GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
Home Learn Discuss Act Donate Media Store
Skip Navigation Links  [ SIGN IN OR JOIN NOW ]
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics |

4 Pages <1234>
Personal Beliefs have no Business in Politics Options
kelnozz
#21 Posted : Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:27:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
If I may, a worst case for govmt interference. First let me cite a little recent history. Don't get me wrong. I am not picking on any one group but rather this is most recent for this discussion.
Gay marriage in NY. The state has just legislated marriage rights for gays. The gay movement has lobbied on equal rights and as long as hetero’s have rights I agree that those rights should be extended to gays also. My problem is that some have cited genetics as a reason for acceptance of this lifestyle and not a simple choice.
Worst case; If gay is genetic as some would suggest and that is a reason for acceptance then every genetic anomaly is to be accepted. The psychiatric community has for decades studied the mind of killers and some have suggested that they are the way they are because of genetics. My fear is, when will the link be made to acceptance on genetic grounds for murderers and for that matter pedophiles who have also cited genetics.

When do we stop legislating acceptance?
tgregory
#22 Posted : Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:30:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Knoxville, TN
just4given wrote:
how does lack of a marriage license prevent a commitment when a marriage license itself doesn't magically produce a commitment?


It doesn't. Didn't say it did.

just4given wrote:
How many heterosexual couples live together without a marriage license? The commitment isn't found in a piece of paper. Commitment is found in the heart.


Yup.

just4given wrote:
That is something that a ceremony or acknowledgment will not produce. You are free to share a life with whomever you please. There is no power in a marriage licesne and the lack of one shouldn't be a bother to anyone who doesn't believe that marriage is God-ordained.


Nope. But just like a college degree: you can get a job without that piece of paper, but some people like to put it on their wall. Let whoever have a ceremony and get a certificate from the chapel. Doesn't matter. Who is that hurting?

just4given wrote:
But they will. That is the ultimate goal - the end game of the agenda. Make no mistake, it is a slippery slope and a short walk from point a to b.


Well, if it comes to a point where the government is telling chapels who to marry then we address that problem then. But telling people who they can't get married to isn't going to stop that and it's against the principals of a free society.

Slippery slope to what?

just4given wrote:
Do you realize that Prop 8 in California had language which forced justices to marry indsicriminantly or forfeit their position? Do you really the courst wouldn't have pushed that over from the secular to the religious in a heartbeat?


And that's a wrong thing to have in Prop 8.

just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
How is allowing people to live freely rewriting the history books? Laws in a free country should have nothing to do with religion. Even denominations within Christianity can't even agree on many issues.


The point I was making is that this "wall of separation" was fabricated by a short bench of activist judges, seeing fit to rewrite the history of our nation by ignoring the historical practice of the founders. There is a wall of separation, but that wall exists to prevent establishment - not free expression. The federal government cannot by way of legsilation force you to practice a given faith. To date, there is no law on the books. Howeer, the over-reach of the bench legisltors places legal limits on free expression. Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave - even as a nominal Christian. That was never his intent.


What are you looking for in the government based on how some of the founders worshiped? What divide in government and your personal beliefs are bothering to you?

just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
You're right. I'm not offended by any religion, so long as they don't try to push their beliefs onto my life. Would you appreciate it if you lived in a country that disallowed a lifestyle you felt was right in accordance with Christianity? Of course not. You'd want to be able to practice freely. Why can't others be allowed to live freely?


It wouldn't change a thing. That's faith. The proof is all around that freedom leads to complacency. The Gospel is flourishing today where it is under attack and stagnating here in the land of the free. I have to be on guard against the enemy within. That is far more powerful than any outside attack.


So restrict freedoms to impose your own beliefs?

And the enemy = people with different beliefs?

You do know that there is no good and evil - just things we consider good and bad.

just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:

As well you shouldn't. Freedom to believe is one thing. You can believe in your own mind whatever you want. Freedom to live according to your beliefs is another. Do you think it's right that China sends Christians to jail? It is, however, the will of the majority that the persecution stands.

