Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, you wanted a democracy unburdened by the rule of law, so that a powerful government could do the bidding of the majority without all that Constitution mumbo-jumbo getting in the way. Well, here ya go. Oops, you don't have the majority right now? Ah, sucks to be you. Can't say the Libertarians never told you so.

Wanting Constitutional protections is not an exclusively Libertarian position.

Hmmm.... ever heard of the Democratic Freedom Caucus??

Libertarians are aligning with the Democrats!

 

[maluckey]

Jhnn,

First let me clarify a misunderstanding. I was not educated as a Jesuit, just tutored in religion and a few difficult classes that I had by a Jesuit Priest.


Onward....It's not that I feel the protection of the federl government from anti-religious judgements is in itself a bad thing. It is a good thing. This issue, and maybe I'm not clarifying myself much with this............is that it isn't necessary. The United States Constitution provides for this as it stands, and needs no clause to aknowledge that a Judge just might be a christian, and that his views may afect his point of view. Everyones faith or non-faith affects their point of views.

The founding fathers used the word God numerous times in their founding of this country, yet they didn't think that this would be an issue. They never expected that a country could feel that the very act of being religious could open them up to litigation based on their personal beliefs (which are protected in the Constitution.) You don't need legislature acknowledging the Constitutional protection of religion when it already exists.

If this proposed action comes about, a formal definition of religion would surely follow after several challenges. THAT in itself is moving towards a State Religion which the Founding fathers would have been very opposed to. It is not so much by this piece of legislation that religion is forced upon you, but by the followup of definitions and legal precedents sure to accompany any attempt to protect a religious attitude. To avoid the end you must avert the beginning.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Why are you libs so afraid of some accountability in the courts and morality in the country? The Christian majority has major lobbying power in politics, and I can attest that we will not stop until that travesty of legislation, Roe V. Wade, is overturned. If this is the only or fastest way to get that goal accomplished, then my fellows and I support it whole-heartedly.

By the way, PrinceofWands is talking about plotting to commit terroristic actions. I believe that to keep the integrity and security of this site intact, he needs to calm down.

That's hysterical.

Americans looking out to save their Country from Religious Zealots destroying the Constitution and the Country will be called Terrists and Insurgents by the Religious Republicans.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Why are you libs so afraid of some accountability in the courts and morality in the country? The Christian majority has major lobbying power in politics, and I can attest that we will not stop until that travesty of legislation, Roe V. Wade, is overturned. If this is the only or fastest way to get that goal accomplished, then my fellows and I support it whole-heartedly.

By the way, PrinceofWands is talking about plotting to commit terroristic actions. I believe that to keep the integrity and security of this site intact, he needs to calm down.

That's hysterical.

Americans looking out to save their Country from Religious Zealots destroying the Constitution and the Country will be called Terrists and Insurgents by the Religious Republicans.

don't sweat it, DMC.... fundies and libs alike won't have to worry about arguing with each other for long. that's a luxury for the citizens whose country is at the top of the food chain.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Jhnn,

If this proposed action comes about, a formal definition of religion would surely follow after several challenges. THAT in itself is moving towards a State Religion which the Founding fathers would have been very opposed to. It is not so much by this piece of legislation that religion is forced upon you, but by the followup of definitions and legal precedents sure to accompany any attempt to protect a religious attitude. To avoid the end you must avert the beginning.

How could it not? Because without a formal definition of WHICH religions are appropriate, then it's ANYTHING goes. Right?

A judge wants to keep a tapestry to the ten commandments behind his bench (like the plaque Roy Moore used to keep). It's HIS bench, it's HIS personal relgious beliefs, it's A-OKAY.

Likewise if a Muslim Judge wants to keep a tapestry of a Koran passage, "Go Right Ahead".

If a Satanist Judge wants to keep a large Pentagram behind his bench, what can we say, it's his right by law.

