If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
So the marriage Amendment is a law of morality? Funny I think of it as not
allowing the Federal Courts to make a national law saying we have to change most churches religious beliefs. Seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution, however it does say Congress shall pass no law establishing religion. If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of religious people do not agree with? I have nothing against 2 gays having a civil union, but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs and no government has the right to tell me that I have to accept it as religion. But that is what the liberal courts intend on doing. To make a person of religion accept an employee as married to a person of the same sex is a violation of the biz owners right to practice his religion as he sees fit. There is more to the issue than a gay's rights, there are everyones rights to be considered. And Constitutionally no one has the right to infringe on my religion, and that IS what liberal courts and the Ted Kennedy's of the country intend on doing. Speaking of Kennedy, is it just me or what...but how do the people of MS continue to vote a traitor "commie" (Kerry) and a man who should have went to prison for manslaughter ( Kennedy) back into office time after time. Bush can't make a decision on morals.....but it is ok for MA to make the decision for the rest of the country? "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message .net... "John Harlow" wrote in message ... Bush's attempts to legislate morality. What attempts? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is
that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of religious people do not agree with? Should have been if the courts tell us what marriage "Will Be" ....I was typing one thing and thinking another! HAHAHAHA "W P Dixon" wrote in message ... So the marriage Amendment is a law of morality? Funny I think of it as not allowing the Federal Courts to make a national law saying we have to change most churches religious beliefs. Seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution, however it does say Congress shall pass no law establishing religion. If the church tells us what marriage "WILL BE" is that not establishing religion...and one that clearly a majority of religious people do not agree with? I have nothing against 2 gays having a civil union, but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs and no government has the right to tell me that I have to accept it as religion. But that is what the liberal courts intend on doing. To make a person of religion accept an employee as married to a person of the same sex is a violation of the biz owners right to practice his religion as he sees fit. There is more to the issue than a gay's rights, there are everyones rights to be considered. And Constitutionally no one has the right to infringe on my religion, and that IS what liberal courts and the Ted Kennedy's of the country intend on doing. Speaking of Kennedy, is it just me or what...but how do the people of MS continue to vote a traitor "commie" (Kerry) and a man who should have went to prison for manslaughter ( Kennedy) back into office time after time. Bush can't make a decision on morals.....but it is ok for MA to make the decision for the rest of the country? "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message .net... "John Harlow" wrote in message ... Bush's attempts to legislate morality. What attempts? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
W P Dixon wrote:
but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others whom they may marry? Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended? - Andrew |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Long" wrote in message . .. Why do you say Democrats? I've noticed the Repubs being much more interested in what people do in their bedrooms and the privacy of their homes. Well Wiener, bills sponsor, is a Dem from NY. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Well Andrew,
The point of my entire presentation was who is the government to intrude on religion. The judges and congress do not tell people they can not wear their headscarves, but however there have been rulings that say a teacher can not wear a cross necklace in school...but the Star of David is ok. See the point, it is christianity that is under attack. And sorry but I do not know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok. The Holy Bible and the Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a minority tell the majority what the law will be.... So just trying to get you and anyone else to see there is alot more to the issue than G. W. Bush trying to play morales police. He may just be trying to stop a tyrannical judical system from doing what he has been accused of. Read our Constitution the Judical Branch has NO AUTHORITY to make laws but they insist on doing so. It is time to put the Constitution ahead of the courts. As for my religion I am an Independent, but the Bible I read is the KFV. I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights of freedom of religion? See the entire point is "It is not just a gay person's rights at stake...it is the rights of every religious person that actually believes the Bible." And in this country the majority is supposed to make the laws. Dilemma isn't it! "Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... W P Dixon wrote: but to call it marriage is blasphemy to my religious beliefs So don't do it. But by what right do you or your religion tell others whom they may marry? Or do you think that your religion (whichever one that happens to be) owns the right to define "marriage"? What about those religions that regard it as blasphemous for women to walk around w/o face coverings or with bare legs? Should they have their way too so those believers aren't offended? - Andrew |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
This from a state whose tourism slogan is... "Virgina is for Lovers!"
Michael Houghton wrote: You must not be familiar with Virginia...where Adultery is still a felony, and someone recently was prosecuted on such a charge. ...and where sodomy is still a crime, even between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
W P Dixon wrote:
And sorry but I do not know of any religion that says gay marriage is ok. So? Why should "marriage" be defined by *any* one religion? Or should "marriage" be defined as any religion permits? That is, should we permit multiple marriages in the US as permitted by some religions? The Holy Bible and the Koran state it is un natural and an abomination. Only in the US can a minority tell the majority what the law will be.... That's almost correct. The Bill of Rights, along with other measures, is designed to prevent (as much as possible) a Tyranny of the Majority. W/o this type of protection, we'd have nothing but glorified mob rule. If the majority (let's say for the sake of argument: european descendants) decided that a minority (again for the sake of argument: african descendants) should work for free, then that would be permitted...absent rules which limit the majority's ability to define law. [It's slightly more accurate to say that this is defining what the law cannot be, as opposed to what it can be.] [...] I got married before God, and to myself an abomination can not. So if you can tell me it is ok for it to happen does that not infringe on my rights of freedom of religion? I'm not sure what you mean here. Should all people be prevented from doing what is prohibited by your religion? - Andrew |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wow! Sounds just like the job description for a polititian (regardless
of party affilliation)! In fact, what do you expect from a guy who claimed under oath that he raped, pillaged, and burned, Genghis Khan style, whole villages, shot babies, made necklaces of human ears, and cut off fingers? Must be interesting to explain that to your wife: "Well, we were young and out just having a little fun. Boys will be boys, you know." But then he testifies under oath that he knew all the other GIs were doing it, too. Such omniscience! A guy like that might even order his minions to forge some documents discrediting his political opponents, though it is more likely he expects them to come up with stuff like that on their own. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"W P Dixon" wrote in message ... Does anyone else see a pattern with the Democratic Party. Seems they preach and preach about freedom, but always do their best to take it away from us against The Constitution. It's frustrating! Stop with this garbage about the Democratic party. Those wanting to take our freedoms and everything else from us come from both parties so cut the crap and be prepared to defend those rights from assault no matter which party they come from. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"john smith" wrote in message ... This from a state whose tourism slogan is... "Virgina is for Lovers!" Well, New Jersey's slogan is "The Garden State." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Indonesian Oil, current planned negotiations in Helsinki, Martti Ahtisaari / Bill Clinton / GWB / THE U.S. CIA and Henry Kissinger --- the control for oil and Indonesian oil fields - Security Police (SUPO) of Finland is trying to protect these Helsin | SecQrilious | Naval Aviation | 1 | February 7th 05 01:15 AM |
BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA | Orval Fairbairn | Home Built | 95 | September 20th 04 02:07 AM |
No Original Bill of sale. | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 0 | August 10th 04 05:09 AM |
Bill Cliton verses Rush Limbaugh | Transition Zone | Military Aviation | 14 | November 20th 03 05:13 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Concorde Finally Goes Bust!!! | Larry Fransson | General Aviation | 10 | November 11th 03 05:03 AM |