take available information and predict what actions we need to take. "We" being my company. But I digress.
Marriage - in our western culture it has meant one man and one woman for many years. As a matter of fact God said that was what it should mean. This has been fairly successful for western civilization. Now some want to change it. And change it without seeming to see the end result on the culture.
You believe it is actually a good thing to do this, but it will not stop with same sex or multiple partner marriages.

Now onto your point that we should not use the government to enforce our morality. You are saying that the governments laws and our morality should never match up. If any law matches up with our morality and any segment disagrees with this because they have a different morality, the law should be stricken from the books.
That is crazy.
Do we then let the Muslims then marry girls as young as they wish, because our morality is not superior to theirs?
Now to drugs. Drugs are not addictive to all individuals. So why should the government regulate this, in your world. If the government can ban drugs, why would it not ban alcohol, tobacco or even food, because some people become addicted to them?
And in your world, what would be wrong with prostitution? If it is all about personal liberty and keeping government out of the morality business, then what is wrong with prostitution? After all it's that person's body and should be their decision on what to do with it.
You cannot have a government without having laws that are based in some morality. Most of our laws are based in Christian morality. If we try to shift, we will fail. Look at Europe now. They are struggling with how to handle a culture that ignores their laws and doesn't have their basic sense of morality.
Too many words for me.
I have to get back to work.

Well if we are going to predict I will predict that you will not like my answers.

If you can not see that minority groups have been deprived of basic human rights you live in a bubble. Not trying to be ugly here but since you called my opinions rediculous a few posts back I am assuming you are not the overly sensitive type.

You are correct that people can become addicted to alcohol and food and can over a long course kill themselves with such. That is why government has labels on the packaging stating the calorie content and fat grams and has eduction in place to teach of the meanings of that information.

Drugs are a little different story since one can die instantly by mistake. Since the consequence of such a mistake is so irrevocably final government places stricter regulation on them. Working in medicine and having seen the consequences of medication errors I believe this is wise and government using their authority properly.

Young marriage happens all over the world. God gave the hallmark of womanhood in menarche (the first menstrual period). Societies determine if they can ready their girls to be wives and mothers before that time or not and set their bottom limits on marriage accordingly. Here in the west we value an 'innocent' childhood and delay teaching responsibilities that would prepare a girl for that transition. Many young girls continue to prove to us that they are ready for sexual activity long before parents and society are ready to help them be adults. Amish girls typically marry at 16 but some younger and make excellent wives and mothers. With our now extended requirements for education etc. it seems we are prolonging our young people marrying to the point that few girls maintain their purity to the marriage bed and getting sons through college without them stumbling into sexual sin takes a minor miracle. Fortunately God is in the miracle business.

What is wrong with prostitution? I would ask that very same question. Have you forgotten that there are states where it is legal and others where it is completely ignored. And what are the pornography, strip club, etc. businesses if not prostitution. Each is regulated but not illegal.

And this is the point... You will drive yourself absolutely nuts trying to legislate other peoples morality.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A lot of words here Aquila and I will try to respond.
I am not a wordy kind of guy. The talent that I do have is to take available information and predict what actions we need to take. "We" being my company. But I digress.
Marriage - in our western culture it has meant one man and one woman for many years. As a matter of fact God said that was what it should mean. This has been fairly successful for western civilization. Now some want to change it. And change it without seeming to see the end result on the culture.
You believe it is actually a good thing to do this, but it will not stop with same sex or multiple partner marriages.

Now onto your point that we should not use the government to enforce our morality. You are saying that the governments laws and our morality should never match up. If any law matches up with our morality and any segment disagrees with this because they have a different morality, the law should be stricken from the books.
That is crazy.
Do we then let the Muslims then marry girls as young as they wish, because our morality is not superior to theirs?
Now to drugs. Drugs are not addictive to all individuals. So why should the government regulate this, in your world. If the government can ban drugs, why would it not ban alcohol, tobacco or even food, because some people become addicted to them?
And in your world, what would be wrong with prostitution? If it is all about personal liberty and keeping government out of the morality business, then what is wrong with prostitution? After all it's that person's body and should be their decision on what to do with it.
You cannot have a government without having laws that are based in some morality. Most of our laws are based in Christian morality. If we try to shift, we will fail. Look at Europe now. They are struggling with how to handle a culture that ignores their laws and doesn't have their basic sense of morality.
Too many words for me.
I have to get back to work.