When people start making laws restricting how I can live based on their personal beliefs, that's when I have a problem.

For example, people who believe that churches should have to marry whoever. You obviously disagree with that, as do I. But it's the same... their personal beliefs are dictating your life.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln.


Where man's law deviates from God's law - I am free to place God over man. As I said before, I won't be victimized. I will live according to my worldview regardless of what humanity dictates.


So why don't you want that freedom for others?

just4given wrote:
I don't have to like it, but let's face the facts. This country is heading fast and furious down the road of "freedom from religion". You can take my freedom, you can take my life - but you'll never take my faith. As long as I have a breath in my body, I will let my voice be peacefully heard.


Great. And many others want the same freedoms you feel you're losing - but you're not. Allowing people to buy beer on Sundays doesn't hurt your faith. Allowing gays to marry doesn't hurt your faith.

And if a God exists, don't you think he's big enough to take care of any issues? (Ahem... flooding the Earth, killing all but one family)

just4given wrote:
Again, this really has nothing to do with anyone's right to express their faith or lack of faith. Lifestyle and worldview is not akin to gender or skin color either. It is a behavior, and not subject to special favor. Alcoholism is a behavior as well. So are eating disorders. If we travel far enough down this road we won't need any special classifications - because each of us a personality disorder. We are imperfect.


But how are people's lifestyles that differ from your own imposing on your belief and faith?


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
If I want to make beer, what concern is it to anyone else? If I want to sell beer, what concern is it to anyone else? If I want to buy beer, what concern is it to anyone else?

So why strip that "privilege" on a particular day for religious reasons?

Belief is personal. In a free society, everyone is allowed to live and believe as they wish without someone else telling them how to live.


As I said, I particularly don't agree with it - but it's really a matter for the state. I admire those businesses that choose to close in observance (Chik-Fil-A comes to mind) but you should not compel an otherwise law abiding citizen to dry up on Sundays. If you want the God's honest truth - I find it hpocrytical - if the restaraunts, theaters, etc., are allowed to remain open.


And that's fine. If Chick-Fil-A wants to be closed on Sundays, great.... But why force other businesses to do the same?
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
tgregory
#23 Posted : Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:39:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Knoxville, TN
just4given wrote:
I don't know that I would go so far as to say that marriage is a right.


Why is it not a right for consenting adults to come into an agreement to be with one another? Ceremony or not?

kelnozz wrote:
The gay movement has lobbied on equal rights and as long as hetero’s have rights I agree that those rights should be extended to gays also.


And they wouldn't have to lobby to get married if the government was out of marriage, like you said.

kelnozz wrote:
My problem is that some have cited genetics as a reason for acceptance of this lifestyle and not a simple choice.


There are really two sides to our sexual orientation. We have the physical side of things that we can choose to act on or not act on and we have the mental side where we can't help who we're attracted to.

A guy who thinks about other guys can most definitely get married to a woman, play the part, and appear straight - but think about guys.

A priest who vows to never marry. I'm sure because he doesn't act on sexual desires doesn't mean he doesn't have them.

What we think about and are attracted to we don't really pick. I don't know why that is or what forms it. Is that part genetic? I don't know. I just know I'll never be attracted to a 7ft tall amazon woman with hairy legs. Is that genetic? I doubt it, but we don't know yet.
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
kelnozz
#24 Posted : Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:59:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
The problem starts when govmt starts legislating what rights we have or don't have and that is the point. Our govmt should only legislate on the safety of the people they are sworn to protect according to the will of the people and not some lobby group. govmt legislates murder to protect the people. legislating marriage is not protecting the people, it is interfering where it is un-necessary. Most people are tolerant of other lifestyles but when legislation targets one group over another for good or ill except by the will of the people they have over stepped. Get rid of tax breaks for married couples and that will make every one of us equal and prevent others from imposing their lifestyle on others. govmt can not give us rights except in a totalitarian society.
Rotorwash
#25 Posted : Friday, July 29, 2011 5:27:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 6/26/2009
Posts: 284
Location: VA 3rd
kelnozz wrote:
..... Get rid of tax breaks for married couples and that will make every one of us equal and prevent others from imposing their lifestyle on others. govmt can not give us rights except in a totalitarian society.



