Legislating Morality

[Ch. 12]

Archangel Gabriel appointed me representative, I think it’s only for this year though? I'll get back to you on that.

Guess we all now know who is taking the expressway to hell. Your blashpemy is atrocious. Why not just call yourself "God" and be done with it? What a hypocritical freak.

 

[local 12 proud]

Well, at least you're halfway there. But how exactly does having a parade affect "innocent children???" Do you actually think that they're gonna say "Oh mommy, what a cool parade! I think I want to be gay!" Expressing an opinion in a parade is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. You don't want your kids to be "corrupted" 🙄 , dont' take them near the parade!

Besides, being in a gay pride parade isn't anywhere nearly as despicable as that "church group" out of Mi.ssouri that pickets at funerals of Matthew Shepard, Barry Goldwater, and many others. But, they also have the right to speak their mind.

Its not the 'parade' in and of itself, its the scantly attire and the sexual conotations that seem to be the main message, I dont care to see transvestites, lesbian dikes, pansy boys dancing down the main boulevard playing grab Arse and flaunting their affection for the whole world to see. If a man chooses to ride the hairy caboose thats his choice but keep your lust in your private bedroom is all im saying. People should'nt have to make their children come inside from playing because they fear their little ones impressionable minds might be seared.

I dont believe its the Governments function to regulate every aspect of our lives and truthfully marriage between two consenting adults is a personal matter which does'nt belong in the courts. They will live with their actions and as long as it does'nt infringe on my life or society In general I really don't care.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Its not the 'parade' in and of itself, its the scantly attire and the sexual conotations that seem to be the main message, I dont care to see transvestites, lesbian dikes, pansy boys dancing down the main boulevard playing grab Arse and flaunting their affection for the whole world to see. If a man chooses to ride the hairy caboose thats his choice but keep your lust in your private bedroom is all im saying. People should'nt have to make their children come inside from playing because they fear their little ones impressionable minds might be seared.

I dont believe its the Governments function to regulate every aspect of our lives and truthfully marriage between two consenting adults is a personal matter which does'nt belong in the courts. They will live with their actions and as long as it does'nt infringe on my life or society In general I really don't care.

All though I do not necessarily want to see that type of thing either, your logic would work just as well from the other side of the fence. For example, a gay person can say, "I don't want to see a male and female kissing at the park or holding hands and hugging on the sidewalk. If they want to have a heterosexual relationship in their bedroom that is fine; but don't flaunt it in front of me or my adopted children."

If we were to apply your logic equally to both hetero and homosexual relationships; we would be living in a society where we could not express any type of affection publicly. I know you are not calling for this type of system; but I am exaggerating with generalizations to make a point. My suggestion is what another poster stated earlier: If you do not want to see it; don't watch!

 

[QA4Jet-A]

700IAM... Let me get this correct. You post scriptures that say a person should not Judge or be Judged except by God. You also state that all here are 'not saved'! You know this how? Is that not passing Judgement? You have no idea of my religious background/beliefs or anyone else's for that matter. For you to post such a statement is contradictory to what you say. I, as a Christian, can accept the 'Spreading of the Gospel', if done so in an acceptable atmosphere, but not being told what it means and how I, or anyone else, am in violation of it, on an Aviation Website. My interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and my accountability are to God and only him and the same applies for everyone else in here as applicable. Have a nice day...

 

[700IAM]

700IAM... Let me get this correct. You post scriptures that say a person should not Judge or be Judged except by God. You also state that all here are 'not saved'! You know this how? Is that not passing Judgement? You have no idea of my religious background/beliefs or anyone else's for that matter. For you to post such a statement is contradictory to what you say. I, as a Christian, can accept the 'Spreading of the Gospel', if done so in an acceptable atmosphere, but not being told what it means and how I, or anyone else, am in violation of it, on an Aviation Website. My interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and my accountability are to God and only him and the same applies for everyone else in here as applicable. Have a nice day...

Yea I know...everyone you talk to is a Christian and the final court of arbitration, the Bible, is flawed because is says most are going to hell...want the verses?


What you people fail to realize is I have you thinking least you wouldn't get all fired up. I sparked something you know is factual in your very core and that will make a sane person investigate, just to make sure. If I accomplished that much, Glory Be to God!

 

[Seatacus]

What you people fail to realize is I have you thinking least you wouldn't get all fired up. I sparked something you know is factual in your very core and that will make a sane person investigate, just to make sure. If I accomplished that much, Glory Be to God!

I bet you don't even realize how many people you steer away from God with your outlandish shoutdown postings. I wonder who is going to pay for that?

You also state that all here are 'not saved'! You know this how?

He doesn't, he is delusional..............

 

[700IAM]

I bet you don't even realize how many people you steer away from God with your outlandish shoutdown postings. I wonder who is going to pay for that?
He doesn't, he is delusional..............

Your guilt is dripping and crippling, seek help ASAP.

 

[Seatacus]

Your guilt is dripping and crippling, seek help ASAP.

Now there's a snappy reply. How much time did you take coming up with that one? :down: Ooooh I feel so bad. What am I gonna do? This is typical of you. Whenever anyone calls you on what you post you just answer with a "your going to hell" kind of reply. What a tool,get some new material man. You're not even a challenge anymore.


