enmeshed from the forced strict moral standards of a corrupt and dying
religion, that the things that shouldnt have been regulated in the first
place are now not. Like what two consenting adults do in the privacy of
their home/hotel room. Or if this guy wants to have three wives, heck let
him. It's his problem, not mine. Victimizing anyone, children included
should of course not be allowed. But regulating my behavior in other areas
based on a belief system that is fundamentally flawed is the problem here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:29 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
Because as we get more "accepting" and as more groups fight for "rights" the
law will allow everyone to do what they want.
Sodomy use to be against the law, now it is not.
Why would you not think that statutory rape is going to one day be legal?
Or the law done away with.
It is unlawful for a man to have more than one wife.
Why would you not think that polygamy is going to one day be legal?
Or the law done away with.
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:58 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
Monique
You keep saying this. I see no reason why gay marriage would make it
ok to have sex with children, nor have you supported this assertion.
Dana
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:48:53 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where does it stop then?
>
>
> We are going to become a law-less society, so everyone can be happy.
>
>
> If that's where we're going then so be it.
>
>
> I'll still be a conservative, Christian, republican.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> Monique Boea wrote:
> >
> > But if a group of people can change laws (and PLEASE don't compare this
> > to the black human rights issue) then what is to stop other groups from
> > changing the laws to further change marriage, age limits, sex limits,
> > crime, etc. Like a man wanting to marry his daughter. Do we further
> > change the laws to accommodate him? Or a woman who wants to sleep with
a
> > 14 year old.
>
> How do you think we got the current laws?
>
> That's right, we got the current laws because groups of people could
> convince sufficient people to change the existing law to their views. That
> is a continuous proces and has served over hundreds of years to produce
the
> laws that are currently in place.
> Are you seriously suggesting we stop changing law, send the entire
> legislative body home and live with the current laws forever?
>
> Jochem
> _____________________________________
>
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