I recall the issue where some fundamentalist legal group was fighting for the right for a grade-school girl to distribute flyers to her schoolmates inviting them to some (specifically denominated) Christian event. The school said she could not. The school is a public institution and there is a seperation of church and state. Many of the fundamentalist parents in her school district were incensed by this! I don't recall what the outcome was. I believe that they won the case and she (or future children) were able to distribute the flyers.

I was thinking "Well, what if some child THEN wanted to distribute flyers inviting the school children to a Satanist event!!" (In fact, I thought - even though I'm not religious at all, let alone a Satanist, that if I had a kid who would agree to do so - I'd have him/her do just that, just to make a point). Could you IMAGINE the uproar that parents would have over that!!!! What could the school then say? "Well, hey you shmucks adamantly supported the case of the girl who wanted to distribute her fundamentalist Christian flyers, and you won! Well, you ALSO won the right for this kid to distribute his Satanist flyers."

In fact, you can apply this line of thought to ANY case where the fundamentalist Christians are trying to gain the RIGHT to put their religious symbols in public and/or government places. If you give THEM the right, then you (by virtue of the 1st Amendment) give ANY religion (no matter how kooky) the right.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Why are you libs so afraid of some accountability in the courts and morality in the country? The Christian majority has major lobbying power in politics, and I can attest that we will not stop until that travesty of legislation, Roe V. Wade, is overturned. If this is the only or fastest way to get that goal accomplished, then my fellows and I support it whole-heartedly.

By the way, PrinceofWands is talking about plotting to commit terroristic actions. I believe that to keep the integrity and security of this site intact, he needs to calm down.

Roe v. Wade!!! Ha!! Yeah right! That's not the one.

One of your fundamentalist whack-job leaders (I forget which one) said not too long ago, that NOTHING has motivated, charged, and riled up the evangelical base like Lawrence v. Texas!! Not even Roe v. Wade has had such an electrifiying effect on the evangelicals as has Lawrence v. Texas and other judicial rulings that gay people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

And, unlike most of the things that comes out of these whack-jobs mouth, he was absolutely right on that one.

Fundamentalist religions and their leaders rely HEAVILY on irrational FEAR and HATRED to maintain power and control over their followers. They have a VESTED interest in seeing to it that the general societal irrational fear and hatred of gay people continues. It is one of the things they see as being vital to the power and influence of their organizations. Nothing gets the blood flowing of the fundamentalists like instilling fear of gay people and their ominous "AGENDA" (which is nothing more than to be treated with equality and respect - but that the fundies say is to homosexualize the nation's children), leading to the riled up, highly motivating, hatred that fundamentalists have for gay people.

This hated not only keeps THEM in power and rolling in the cash, but also the political leaders who cater and cow-tow to these highly motivated fundamentalist whack jobs (even if that political leader doesn't hold with their views).

If they LOSE on the gay issue. If gay people are seen as the average everyday typical American that they ARE (simply with different sexual/romantic proclivities). If the fear and hatred of gay people in society dissapates enough that it is no longer an effective motivating tool for the fundamentalists. Then they are in trouble and will have to find a NEW focus of fear and hatred. And it may be hard to find one that is electrifying as the Anti-Gay sentiment (particularly since they can twist passages from their Bible to suggest that it's God's will).

 

[robertcloud]

It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

No it isn't. You biblical laws have no jurisdiction over the rest of us.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

Just to satisfy your puritanical Biblcal Bullsh!t laws?

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

Don't you have some stockades to build somewhere Reverend?

 

[robertcloud]

Last time I checked, murder is outlawed in all modern civilizations. What right did the SCOTUS have to legalize abortion across the US? Where did that right come from?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Last time I checked, murder is outlawed in all modern civilizations. What right did the SCOTUS have to legalize abortion across the US? Where did that right come from?

It's not murder your Eminence

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Last time I checked, murder is outlawed in all modern civilizations. What right did the SCOTUS have to legalize abortion across the US? Where did that right come from?

It's not murder your Eminence

Only because SCOTUS said it wasn't. Most states considered abortion murder.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Last time I checked, murder is outlawed in all modern civilizations. What right did the SCOTUS have to legalize abortion across the US? Where did that right come from?