Government is to protect the boarders, life, liberty, and property. The Government is not capable of governing us morally. Look at it bro. Are you a conservative or a liberal who thinks that Government is the cure for social moral problems??? Should the Government enforce Catholic Morality or Protestant Morality?

For the record we have an age of consent to prevent the exploitation of young people. Thus laws preventing Muslims from marrying girls as young as they wish are in perfect order to protect the liberty of those young girls. However, if you believe Governmet should govern morally based upon religious morality... should Muslims become a major voting block... we'll see their morals pushed politically. That means the age of consent laws could be lowered.

You're opening the door for the very thing you're trying to prevent. We've been heatedly engaged in this culture war for well over thirty years. Homosexual rights have advanced, we've not stopped them. Don't you see... we're shooting ourselves in the foot with trying to use a worldly government to address these things.

[Aquila]

If you want to make a problem worse... get the government involved. Look at Prohibition.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Well if we are going to predict I will predict that you will not like my answers.

If you can not see that minority groups have been deprived of basic human rights you live in a bubble. Not trying to be ugly here but since you called my opinions rediculous a few posts back I am assuming you are not the overly sensitive type.

You are correct that people can become addicted to alcohol and food and can over a long course kill themselves with such. That is why government has labels on the packaging stating the calorie content and fat grams and has eduction in place to teach of the meanings of that information.

Drugs are a little different story since one can die instantly by mistake. Since the consequence of such a mistake is so irrevocably final government places stricter regulation on them. Working in medicine and having seen the consequences of medication errors I believe this is wise and government using their authority properly.

Young marriage happens all over the world. God gave the hallmark of womanhood in menarche (the first menstrual period). Societies determine if they can ready their girls to be wives and mothers before that time or not and set their bottom limits on marriage accordingly. Here in the west we value an 'innocent' childhood and delay teaching responsibilities that would prepare a girl for that transition. Many young girls continue to prove to us that they are ready for sexual activity long before parents and society are ready to help them be adults. Amish girls typically marry at 16 but some younger and make excellent wives and mothers. With our now extended requirements for education etc. it seems we are prolonging our young people marrying to the point that few girls maintain their purity to the marriage bed and getting sons through college without them stumbling into sexual sin takes a minor miracle. Fortunately God is in the miracle business.

What is wrong with prostitution? I would ask that very same question. Have you forgotten that there are states where it is legal and others where it is completely ignored. And what are the pornography, strip club, etc. businesses if not prostitution. Each is regulated but not illegal.

And this is the point... You will drive yourself absolutely nuts trying to legislate other peoples morality.

T2W - first let me say that I appreciate the debates without the name calling!
Also, your opinions are yours and I do not mean to demean them. It is my opinion that I was expressing when I said ridiculous and I am sorry if I offended you because that was not my intent.
Now, I am not trying to legislate anyone's morality. But, society has rules and regulations that are usually reflective of that society's moral code. The rules and regulations are usually developed to promote the kind of society that the government wants.
The debate is about what kind of society that we will have.
Also, when the government passes laws that "permit" certain activities, then it is a stamp of approval placed on those activities.
Let me try to address some of your points that were raised.
1. Minority group rights - it is true that many groups were discriminated against, among them my ancestors. Many of those groups were forced to conform the governments rules and laws that they disagreed with.
2. Alcohol/Food/Drugs - I have to disagree with you here. Marijuana would fall into the long term alcohol/food category with you, but it is treated the same as Heroin and other hard drugs. Other drugs such as Hydrocodone, do not instantly kill you but the government deems it within their power to regulate, as well.
3. Marital age - when I said young marriage I meant very young. In some countries girls are married as young as 5. Why do we need to impose our age limits on those cultures when they come here? We should just let them follow their culture.
4. Prostitution - even in those states where it is legal, it is very regulated. Why? If it really is their body to do with as they choose, then anyone should be able to prostitute themselves whenever they want.

I may start another thread with some basic morality questions just to satisfy my curiousity as to everyone's opinion.