Posted on 06/29/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by Polycarp
Next, they will want to be "legally married" and they will decide that they REALLY love the Crystal Cathedral in California as it's so beautiful and well just lovely for their gay wedding ceremony....Rev. Schuller declines their request to use his church, and the law forces him to because, well, they are protected now.
The church should not be allowed to sanctify ANY marriage (hetorosexual or homosexual) that it does not find abides by it's ideals. It's a private organization.
Yet, with this ruling, that will start to happen, if not winning lawsuits, at least costing churches thousands if not tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense across the country.
Morals give you an inner voice that helps to keep you from making mistakes some times.
If they were doing it with their own bodies it would be called suicide. That I have no problem with. (But I'll bet you want a law against that too...)
You have just contradicted yourself, my friend, because now you are saying it's ok to FORCE your belief of "human at conception" on those women that believe that it's not a human until it's born...thereby negating their rights to their beliefs
(Really now, do try to keep up.... )
Life Exists and isn't debatable. I don't really CARE what their opinions are, because they are demonstrably wrong. A baby is a baby. And the moon isn't made of green cheese. And 2 men having sex in their own house isn't harming you.
You can't pick & choose what is morally acceptable to impose on people and what is not
To an extent you can. Force and Fraud. Outside of THAT, you're correct. I have no authority to 'impose' my will.
But I do have the authority to stop a mugger, or a rapist, or a thief. I DO NOT have the authority to stop a prostitute, or a drug user or a gambler.
And neither does government, because it has no powers that we don't have ourselves.
Morally at least. The problems come when you try to cheat reality. (Like banning gay men from having sex in their own homes.) You can make immoral laws, but you WILL pay the price for them....
Again, the laws are there to protect us from ourselves and our illogical rationalization at time of crisis
Nanny state nonsense.
Here's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Click here
I think you've been reading too many fund raising letters.
I've read plenty of studies showing this to be true. Cite a couple that show it's not. Bald assertions aren't a good substitute for facts. Wishing it not to be so doesn't wish it away.
Real impressive tirade, Counselour.
Aaw, what the matter Sweetie? Heh - some "brownshirt wannabe Fundy" kick your tender young obnoxious @ss once-upon-a-time??
In any case, you must be thrilled to NOW be able to pull your shades up and unlock your bedroom door to let it ALL hang out. The "man" can't barge in anymore -- whew, what a relief, eh?
Now by all means DO carry on attentively and "play nicely"with your significant other. And please treat with "dignity and sanctity" those private acts the SC now technically ruled are legal.
Why the heck is this crude monomaniac even here? He's not conservative in any way, he is personally abusive, offensive in his descriptions of his personal sex life, and unendingly lying and rude. FR is supposed to be somewhat free of in-your-face grossness. He would do better at some of the XXX chat rooms I've heard about.
Personally, I think it's a denial issue. And I'd have a talk with a professional about it.
But sorry, I don't do guys. Not even 'manly' fighter pilots who project their latent homosexuality all over the place :)
Earlier - I believe on this thread - it was clearly explain what a theocracy is. It means ruled by unelected clerics, mullahs, priests, or whatever. It does NOT mean having laws which have basis in traditional morality even if some of that is based on religion.
Words have meanings, use the right ones, Drew.
To best illustrate the definitive radical pro-gay libertarian @ss-hole who is still intoxicated by the new "legal status" of buggery.
Ok. I'll be more direct, then.
We're not going to live under your interpretation of morality.
Been there, done that. Got the long swimwear and T Shirt for wearing in the ocean (under penalty of law).
We're all done with that now.
See, that's where you're confused. If not for you Fundie types, I wouldn't be posting on the issue at all.
I didn't even KNOW about until I saw some of the rhetoric from your side.
And while there is an element of : "good for them - equal protection of the laws at last" ; I generally could really give a rats ass what a gay guy does with his 'equipment'.
I don't think his attention span, vocabulary, or sense of self would permit him to read philosphy - other than his little libertarian red book.
Well I say you're right about that. We're not likely to see prohibitions of condoms in our lifetime. Maybe after the WMD's have hit, for a more totalitarian society, so we can re-populate, otherwise, not in our nation, not even if we all decided to become members of the General Association of Regular Baptists. (I like Baptist fellowships, btw, and have often attended them, though I wouldn't much want to visit the ones Clinton and Carter have tended to have an affinity for.)
There are increasing numbers of abortifacient drugs, however, and that is a different dilemma.
None of your points have anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. NOTHING!! Of the people, by the people, for the people CAN NOT co-exist with a Supreme Court that MAKES NEW LAW. The congress of the US makes laws and the Supreme Court REVIEWS those LAWS based on the US CONSTITUTION. NO WHERE, I reapeat NO WHERE does it state in the US Constitution that one has a right to PRIVACY!!! Nowhere does it state that one has a right to perform SODOMY. Judicial activism is RUINING this country.
Whether or NOT LAWS should be on the books is IRRELEVANT other than if the LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL not if it just happens to be the pet project of national diversity sensitivity training.
Pretty good one-pager, bb?
They aren't coming to YOUR house and having sex in YOUR living room.
I guess you don't know about "Gay Pride Parades" and haven't watched any TV or movies in decades.
I guess you haven't read about the laws in CA and other states forcing homosexuals into peoples' houses as renters, businesses as employees, and all the gov't employees that are forced to undergo "sensitivity training".
You keep stating your uninformed opinions as though they were fact. Doing this repeatedly only reveals your ignorance of fact, and your strong attraction to perversity.
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.