It's not murder your Eminence

Only because SCOTUS said it wasn't. Most states considered abortion murder.

No they don't.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Most states considered abortion murder.

See Red Dawn's post. Anyway, why would they? The bible doesn't care about abortion. God killed babies:

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

God is a fan of abortion.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Well... that was the whole point of Lawrence v. Texas. It struck down the few remaining anti-sodomy laws (gay or straight) throughout the nation. The large majority of the public was in favor of such as well. The fundies though. Oh THEY hit the roof! Regulating, controlling, and punishing other people's private intimate sexual activity is one of their primary goals (particularly where it concerns gay people).

So, sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S. So long as it occurs between consenting adults in private.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Well... that was the whole point of Lawrence v. Texas. It struck down the few remaining anti-sodomy laws (gay or straight) throughout the nation. The large majority of the public was in favor of such as well. The fundies though. Oh THEY hit the roof! Regulating, controlling, and punishing other people's private intimate sexual activity is one of their primary goals (particularly where it concerns gay people).

So, sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S. So long as it occurs between consenting adults in private.

Good point, I forgot about that case. What about local decency statutes...many of them prohibit similar acts if I recall correctly. Do you think this case would overturn them as well?

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Glpster

Well... that was the whole point of Lawrence v. Texas. It struck down the few remaining anti-sodomy laws (gay or straight) throughout the nation. The large majority of the public was in favor of such as well. The fundies though. Oh THEY hit the roof! Regulating, controlling, and punishing other people's private intimate sexual activity is one of their primary goals (particularly where it concerns gay people).

So, sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S. So long as it occurs between consenting adults in private.

Good point, I forgot about that case. What about local decency statutes...many of them prohibit similar acts if I recall correctly. Do you think this case would overturn them as well?

I believe it ONLY covers private consentual sexual activity between adults.

Anything that is out in the public (which decency statues would cover), is not covered by this ruling.

Now, *IF* a community wanted to make it LEGAL for a guy and girl to have sex in the middle of a public park, but ILLEGAL for two guys or two girls to do the same, THEN it might fall under the Lawerence ruling which I believe speaks to equal treatment of straight and gay people.

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

I wonder if you feel that it's "Immoral" or a "sin" for someone who knows that he/she is sterile to have sex at all? :roll:

Fvcking people crack me up. You guys believe in what you want and leave the rest of us the fvck alone! :|

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

Uh huh.....

So.... presumably this is based off of your religious views on the subject.

Tell us then... should that point of view on sexual morality be legislated into law and forced and enforced on everyone in America (and someday the world!)

And... since you have nothing against gay people other than when they perform specific acts of sex, then do you support say two gay guys who love one another and do EVERYTHING (holding hands, cuddling, french kissing) outside of actual sex, who want to be together and spend the rest of their lives together, to get married and have the legal protections as the family that they are to each other?

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

Uh huh.....

So.... presumably this is based off of your religious views on the subject.

Tell us then... should that point of view on sexual morality be legislated into law and forced and enforced on everyone in America (and someday the world!)

And... since you have nothing against gay people other than when they perform specific acts of sex, then do you support say two gay guys who love one another and do EVERYTHING (holding hands, cuddling, french kissing) outside of actual sex, who want to be together and spend the rest of their lives together, to get married and have the legal protections as the family that they are to each other?

No, I do not believe it would be proper for there to be laws which invade the privacy of other people in matters related to sex. These views are personal and are derived from the Catholic teachings. I could not support homosexual marriage because I believe marriage is an institution for creating families and propagating the species.

