Pointless posts.

[theologia crucis]

I need

 

[theologia crucis]

blessings

 

[Phoebe]

I need

a life?

 

[Phoebe]

[nospam]

 

[theologia crucis]

to take Lotar's quiz...

 

[Phoebe]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I should be a moderator.

 

[Bradford]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I should be a moderator.

I hear they're looking for some new Mods...

 

[Phoebe]

No thank- you!

 

[Bradford]

No thank- you!

Moderating a board isn't really all that hard of work... Move the stuff thst's in the wrong place, delete the trolls, and try to keep the flame wars on e-mail, PM, wherever, as long as it's not your board

 

[JVAC]

James, please tell me you got a picture of the dead, bloated pony raccoon!

I brought my Digital Camera, but no, I don't none of them. I even missed the opportunity to photograph "Mom's Guns n Loan" , I could have had great times, but i'll try and get you this other photo from downtown Fresno that you will get a kick out of , might take a couple days though.

-James

 

[Flipper]

Rant Warning.

The state of Missouri just passed a measure to amend the state constitution to specifically state that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.

1. This was supposed to be on November's ballot, but the Republicans did some very snide workings to get it in August when not as many people would be voting.

2. THIS IS ALREADY A MISSOURI STATUTE - overkill wasn't necessary

3. Legislating morality is one thing - but putting discrimination in a constitution against people who do things in the bedroom that are none of our business, to me, is abhorrant.

4. So you think gay marriage will be the fall of family values - well look at the last 30 years when it wasn't legal!!! I don't think it can get any worse.

I know homosexuality is wrong - the Bible is very clear. There are a lot of things that are wrong in the Bible, that we all do even as sinners saved by grace, and it's legal.

(deep breath). Thank you for allowing me to rant, I feel much better now.

 

[ChiRho]

Flipper

Rant Warning.

Warning heeded!

The state of Missouri just passed a measure to amend the state constitution to specifically state that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.


1. This was supposed to be on November's ballot, but the Republicans did some very snide workings to get it in August when not as many people would be voting.

Clever.

2. THIS IS ALREADY A MISSOURI STATUTE - overkill wasn't necessary

Is this extra comfort for insecure heterosexuals?

3. Legislating morality is one thing - but putting discrimination in a constitution against people who do things in the bedroom that are none of our business, to me, is abhorrant.

One simple moral should be legislated: Do not harm anyone else in anyway. I agree completely with the bedroom privacy thing. Go Flipper.

4. So you think gay marriage will be the fall of family values - well look at the last 30 years when it wasn't legal!!! I don't think it can get any worse.

If you want to kill a trend, legalize it. Protection against all that is violent, malicious, tyrannical, oppressive, etc. is the Governments designed purpose, not to determine personal morals. It is my responsiblity to live my own life...that in itself is a large task. I dont have time to control your life and neglect mine.

I know homosexuality is wrong - the Bible is very clear. There are a lot of things that are wrong in the Bible, that we all do even as sinners saved by grace, and it's legal.

Flipper, I was almost completely onboard! Homosexuality is a result of our perverted sinful nature. Agreed. But I dont think homosexuality should be legalized just to add another choice in the legalized sin buffet. If we use this reasoning, a thief may have equal ground to plead his case for legalized theft, as the ability to steal- without the threat of imprisonment- would satisfy his sinful appetite. I still agree with you, just not in motive.

(deep breath). Thank you for allowing me to rant, I feel much better now.

What do you have to rant about anyway...your in first place!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[SPALATIN]

Rant Warning.

The state of Missouri just passed a measure to amend the state constitution to specifically state that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.

1. This was supposed to be on November's ballot, but the Republicans did some very snide workings to get it in August when not as many people would be voting.

2. THIS IS ALREADY A MISSOURI STATUTE - overkill wasn't necessary

3. Legislating morality is one thing - but putting discrimination in a constitution against people who do things in the bedroom that are none of our business, to me, is abhorrant.

4. So you think gay marriage will be the fall of family values - well look at the last 30 years when it wasn't legal!!! I don't think it can get any worse.

I know homosexuality is wrong - the Bible is very clear. There are a lot of things that are wrong in the Bible, that we all do even as sinners saved by grace, and it's legal.

(deep breath). Thank you for allowing me to rant, I feel much better now.

Minnesota has tried to do the same thing but has failed this year. Will most likely be introduced again next year. The reason for the Amendment over and above a statute is that the State Supreme court can over ride a simple state law, but can not do so with an Amendment. The situation in Massachusetts has sent red flags to every state that has only a statute about Marriage.

Judicial activism should be outlawed.

Sorry that you are angry about it.

 

[Flipper]

Is this extra comfort for insecure heterosexuals?

Apparently so. What surprised me, was that the main part of the election was the democratic primary for governor, US Senator, US Representative (for my area) and other state offices. There was a record turnout for the democratic ballots, and this passed. Maybe it shows that democrats are more conservative than they are given credit for.

If you want to kill a trend, legalize it. Protection against all that is violent, malicious, tyrannical, oppressive, etc. is the Governments designed purpose, not to determine personal morals. It is my responsiblity to live my own life...that in itself is a large task. I dont have time to control your life and neglect mine.

Amen Brother!!

Flipper, I was almost completely onboard! Homosexuality is a result of our perverted sinful nature. Agreed. But I dont think homosexuality should be legalized just to add another choice in the legalized sin buffet. If we use this reasoning, a thief may have equal ground to plead his case for legalized theft, as the ability to steal- without the threat of imprisonment- would satisfy his sinful appetite. I still agree with you, just not in motive.

We agree with more than you think - though I hardly see that thief having much of a case - that's pretty extreme. There should be a distinction between acts that harm others and other acts (legally speaking in a secular sense). While we're at it, I think marijuana should be legal too darn it. I have no interest in toking, but if cigarettes and alcohol are legal... If I were convinced that it would make family values go down the toilet, I might have voted for the Amendment. However, family values are already in the toilet. Passing this Amendment isn't going to improve that.

 

[Flipper]

Minnesota has tried to do the same thing but has failed this year. Will most likely be introduced again next year. The reason for the Amendment over and above a statute is that the State Supreme court can over ride a simple state law, but can not do so with an Amendment. The situation in Massachusetts has sent red flags to every state that has only a statute about Marriage.

Judicial activism should be outlawed.

Sorry that you are angry about it.

The State Supreme Court can override a law if it's sent by court precedent. My understanding is that the original law was a statute, which is voted on by the legislature (A certaimn song from School House Rock is going through my head). There was a fear was that the state legislature, which historically isn't as conservative as our State Supreme Court is, would overturn it.

Now, if someone were to file suit challenging that law as being unconstitutional... Aah, I see what you are saying... Again, we have a historically conservative State Supreme Court, and the pieces have been put into place to keep it that way. There was little or no danger to the law. A special interest group just wanted to drive it into the ground.

I'm with you on the legal activism. Grrrr.

 

[theologia crucis]

9

 

[theologia crucis]

8

 

[theologia crucis]

7

 

[theologia crucis]

6

 

[theologia crucis]

5