Posted on 07/25/2004 1:39:37 PM PDT by familyop
You keep equating my unwillingness to change the Constitution such that gays can't marry forever with the radical leftist homosexual agenda. I don't know what rock you've been living under lately, but not all gays even have an agenda. I don't know many but I know a few, and the don't all dress up like Liza Minelli and try to make your teenage son suck on a dildo in sex-ed class. Focus, man.
I repeat- my posts have not been on whether or not homosexuality is a sin to be fought against, they have been a question of whether this should be a government fight or a religious fight. I am in favor of one but not the other.
It seems you haven't been reading my posts, but have responded to your own opinions of my posts. I don't get the Rodney King reference. Do you honestly believe that forcing other people to behave as Christians is the answer? Will doing so forestall the events from the book of the Revelations of John? Will it make everyone suddenly conform to a utopian Christian vision without the second coming of Christ? Heck, maybe He could stay home and we could fix all this on our own in the legislature! He didn't need to come here, we have it covered with a Constitutional Amendment! Why, we'll simply legislate them into compliance instead of sharing the word of God! That'll work wonders!
I know you don't get it, but my point is that with your method of using our majority status against them, we lose because our goal is to lead people to Christ, not stop them from sinning. You see, sin decreases when selfishness and self-indulgence decrease, not when somebody passes a law against it. I may not have communicated my points clearly enough.
Where the heck did I ever say there was no morality?
This ridiculous straw-man argument style of yours continues.
Here it is one last time, and it will be my last post in this idiotic thread:
I DON'T BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORAL. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHERE CHRISTIANS LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SIN CANNOT BE CONQUERED IN THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT THIS IS NOT THE STATED GOAL OF OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. I FIND NO LEGAL STANDING, OR SUPPORTING PRECEDENT IN FAVOR OF SUCH AN ACTION.
That's all. I also question whether the liberals will use a precedent like this to restrict MY behaviors which they feel are sinful. You're failing to realize that to the State, homosexuality is an action. It's not a crime, it's not a misdemeanor, and the State has no inherent motive to enact such legislature for its own preservation. We believe that homosexuality is wrong, but homosexuals disagree. The law can't pick a side unless someone's rights are being violated by the existence of married gays. That's law. I can't change that.
We believe in finite and well-defined moral principles. But these are part of our faith, and I am not about to start beheading homos for not complying with my religion, okay? I just don't see how anyone is helped by LEGAL restrictions.
Yeah, yeah, defense of the institution of marriage I believe in. I doubt your church will marry gays so they'll have to go to the Episcopals or Justice of the Peace.
The substance of the matter is that under our system of laws, in order for you to go to the government and ask them to restrict the activity of a group of people, you must show how this behavior causes loss or damages to you.
I doubt you'd be LEGALLY persuasive. I don't question the moral relevance of your position, and I agree with it on MOST counts! You're getting all worked up because I disagree with your desire to codify this moral position. You've questioned everything about my faith, my sexuality and my character based on my disagreement with you.
And that just wasn't called for.
End
Actually, the written LAW is that homosexuals and heterosexuals all may marry, but that neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals may "marry" a person of the same sex.
That's law.
The courts have created (and not only on this occasion) a situation in which the actual, existing law is turned inside out, so that if you SUPPORT the actual written law, you must go through an incredibly difficult process JUST TO HAVE THE LAW YOU AND YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS WROTE.
Homosexuals pretending to be "married" to each other is, as you correctly point out, small potatoes.
But anyone using the power of the courts to redefine the meaning of simple, easily understood words into Newspeak, and then using the power of the State to compel obedience, is a very big deal indeed.
You say above, that's law. I can't change that, but changing the law without either the legislature or the executive is exactly what you are supporting.
If the process by which homosexual "marriage" is being mandated is valid, what laws do you think you cannot change by that same process?
"You're an adult. Your victims are children. There's nothing you could say to make me feel sorry for you."
It is equally as wrong that these people use judicial fiat to change existing laws and definitions. That is the second part of the whole equation. However, that part will probably go through the court system successfully. I don't like it either. But my point has always been that under US law, and considering our judges' past behavior, it would be very difficult to stop this from happening. The reason is that we must show some cause as to why the gays' request should be denied. And that's where we run into problems. The courts will ask us to show how extension of this person's ability to choose who to wed will negatively impact our freedoms. I think that's an uphill battle, AND if we use our religious and moral convictions to justify it in court, we open a larger can of worms. You see, Christianity is on the decline. And it's going to do that until we're in the minority. And then those things that are their petty little pet causes could be added to law based on what we did. I am not fully in favor of unlimited democracy for this very reason.
This society will crumble as a result of BOTH liberal activism through lawyers, suits, and activist judges, and legal opposition to those same things. Because of how convoluted our legal system has become, it's going to collapse under its own weight. I agree that it's frustrating to watch. Here's what I do- I am vigilant about the indoctrinization of my children in school. I am a squeaky wheel. I don't take it lying down. And because I am not actively campaigning to deny them anything, any cases I bring before a court aren't automatically written off as prejudicial and frivolous. I also don't file until I can prove that their actions have affected me. It seems to work. Your mileage may vary.
You wouldn't want to be more specific than that, then?
I've gotten a whole bunch of ad hominem attacks, just for disagreeing with you folks on the methods we should use to combat our common threat, and I don't get a whole lot of proof to support the notion that some sort of amendment would actually be constitutional or feasable in the current political climate.
What's amusing to me is that you think that because I don't support a constitutional amendment, that I am somehow supporting the gay agenda, and am willing to lie to you to support it. Where did I lie? What I have said, if you've read my posts, is that the Constitution's equal protection and Ninth Amendment are being used to support the notion that if you can marry, so can Joe and Tom. I haven't seen a LEGALLY compelling argument that this is not so. I know it's damaging to the institution of marriage, I know it's a deliberate slap in our faces. What I want to know is on what legal grounds can we prevent it. So far, I am not convinced that there's anything that can be done, which is why a constitutional amendment was attempted in the first place. If this was a simple issue, there would be five posts in this thread and we'd have it all figured out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.