A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BOHICA! Weiner's Bill to Restrict GA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 10th 04, 05:55 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 05:59 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 08:00 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 08:19 PM
Gig Giacona
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 10th 04, 09:14 PM
W P Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 10:09 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 10:10 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 10:18 PM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 10th 04, 10:47 PM
Peter Gottlieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old September 10th 04, 10:49 PM
Peter Gottlieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:15 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 06:13 PM
Aviation Conspiracy: Concorde Finally Goes Bust!!! Larry Fransson General Aviation 10 November 11th 03 06:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.