-
I have no problem with morality defining public laws.
But these issues really aren’t public, except for the fact the government has made them so.
I don’t want to know what kind of things my neighbors are doing in their own bedrooms, whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, or other. I just don’t want to know. Some of those things, honestly, disgust me…but what the hell does my opinion matter? To each their own.
Now, as for pornography on primetime, indecent exposure, etc., well , those affect the public at large, a way that private sexual orientation does not.
As for marrying someone in one’s own family…again, you can actually make an argument that affects the public, because any children produced from such a union is a problem. I agree that this is harder case to make than public exposure and such, but I think I can still make a valid argument that the public arena has a right to comment on such things.
However, when it comes to private relationships, I cannot see the government interest. This is big government, conservative style. When conservatives talk about limited government, why isn’t this included?
I truly believe in limited government. I think governments power and scale should be limited to what is necessary only. Faith based morality, and non faith based morality, will always have a say in government; but government should not have absolute power to dictate anything; that is my real point. Government’s power should be restricted, and limited.