That issue is exponentially less important to me than abortion. I believe that in the next ten years, conservative and wise judges will become the majority on the SCOTUS, and abortion will be considered just an ugly bump along the road.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

Just verifying is all. Wanted to have it stated with absolute certainty that according to you anything other than a man and a woman over the age of consent having sex in the missionary position with the sole purpose of creating life is a sin and you spit on them. That way we can be certain that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the planet will laugh at you and disregard everything you ever say. Not that anyone was taking you seriously anyway, but now it's official. 😎

BTW, yes I know my percentage is a little off...I'm sure there's at least .1% of the population that actually agrees with your idiocy. Fortunately it's still utterly insignificant...and while I respect your right to have your views, I'll kill or die to prevent you from making others live according to them. So live happy in your own life, because if you try and come into mine you'd better have a serious arsenal at your disposal.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

No, I do not believe it would be proper for there to be laws which invade the privacy of other people in matters related to sex. These views are personal and are derived from the Catholic teachings. I could not support homosexual marriage because I believe marriage is an institution for creating families and propagating the species.

That issue is exponentially less important to me than abortion. I believe that in the next ten years, conservative and wise judges will become the majority on the SCOTUS, and abortion will be considered just an ugly bump along the road.

Unlikely. The more power conservatives (aka: regressives) have gained, the more their insanity and their nefarious goals have shown through and been exposed to the light of day. The American people are catching on, and they are seeing how they have been duped, and where these regressives REALLY want to take them, their families, and their country. Ever since Bush and the republicans have had a stranglehold on our nation, it has been in decline, and people are seeing that.

Your dreams for a regressive America will not see fruition Sure, you can cheat the vote when it is 45-55 You won't be able to cheat the vote when it's 35-65. I sincerely doubt even Bush will see the end of this term. Hard evidence is mounting that will bring him and his evil puppet-masters crashing down.

As to the other issue. As I pointed out in an alternate thread, fundamentalists belief that marriage is primarily (even at all) about SEX and procreation is VERY sad indeed.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It isn't gays themselves that are offensive. It is homosexual behavior. I have nothing against a gay man who doesn't commit the illegal act of sodomy. A gay man engaging in homosexual sex is equal to a heterosexual couple engaging in sex with contraception. Sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is a sin and is sodomy.

Secondly, the issue of abortion is much more important than homosexual behavior. The evils of abortion far outweigh the evils in homosexual activity. The SCOTUS had absolutely no right to overturn abortion laws across the country, and this is the most pressing issue in the US today. I don't really care how it must be done, but the ruling must be overturned, by the SCOTUS or by congress, and if congress ends up being the body to do it, we must limit the power of the SCOTUS so that they may never be able to have such influence again.

To those which say a constitutional amendment should be passed to outlaw abortion, I would like to remind you that there was no constitutional amendment to legalize it. The SCOTUS invalidated the laws of many states in one ruling, and this is a travesty of jurisprudicial authority. It is entirely unfit that one body-unelected-has the power to invalidate the laws of the states.

How about the 100 million non-gay americans who commit the illegal act of sodomy? Sodomy isn't sex between gays, it's generally defined by law as any sexual act other than a man and a woman in missionary intercourse. Blowjobs are almost always illegal, as is anal sex, doggystyle, handjobs, etc. So how do you plead?

Did you read my post? I am aware that sodomy is inclusive of those acts. Sex without the explicit intent to reproduce, whether gay or straight, is immoral and cannot be justified. I have nothing against gays, nothing at all. I feel exactly the same way about homosexual sex as I do about heterosexual sex with contraception.

Just verifying is all. Wanted to have it stated with absolute certainty that according to you anything other than a man and a woman over the age of consent having sex in the missionary position with the sole purpose of creating life is a sin and you spit on them. That way we can be certain that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the planet will laugh at you and disregard everything you ever say. Not that anyone was taking you seriously anyway, but now it's official. 😎

BTW, yes I know my percentage is a little off...I'm sure there's at least .1% of the population that actually agrees with your idiocy. Fortunately it's still utterly insignificant...and while I respect your right to have your views, I'll kill or die to prevent you from making others live according to them. So live happy in your own life, because if you try and come into mine you'd better have a serious arsenol at your disposal.

:thumbsup:

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

I believe that in the next ten years, conservative and wise judges will become the majority on the SCOTUS, and abortion will be considered just an ugly bump along the road.

Amen......