Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
someone tell that guy to put his belt buckle in.
If the earthquake doesn’t come, will you be disappointed? Will you question God’s handling of the situation?
God will judge all...in his timing.
Putting aside religious concerns for a moment, I’m almost at a point where I don’t really care what happens. I’ve never been as disappointed in my country as I have these past few months. Obamamania is going to result in tens if not hundreds of important military research programs being tossed in the garbage. We’ll be weak for years. We’re going to get some form of national healthcare system regardless of which Democrat wins. And today, people, including the so-called Republican governor of California, are cheering black-robed tyrants . Honestly, I’m fairly moderate on gay rights, but there is no way in hell I’m going to cheer this ruling by a bunch of thugs.
The country is going to be in bad shape the next few years. And frankly, the stupid people deserve every bit of what they’re going to get by supporting these politicians. Too bad the innocents and enlightened people will suffer as well.
How dare you discuss your understanding of religion and the world! The thought police will be there shortly to deal with your warped mind.
The reckless disregard of the voter.
If you want to live in Kalifornia then stay there, if you want to be married there then stay there. Don't trot your little bums across statelines and expect fair treatment. The choices are yours and yours alone. The rest of us do not have to agree with you.
With earthquakes? Is that what happened in China?
Unfortunately, I expect that we’ll see a major push for national legalization the day after they start issuing these licenses. That’s the entire point really. The idea of states being laboratories is merely given lip service by the Left. I have little faith in our courts anymore.
legalization should have been recognition
For the sake of argument, let's say I concede this point.
I would hope that conceding the point that it's in the self-evident interest of the state to protect that which you yourself admit is the foundation of society would be for more than merely the sake of argument.
Is the allowance of gay marraiges really a threat to the existance of straight marriage?
A reasonable question. The answer is Yes. When you redefine marriage for the few, you obviously redefine marriage for the many. We're not talking about an academic debate between AHerald and MinnesotaLibertarian voicing differing definitions of marriage. We're talking about the law of the land.
I believe it's a very real threat as evidenced by every other redefinition of once unthinkable behavior (those mere victimless choices of consenting adults, in your eyes) which I outlined in my prior response.
Now, I would argue that it's a verifiable fact that all of these behaviors I listed have had as their natural outcome the harm of the family and the society at large. You obviously don't agree with that assessment. But regardless of what your or I believe about the moral character and/or destructive nature of those behaviors, it's a historical fact that they were all once the behaviors of an extreme minority which stood in opposition to the larger society which shunned and condemned those who practiced those behaviors. Nonetheless, in the blink of an eye, in historical terms, these behaviors have all become quite prevalent, acceptable, celebrated or, as in your case, do not illicit strong opposition in the public square. In sum, they are evidence of how minority behavior can quickly impact and change the society at large. That is precisely how damage will be done to straight marriage.
Just as it was difficult to conceive of 50 million plus abortions in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, it is hard to envision the scope of damage that lies before us today with gay marriage. That single court ruling serves as a warning. Led by Roe v. Wade, the rest of society was radically and quickly transformed. The courts, the schools, the government, and the culture followed suit. And now here are millions of dead unborn babies later.
The question is, why take such a risk with an institution that has been fundamental to civilized society for thousands of year?
If the traditional concept of marriage is not supported in by the courts then it's not long before it's not supported in schools, the government, or the culture at large. The common understanding of marriage will likely be reduced to that of being just another contractual arrangement among consenting adults. Mere contractual living arrangements among adults are useful, but hardly equivalent to the concept of foundational institution pon which society is built.
And what will happen to those who believe in traditional marriage? Well, when parents want to pass on to their children the value of traditional marriage, what chance of survival does such an value have to thrive when there is no support for it in the schools, the courts, the government, and the culture? Very little chance. Eventually, those who believe in traditional marriage will be reduced to a dwindling minority, the private practitioners of an archaic belief system. A new Amish--a moral curiosity to be photographed and patronized by the moderns from the outside world.
Violating the sepration of powers they are trusted with is grounds alone to be booted.
...the majority’s approach has removed the sensitive issues surrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum — the arena of legislative resolution — and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry. By thus moving the policy debate from the legislative process to the court, the majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers. - dissenting opinion
Don’t expect “fair treatment”? Are you saying you think it would be fair to recognize California’s same-sex marriages in other states? But you don’t want to do what you think is fair? Interesting.
“If you want to live in Kalifornia then stay there, if you want to be married there then stay there. Don’t trot your little bums across statelines and expect fair treatment.”
God will judge his way and on his timing. Maybe it'll be an earthquake....maybe a tsunami. Maybe a giant anvil will fall out of the sky and land on Gavin Newsom’s head.
So the next time an earthquake happens, are you fairly confident you’ll think God caused it to punish homosexuals? Interesting.
everything is interesting to you
Well, not *everything.* I get pretty bored folding laundry.
My beliefs are New Testament beliefs. Those who believe that God changed in between Testaments are using very bad theology. BTW, why were you unwilling to answer the question with a straight answer?
I often pray that people who want to impose their religious beliefs on the country do not get into power. I believe that is a foundational premise of our country.
I think you should start adding a pray that you will be more humble, because it appears you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on gay marriage must be a theocrat, has endorsed forced conversion, is "squirming" and has no clue about basic human rights. Seriously, that's breathtakingly arrogant.
I am talking about your religious belief and now you say it's not a religious belief. Make up your mind and quit squirming.
I asked you about your religious beliefs. Then I asked about a subject that does not require a certain religious belief to back up a position. That's not squirming, that's a radical technique called "asking two different questions."
Your analogies don't apply and you can't understand the basic principle of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe you should live in a theocracy.
Ah, so my position is the same position that has been held by those with religious views spanning a spectrum from Catholicism to atheism and by governments from fascist states to the world's greatest democracies, and yet I could only hold this position if I want to trash the Constitution and impose a Christian theocracy. Sure you want to make that assertion?
As for the pursuit of happiness, now that our nation long ago moved from the brick house to the stick house, it's really amusing to watch people say that we need to move to the straw house to avoid dangerous opppression, and attack any little pigs who point out that it might not be that sturdy. I'm sure you'll be happy in your house of straw.
Here, here! Let's get the recall movement and petitions going.
So...if two people both believe abortion is wrong, and one tells women they should let their child live, and offers help, and another calls the women filthy whores who got pregnant at an orgy, you think those people are basically the same? I don't. And that's assuming Phelps really believes the bilge he spouts, which is really, really unlikely.
Why is it you call yourself a traditionalist if you don't believe what the Bible says about nations that endorse sinful behavior? What tradition are you following? After all, most people who call themselves traditionalists are Jews or Christians. And if you aren't religious but embrace traditional morality, why wouldn't you figure homosexual marriage could cause major destruction?
wonder how this plays with our muslim Californians?
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.