I think I agree with most of what you have said. Can you give me a couple examples of tax breaks for married people?
kelnozz
#26 Posted : Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:54:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
Married filing joint has always been cheaper for me, but that is not the point. Any time govmt makes a law targeting one group over another, no matter what the motive, it creates a separate class within the society. As long as we make laws targeting a specific group it will be necessary to pass laws that target the opposite group. Marriage as mandated by govmt, has benefits, and gays want those benefits, as it should be. Without govmt intervention there would be no need, every one would already be equal.
just4given
#27 Posted : Monday, August 1, 2011 3:57:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
tgregory wrote:
just4given wrote:
how does lack of a marriage license prevent a commitment when a marriage license itself doesn't magically produce a commitment?


It doesn't. Didn't say it did.?


Then why press the issue? What's in a name?



tgregory wrote:
Nope. But just like a college degree: you can get a job without that piece of paper, but some people like to put it on their wall. Let whoever have a ceremony and get a certificate from the chapel. Doesn't matter. Who is that hurting?


Sure, it is like a college degree in some ways. You can't legitimately buy one - and the government has no business trying to sell the piece of paper. There are requirements to earn one. A degree is not a right. You have to meet the minimum standards.


tgregory wrote:
Well, if it comes to a point where the government is telling chapels who to marry then we address that problem then. But telling people who they can't get married to isn't going to stop that and it's against the principals of a free society.

Slippery slope to what?


This is the government. You don't address anything retroactively. How is repealing the dry Sunday legislation working out for you? Now add a dozen layers of federal bureacracy and an activist judiciary to the mix.

tgregory wrote:

What are you looking for in the government based on how some of the founders worshiped? What divide in government and your personal beliefs are bothering to you?


What I'm looking for in the government is to stop screwing with freedom of religion by applying some fanciful interpretation that was never intended. This is not a country founded on freedom from religion. It is not you rright to be free from public expression of religious values. It is your right to have a value set of your own.

tgregory wrote:

So restrict freedoms to impose your own beliefs?

And the enemy = people with different beliefs?

You do know that there is no good and evil - just things we consider good and bad.


Nobody's freedoms are being restricted. You do not have a right to be free from the public expression of faith. Would you like congress to impose a law respecting the establishment of religion? Nobody is suggesting that. You are free to practice any form of religion or abstain from doing so as you please.

Nobody is making an enemy out fo those who believe differntly - with the possible exception of the atheists and agnostics that would love to see every vestige of religious practice abolsihed in a country founded upon the Judeo - Christian heritage.

And no - I do not beleive that there is no such thing as good and evil. Was Hitler not evil? We just consider what he did bad? Was Nero evil? Perhaps just misunderstood? You make this statement like your opinion is a fact, when it is merely an extension of your world view.

tgregory wrote:

So why don't you want that freedom for others?


Are you willing to be locked up for violating the dictates of the government where they conflict with your worldview? Maybe make a point by making your own shine on a Sunday? Go right ahead - and more power to ya, because I certainly am. If the point in time comes when I have to choose between the dictates of God and the hedonistic behaviors and legislaltive directives of man, I will throw man under the bus every time.


tgregory wrote:

Great. And many others want the same freedoms you feel you're losing - but you're not. Allowing people to buy beer on Sundays doesn't hurt your faith. Allowing gays to marry doesn't hurt your faith.

And if a God exists, don't you think he's big enough to take care of any issues? (Ahem... flooding the Earth, killing all but one family)


If you want to sell a beer on Sunday - be prepared to suffer the consequences when the police come knockin'. Again, I keep beating the same dead horse here - the government does not have any legitimate influence over the institution of marriage - and is not free to tell me what to recognize as legitimate. But - just like in the Great White North, they will. What's really behind the protected classification for behavioral issues? You can't preach and teach against it in Canada - and it's coming this way.

