Posted on 02/18/2003 8:30:41 AM PST by new cruelty
The elements to indecent exposure are simpler to prove. If you caught a heterosexual couple in the act of sodomy, then you could charge the felony.
If you caught them in the act of regular intercourse, then you could charge only the misdemeanor.
You seemed quite proud about never cutting any of them any slack, disecretion, benefit of the doubt, or ability to plea to a lesser charge.
You viewed you job as a personal Mission from God to stop any sex act that didn't measure up (to coin another phrase ;^)...) to the standards set in Leviticus.
You seemed genuinely disappointed that we just don't stone 'em to death anymore...
Do I recall correctly?
You have an OPTION of charging indecent exposure, a misdemeanor, OR Crimes Against Nature A Felony.
Soooo, just out of curiosity have YOU that's Y-O-U personally ever failed to exercise the option of charging it as a felony?
God destroyed two entire cities over this wicked sin.
The Bible is clear The homosexual act is what is to be hated, not the person behind the act.
Homosexuality is a sin just like murder. Homosexuality is also a choice, just like murder. Liberals have brainwashed Americans, that it is not, but they cannot change fact.
Let me ask another question -- my nieghbor has a better snow-blower than mine, yet my walkways are longer, as is my driveway. Yet he will refuses to lend or rent it to me.
Do I have a claim to just up and borrow it when he is not using it, as long as I return it in the same condition. Clearly he wouldn't be using it then, and has no loss, eh?
The idea that children should be placed and supported in situations which deliberately endanger their healthy development is heinous and callous. And I don't care about all the noble anecdotes about "caring for children with special needs". The fact remains that the family is the primary method of socializing the next generation, of developing new human beings. As such, families demanded and were given protections by law to enhance and support their development and to assure that the family survives.
There is nothing inherently moral about the stance. It is a codification of "natural law" that the family unit is at a minimum one man one woman and one child. Enabling such "unnatural" systems to exist weakens the future generations by promulgating and creating segments of the population averse to propagation.
No, I do not want the government to snoop in my bedroom or anyone else's. But defending the "rights" of homosexuals to warp the minds of children is not the direction we should be taking either. The same arguments could be made for the "rights" of pedophiles or junkies or anyone else...after all they are people, too.
I agree. I have never supported "state recognized" marriages of two people of the same sex. You are correct, it is not marriage.
I do not support adoption by two persons of the same sex either. One reason is that I do believe that "homosexuality" is a mental disorder. You have two people who have chosen a relationship that children can not result from, but they want children anyway. An obvious sign of a mental disorder.
Sorry, not familiar with that word.
Their actions, activities and lifestyles harm children.
Two people engaging in sex hurts children? Not in the world I live in.
Securing "rights" only exacerbates that harm, imho.
That's funny.
Being enabled by willing jurists who ignore the law, the intentions of the law and the traditions of the culture will create more problems than it solves.
Ignore the law? Hilarious. We are compelled to ignore the law when the "law" ignores individual rights.
I think you inferred that I support state recognized same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions. I do not. My #91 explains why.
I am simply against laws that make consentual behvior "illegal". Nothing more, nothing less. No one has a "right" to be the guardian of children they did not produce. The State does have a compelling interest, as you state, to protect children. While I am not saying 100% of "homosexuals" are pedophiles, they certainly do have a mental disorder. The nature of the mental disorder makes them unfit to raise a child, IMO.
While I will not go as far to call the Bible "Superstition" and "fable", I will say(and always do) that many people in their zeal confuse Old Testement(Old Covenant) laws handed down to the Israelites with New Testement(New Covenant) teachings by Christ. Old Covenant laws such as stoning homosexuals, idolaters and aldulterists had reasons. Those reasons passed away, according to the Bible, when Christ died. Such laws as "death to sinners" were no longer applicable to people who would now be called "Christians".
You've observed correctly.
Ah! That explains our tax penalties on married couples!
It also explains why the rules developed by the "Great Society" forbid welfare moms from having a male role model in the house.
It fails to explain why so many elderly couples need to get divorced so the state wont sieze all their savings and the very roof over their heads to pay medical bills.
Thanks for playing. Try again.
In his case, that's a weak argument...
;^P
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.