Go ahead, give me the cut and paste shoutdown. I know, like everyone else that we are immune to them by now.

 

[Ch. 12]

Your guilt is dripping and crippling, seek help ASAP.

 

[Garfield1966]

Smores ...... mmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[rjh]

Its not the 'parade' in and of itself, its the scantly attire and the sexual conotations that seem to be the main message, I dont care to see transvestites, lesbian dikes, pansy boys dancing down the main boulevard playing grab Arse and flaunting their affection for the whole world to see. If a man chooses to ride the hairy caboose thats his choice but keep your lust in your private bedroom is all im saying. People should'nt have to make their children come inside from playing because they fear their little ones impressionable minds might be seared.

I dont believe its the Governments function to regulate every aspect of our lives and truthfully marriage between two consenting adults is a personal matter which does'nt belong in the courts. They will live with their actions and as long as it does'nt infringe on my life or society In general I really don't care.

As a previous poster said, that logic should be applied to all public displays of affection. Law-abiding adults also should not be forced to "come inside" because parents fear their children will be traumatized by seeing 2 men kiss! <gasp!> You also mention "scantly attire". If you are worried that such attire will be damaging to your kids, then you probalby shouldn't take them to the beach either.

This next part is addressed to all those that oppose same sex marriage:

I do agree with you that the government needs to stay out of most aspects of our lives, and marriage is certainly one of them. I don't quite understand why government is involved in marriage anyway. It seems to me that the reason for having a government-sanctioned marriage is there mostly for the financial reasons-taxes, health insurance, inheritance, etc. For that reason, marraige has to be available to everyone. The Constitution guarantees "equal protection under the law". If you deny financial benefits to someone just because of who they want to marry, how is that NOT unconstitutional? Some argue that marriage IS available to gay people, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Well, what would something like THAT do to the "sanctity of marriage"??

The whole argument that marriage is the foundation of society seems ridiculous to me. Yes, I agree that families are important. But how exactly does a piece of paper, along with a few words spoken by a priest or a judge, make that family stronger??

If your beliefs tell you that marriage is meant for man and woman--great, you are entitled to your beliefs. But--the government has no business enacting laws based on religious beliefs.

 

[700IAM]

Your imagination is accurate because the devil planted that image in your mind so you would get used to the reality that is your destiny.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Some argue that marriage IS available to gay people, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Well, what would something like THAT do to the "sanctity of marriage"??

That same logic was used with antimiscegenation statutes in the 60's. The states would argue: "Black people can marry, as long as they marry another black person. White people can marry, as long as they marry another white person. But a white person cannot marry a black person."

Of course, we all know, that in 1967 the Supreme Court struck these types of statutes down. Well, some people would then ask... why does the Supreme Court allow statutes that don't allow a man to marry another man; but allow a man to marry a woman?

The current status of our law places 'race' in a 'suspect class' and thus, any statutes regarding race are subject to strict scrutiny. Statutes regarding sexual orientation or same-sex marriage are considered by our courts to be in a different class that requires a less rigorous review than those dealing with race.

In my opinion, the entire marital system worked better before the legislature got heavily involved. But once the legislature got involved, it required involvement from the courts.

 

[700IAM]

That same logic was used with antimiscegenation statutes in the 60's. The states would argue: "Black people can marry, as long as they marry another black person. White people can marry, as long as they marry another white person. But a white person cannot marry a black person."

Of course, we all know, that in 1967 the Supreme Court struck these types of statutes down. Well, some people would then ask... why does the Supreme Court allow statutes that don't allow a man to marry another man; but allow a man to marry a woman?

The current status of our law places 'race' in a 'suspect class' and thus, any statutes regarding race are subject to strict scrutiny. Statutes regarding sexual orientation or same-sex marriage are considered by our courts to be in a different class that requires a less rigorous review than those dealing with race.

In my opinion, the entire marital system worked better before the legislature got heavily involved. But once the legislature got involved, it required involvement from the courts.

II Cor 6:14

 

[Garfield1966]

I have a easy fix for the whole thing but it would call out the religious freaks in this country and force them to admit their hatred for the gay community.

Marriage is for the most part a religious term and as a result a religious institution. Therefore, my proposal is that the term marriage be stricken from the law books as a ‘legal’ institution and that the term marriage carry no legal weight what so ever. Any church or religious institution can create whatever guidelines it chooses. As a result, the debate between who can or cannot get married becomes a moot issue in the political world.

In it’s place, what we commonly refer to a marriage (in legal terms) we can institute a legal contract that can be signed by any two individuals. This contract will afford those to individuals all the rights, benefits and obligations that a current ‘marriage’ require under the law. If the two people decide to end their union, the same procedures that are used to day, would apply.

Essentially, my proposal just takes the religious aspect out of the public forum and puts in back where it belongs, in religious institutions.

I have no religious affiliation and no religious beliefs and yet I am ‘married’. I would think that for those that argue that allowing marriage between same sex partners diminishes the sanctity of marriage would also feel that my actions diminished it as well. The marriage that my wife and I entered into is purely a contractual issue. The contract allows her to make decisions on my behalf should I become incapacitated for what ever reason. It affords her financial security should I die as well as a host of other rights. My devotion, love ..etc did not change from the day before we were ‘married’ to the day after we were ‘married’. It is a contractual issue. How does that help the sanctity of marriage?