Again, I ask you - is it hateful to disapprove of a behavior? That is insanity! We generally disapprove of people getting plastered and driving a vehicle. Shall we legalize drinking and driving also. Alcoholicss are gentically predisposed to overindulgence.

God is definitely big enough to take care of it Himself. However, most of the time He prefers to work through the human agent. Moses, Noah, David, Peter & Paul were all men God called upon to do His bidding.

tgregory wrote:

But how are people's lifestyles that differ from your own imposing on your belief and faith?


Again - the dictates that WILL follow. Legalize marriage, protect the class with vague hate-crime legislation subject to very loose and active interpretation. There is no doubt on this issue at all. The groundwork has already been set.


tgregory wrote:
So why strip that "privilege" on a particular day for religious reasons?

And that's fine. If Chick-Fil-A wants to be closed on Sundays, great.... But why force other businesses to do the same?


Take it up with the state. This just isn't an issue for the federal government at all. Alcohol is not a protected right. The states are free to regulate it's use as they see fit.


just4given
#28 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 11:23:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
kelnozz wrote:
If I may, a worst case for govmt interference. First let me cite a little recent history. Don't get me wrong. I am not picking on any one group but rather this is most recent for this discussion.
Gay marriage in NY. The state has just legislated marriage rights for gays. The gay movement has lobbied on equal rights and as long as hetero’s have rights I agree that those rights should be extended to gays also. My problem is that some have cited genetics as a reason for acceptance of this lifestyle and not a simple choice.
Worst case; If gay is genetic as some would suggest and that is a reason for acceptance then every genetic anomaly is to be accepted. The psychiatric community has for decades studied the mind of killers and some have suggested that they are the way they are because of genetics. My fear is, when will the link be made to acceptance on genetic grounds for murderers and for that matter pedophiles who have also cited genetics.

When do we stop legislating acceptance?


Kelnozz - I couldn't agree more. This is my point exactly. Science has linked alcoholism to genetic abnormality as well. The alcoholic does not have a special classification. They do not enjoy a protected standing - and the laws of the land still apply to those who choose to overindulge and commit a crime under the influence.

It is time to wrap our arms around a very simple truth. Behavior is NOT akin to race, gender or age. This is proof positive that decades of vague legislation has led to applications of law that were never intended. This is the very heart of my critical stare at legislation in support of homosexual marriage. IT WILL lead to a coerced "acceptance" by religious organizations. IT WILL lead to church leadership facing hate-crime enhanced charges of disriminiation for refusing to officiate such "weddings". The same type of charges could be expected to be leveled for refusing to hire based on behavior that inconsistent and incompatible with a world view. Quite simply stated, this is religious persecution.

just4given
#29 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 12:51:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
tgregory - let me frame this conversation a little differently. It seems that you have a couple of issues that are near and dear to your heart. That would make these issues a part of your personal belief system. They are not universally shared - and perhaps not even shared by a significant minority of the population, but you have the right to your belief system. You have a right to politicize your beliefs. You have right to drum up support for your beliefs.

Every politician has a set of personal beliefs. Those beliefs come under scrutiny during the campaign cycle. If a representative doesn't share your belief system, you have the opportunity to speak out - not only in words - but with your vote. That is the beauty of the republic.

For some reason, you seem to believe that beliefs that disagree with your own have no place in politics - specifically the Judeo - Christian beliefs that were the foundation of THE GREATEST and THE FREEST nation the world has ever known.

It is certainly true that these men were not perfect. They got some very big things wrong, i.e., slavery. This position was not representative of the faith that we profess. However, in our zeal to be all things to all people, to lift high the flag of political correctness rather than the Red White & Blue, we are headed down the Romans Road. This is America! We are Americans! We have an American culture! We can't Americanize the world - and honestly shouldn't try. However, we can and we must wake up and Re-Americanize America - or risk losing it forever.
kelnozz
#30 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:59:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
just4given wrote:
This is America! We are Americans! We have an American culture! We can't Americanize the world - and honestly shouldn't try. However, we can and we must wake up and Re-Americanize America - or risk losing it forever.



The first thing we need to do to re-americanize is to stop re- legislating freedom of speech and expression and religion, and stop telling me that I must conform to the standards of other people. As soon as the first law is passed that tells me what I can believe this country is lost. This is pure, undeniable fact and govmt needs to butt out.

Special intrest is not the will of the people, period!
kelnozz
#31 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:08:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 4/30/2011
Posts: 46
just4given wrote:

I couldn't agree more. This is my point exactly. Science has linked alcoholism to genetic abnormality as well.


As soon as we legislate the first law based on genetics we will open the door to the drunk in the car being in the right and the pedestrian or their family paying damages and it will not stop there. Be afraid, be very afraid.
just4given
#32 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:52:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
kelnozz wrote:
just4given wrote:
This is America! We are Americans! We have an American culture! We can't Americanize the world - and honestly shouldn't try. However, we can and we must wake up and Re-Americanize America - or risk losing it forever.



The first thing we need to do to re-americanize is to stop re- legislating freedom of speech and expression and religion, and stop telling me that I must conform to the standards of other people. As soon as the first law is passed that tells me what I can believe this country is lost. This is pure, undeniable fact and govmt needs to butt out.

Special intrest is not the will of the people, period!


Yes Kelnozz - and we are told we must do so in the name of political correctness. Heaven forbid we offend somebody because our beliefs differ from theirs. As much as the ACLU and activist judiciary would like to hand out a right for any minority to not be offended - we mus tlift our voices in unison and say "not on my watch"!
just4given
#33 Posted : Tuesday, August 2, 2011 5:54:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
kelnozz wrote:
just4given wrote:

I couldn't agree more. This is my point exactly. Science has linked alcoholism to genetic abnormality as well.


As soon as we legislate the first law based on genetics we will open the door to the drunk in the car being in the right and the pedestrian or their family paying damages and it will not stop there. Be afraid, be very afraid.


It is a short walk from one piece of garbage legislation to the next my friend!
tgregory
#34 Posted : Monday, August 29, 2011 11:07:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Knoxville, TN
just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
just4given wrote:
how does lack of a marriage license prevent a commitment when a marriage license itself doesn't magically produce a commitment?


It doesn't. Didn't say it did.?


Then why press the issue? What's in a name?


Exactly. So what's the stink with letting others exchange vows and call themselves married?



just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
Nope. But just like a college degree: you can get a job without that piece of paper, but some people like to put it on their wall. Let whoever have a ceremony and get a certificate from the chapel. Doesn't matter. Who is that hurting?


Sure, it is like a college degree in some ways. You can't legitimately buy one - and the government has no business trying to sell the piece of paper. There are requirements to earn one. A degree is not a right. You have to meet the minimum standards.


Yup. So what's the minimum standards to be married? (Remember, not everyone has the same personal beliefs as yourself.)

The minimum to have a relationship is two people. So the minimum for someone to call themselves married should be just that.


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
Well, if it comes to a point where the government is telling chapels who to marry then we address that problem then. But telling people who they can't get married to isn't going to stop that and it's against the principals of a free society.

Slippery slope to what?


This is the government. You don't address anything retroactively. How is repealing the dry Sunday legislation working out for you? Now add a dozen layers of federal bureacracy and an activist judiciary to the mix.


People can go to a restaurant, drink and drive home on Sunday. But they can't go to a liquor store and buy the booze to drink in their own home.

It's not that people are clamoring to buy booze on Sunday, it's the principal of the bad law: if we're to be a free society, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you or I when we can have our doors open for business.


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:

What are you looking for in the government based on how some of the founders worshiped? What divide in government and your personal beliefs are bothering to you?


What I'm looking for in the government is to stop screwing with freedom of religion by applying some fanciful interpretation that was never intended. This is not a country founded on freedom from religion. It is not you rright to be free from public expression of religious values. It is your right to have a value set of your own.


I agree and I think people should be allowed to worship freely. Never said they should not have that right. My problem is with religious groups (not just Christianity) injecting their personal beliefs into laws that affect everyone else.


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:

So restrict freedoms to impose your own beliefs?

And the enemy = people with different beliefs?

You do know that there is no good and evil - just things we consider good and bad.


Nobody is making an enemy out fo those who believe differntly - with the possible exception of the atheists and agnostics that would love to see every vestige of religious practice abolsihed in a country founded upon the Judeo - Christian heritage.


Not true at all. Only removed from laws that affect everyone else.

Do you believe that the God of Islam exists? Do you believe that Buddha exists? Do you believe that Zeus exists? If no, why not? Your reason for not believing what they believe and not wanting to have their religious beliefs pushed onto you is the same as an agnostic or atheist not wanting someone else's beliefs pushed on them.

just4given wrote:
And no - I do not beleive that there is no such thing as good and evil. Was Hitler not evil? We just consider what he did bad? Was Nero evil? Perhaps just misunderstood? You make this statement like your opinion is a fact, when it is merely an extension of your world view.


I believe what they did was evil (aka: bad, not good) in action, but I do not believe there was an evil force that caused them to do those things.


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:

So why don't you want that freedom for others?


Are you willing to be locked up for violating the dictates of the government where they conflict with your worldview? Maybe make a point by making your own shine on a Sunday? Go right ahead - and more power to ya, because I certainly am. If the point in time comes when I have to choose between the dictates of God and the hedonistic behaviors and legislaltive directives of man, I will throw man under the bus every time.


But in a free society and a government that respects a free society, no law forces you to participate in the "hedonistic behaviors of man". This whole conversation that we're having isn't whether people should be free to worship or not - it's about injecting personal beliefs into law.

The God of Islam believes women should be covered. Should they become a majority in this country, should our political system allow for them to push that belief onto everyone else - throwing man under the bus to follow the dictates of their God?


just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:

Great. And many others want the same freedoms you feel you're losing - but you're not. Allowing people to buy beer on Sundays doesn't hurt your faith. Allowing gays to marry doesn't hurt your faith.

And if a God exists, don't you think he's big enough to take care of any issues? (Ahem... flooding the Earth, killing all but one family)


Again, I ask you - is it hateful to disapprove of a behavior? That is insanity! We generally disapprove of people getting plastered and driving a vehicle. Shall we legalize drinking and driving also. Alcoholicss are gentically predisposed to overindulgence.


Two consenting adults getting married in a way that conflicts with your personal beliefs doesn't infringe on your rights. Driving behind the vehicle while impaired can take the life of another. Quite different.

just4given wrote:
God is definitely big enough to take care of it Himself. However, most of the time He prefers to work through the human agent. Moses, Noah, David, Peter & Paul were all men God called upon to do His bidding.


Talking on this subject requires an entirely different thread of non-political nature all together.

just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
So why strip that "privilege" on a particular day for religious reasons?

And that's fine. If Chick-Fil-A wants to be closed on Sundays, great.... But why force other businesses to do the same?


Take it up with the state. This just isn't an issue for the federal government at all. Alcohol is not a protected right. The states are free to regulate it's use as they see fit.


Alcohol is just like any other commercial product. Some people don't believe in eating animals. Should their belief dictate a law that says it's up to the states on whether we can eat meat or not?
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
just4given
#35 Posted : Friday, September 30, 2011 3:46:48 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
Tgregory - I rest my case on WHY I am firmly entrenched in my position on marriage.

President Obama's Pentagon issued new regulations Friday, forcing all military chaplains to facilitate (and allowing some to actually preside) homosexual wedding ceremonies in military chapels in some states. The Wall Street Journal reports:

"Military chaplains will...preside over same-sex marriages on military bases [in all 50 states], the Pentagon said Friday..."

You still REALLY believe that this isn't coming to a church near me? If a marriage were credibel, backed by nature - do you think you would have to force it down my throat?


just4given
#36 Posted : Monday, October 3, 2011 11:45:52 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
And tgregory - the answer a definitive no. ALL gods are not equal. ALL paths are not legitimate. There is no universal salvation - but one truth to grab hold of. It's not trelative - but black and white. This is the truth to be found in the prophetic Words of the Holy Bible.
just4given
#37 Posted : Monday, October 3, 2011 12:45:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV


tgregory wrote:

Yup. So what's the minimum standards to be married? (Remember, not everyone has the same personal beliefs as yourself.)

The minimum to have a relationship is two people. So the minimum for someone to call themselves married should be just that.


Remember that polygamists and pedophiles don't share your narrow view of marriage. Do they not have the same right to claim your views disctriminate against them?

You see, everybody has their own set of minimum standards.

just4given wrote:
tgregory wrote:
Well, if it comes to a point where the government is telling chapels who to marry then we address that problem then. But telling people who they can't get married to isn't going to stop that and it's against the principals of a free society.

Slippery slope to what?


[quote=tgregory]
Two consenting adults getting married in a way that conflicts with your personal beliefs doesn't infringe on your rights. Driving behind the vehicle while impaired can take the life of another. Quite different.



How do you feel today? Chaplains hands are already being forced. I told you so. This was no-brainer next step. First, pass a hate-crime legislation. Force an agenda that equates behavioral orientation with skin color. Protect the class from discrimination with a phony claim for equal rights - when it really amounts to special rights. They have the same to marry as anybody else.

But we have a government that is attempting to indoctrination children into accepting sexual behavior as legitimate at an age that the word "sex" has no meaning. The government and the schools need to get of the business of sex education and leave it to the parents. Grade schoolers should not be getting any form of sex education.

If this lobby has to go to such great lengths to "prove" that it is a normal behavior - even though it is rooted the firmly against the natural order - then they are unequivocally WRONG in the eyes of the overwhleming majority of the population - not to mention nature itself.





just4given
#38 Posted : Monday, October 3, 2011 12:56:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
tgregory - the polygamy issue is already at the forefront in Utah. You see, once you start widening the definition, there will be no end in sight.

http://www.lifesitenews....hoice-gay-media-repudiat
tgregory
#39 Posted : Monday, October 3, 2011 2:58:58 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Knoxville, TN
[quote=just4given]tgregory - the polygamy issue is already at the forefront in Utah. You see, once you start widening the definition, there will be no end in sight.

http://www.lifesitenews....oice-gay-media-repudiat[/quote]

And again... What's wrong, besides your own personal religious beliefs, if consenting adults wish to enter a relationship together?
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.
just4given
#40 Posted : Tuesday, October 4, 2011 2:02:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 48
Location: Martinsburg , WV
tgregory wrote:
just4given wrote:
tgregory - the polygamy issue is already at the forefront in Utah. You see, once you start widening the definition, there will be no end in sight.

http://www.lifesitenews....oice-gay-media-repudiat[/quote]

And again... What's wrong, besides your own personal religious beliefs, if consenting adults wish to enter a relationship together?


[quote=tgregory][Two consenting adults getting married in a way that conflicts with your personal beliefs doesn't infringe on your rights. Driving behind the vehicle while impaired can take the life of another. Quite different.


I thought it was "two" consenting adults according to your last post. So marriage should be free for all now? Why moderate any form of behavior at all?

More food for thought - and food for proof that the end game is censureship and suppression of relgious objection along with forced compliance. This is not about equal rights. It is not even about "special rights". The ultimate purpose is the attack on the First Amendment and the free expression of religion.

" Homosexual Equivalency activists attempting to force the Church to change?

Civil union laws springing up around the country are not about equality or freedom or love. We know this because the secular state is using these laws to force the Catholic Church to violate its beliefs or shut down its services. Thus, it seems that these laws are hostile, that they are an early sign of state aggression against the Church and anyone who stands in the state's way. I hope and pray that Catholics have the courage to stand up to those in our state legislatures who would turn our government against its people and the Church."

http://www.catholic.org/...php?id=41680&page=1





Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages <1234>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.