Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
549 days ago.
by burningdownthehouse
Tinfoilhat
#1

There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

The silver tongued talking heads on the magic living room box would have us believe that the country is in an uproar over the alleged murders of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, CT. An investigation is still pending. But the allegations are flying. Generally speaking, the anti-constitutionalists who don't own guns, have never fired guns and certainly have limited ability to identify them, would be willing to take away one of our most important constitutional right because they believe it would make them more "safe". None of the gun violence in America has been committed in the name of gun rights. Also, keep in mind, these anti-constitutionalists generally are of the same demographic that also believes that murdering 1,200,000 American children in 2012 in the name of women's rights is acceptable.

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

Ithink, I agree with you. I personally wouldn't consider 2 gay people married.

Your second paragraph explains my point very well. You write, "To recognize that relationship as having specific legal qualities, it would need a definition of 'marriage' that could be held up in courts."

Exactly. The government only needs to define marriage to confer, as you say, "specific legal qualities" on some people while denying those qualities (in this case, special privileges) to all others.

And that's discriminatory.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit asks,

"Should we disallow little people from having children?"

I think we all can agree that some people should not be allowed to have children. I know I do. And so does society. We already deny parenthood to those who willingly avoid providing for their children or whose behavior is detrimental to their children. We take the children.

We just have to decide where to draw the line. Now, should dwarfs have children? Why not, provided they're willing and able to be responsible parents?

Here's the pertinent question: Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness? After all, very few of the dilatory parents out there are little people.

Posted 585 days ago.

Marriage and the resulting family are the corner stones and foundation of our society. Children have a right to have a father and mother, who by the way, were both an absolute necessity for them to be born.

If government truly got out of the marriage business, we would have to stop recognizing the spousal relationship as having special legal standing. To recognize that relationship as having specific legal qualities, it would need a definition of “marriage” that could be held up in courts . Once the law has to define “marriage” then government is in the “marriage business.”

Imitation does not produce authenticity. Gays will never be married, no matter what it is called. They are good people and welcome in my home, but they will not have a marriage together.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

"Child custody, inheritance and other legal by products of a legal marriage require a legal,governmental structure."

Please explain this. I see no reason why child custody and inheritance issues need a "governmental structure." After all, don't we already have wills to cover inheritance issues? And can't people include instructions with respect to child custody?

And as far as "chang(ing) the rules (to) make it a special interest deal," it's ALREADY a special interest deal because married people have privileges unavailable to single people. That's why homosexuals want to marry. They too want the special interest deal. I say let's end the current "special interest deal."

Posted 585 days ago.

Holy matrimony is a union of a man and a woman. If the government did not control it, we would have to invent something to replace it.Child custody, inheritance and other legal by products of a legal marriage require a legal,governmental structure.

Without the structure provided by government laws, it would just be a social friendship. But like driving a car, marriage is not a right. Legal requirements must be met in order to gain the privilege of both.

We all have the same opportunity to marry. The fact that some want to change the rules and make it a special interest deal, should not force the traditional status of marriage to change.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

In a previous post, I wrote, "If we read something in the Bible that contracts our preferences and opinions..."

That should be "...CONTRADICTS our preferences and opinions...

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

Actually, Myth, I understand where you're coming from.

Formerly, I was an agnostic who considered religion a human invention designed to control other humans.

I was right, at least about most religious practices, including many practices of professing Christians.

But the Bible is not a manual on controlling others. It's a manual on using God's help to control yourself.

It's actually a manual on how to obtain liberty from one's own flaws.

Employing it has certainly helped to free me from being imprisoned and controlled by a lot of my own character flaws.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

"And the tendency to ignore that which doesn't jive with your wants/needs."

None of the Bible is to be ignored. If we read something in the Bible that contracts our preferences and opinions, we should be re-evaluating our preferences and opinions.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth,

Please don't discount the words written in the Bible because we who say we believe in them don't live up to them.

The instructions given in the Bible bring health, joy, peace, patience, and goodness.

The words aren't flawed. We believers are flawed. We use the instructions in the Bible to expose and correct our flaws. But it doesn't happen overnight, so you still see our flaws.

Posted 585 days ago.

mythravere

I guess that can come from one aspect of belief I have never been comfortable with when it comes to Christianity.

The wide disparity in interpretation.

And the tendency to ignore that which doesn't jive with your wants/needs.

That in a nutshell is why I question a lot of what is written in the bible. Some of it is self evident in its wisdom. Some of it though I wonder if it is more representative of the wants and needs of the writer than any divine direction.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

"I mean I am atheist yet when I have been around a group of people who joined in prayer I bowed my head out of respect."

It's interesting that an avowed atheist shows respect when believers pray to God, yet some who call themselves believers disrespect a believer who repeats the words God inspired in the Bible.

Posted 585 days ago.

mythravere

I can also say that when it comes to religious rights especially in school. As of late of I have been having an issue with students not being allowed to express themselves as they wish.

In my opinion school should represent on a small scale what the real world will be like when the kids get out into it.

And allowing the free expression of beliefs is a good thing. Because it can also lead to the students learning about tolerance and how to live with others that might not believe in everything they do.

Not allowing free expression of beliefs to me is problematic.

If students want to pray let them. If they dont then I am sure an equitable solution can be derived so that the student who doesn't wish to participate isn't left with a feeling of being set apart from the rest of the group.

I mean I am atheist yet when I have been around a group of people who joined in prayer I bowed my head out of respect.

Sorry for diverting a bit just had a thought I want to write about

Posted 585 days ago.

mythravere

I think that is a good place to find common ground on. I mean we see the argument all the time for a less intrusive government.

The government shouldn't be making any distinction on who gets to do what.

Its a personal matter leave it at that.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

Nobody here except Aaron has even addressed the issue of whether government should even regulate the institution of marriage. Everybody just seems to assume it should.

If the government didn't interfere in what is, as Aaron hinted, a contract between 2 private parties, I suspect this divisive debate would end as a public policy issue.

Like Myth said: leave people alone to enter into contracts as they wish.

Any small-government conservative should agree.

Posted 585 days ago.

harryanderson

I mostly agree with Aaron S. that it's unconstitutional to bestow rights based on gender. However, I would add a caveat--the "rights and privileges denied to others" are not based solely on gender. They're also based on the ability and willingness to find a mate.

That small point aside, I agree that it's about equal protection under the law. Don't single people deserve equal protection?

Posted 585 days ago.

mythravere

You'd think it be an easy conclusion to come to. Leave people alone who don't want to take part in it.

Posted 585 days ago.

In the eyes of the government, marriage is nothing more than a contract between 2 people that bestow rights and privileges that are denied to others based solely on gender. That is clearly unconstitutional. It’s not about defining marriage; it’s about equal protection under the law.

As I said earlier, the only problem I have with the issue is that when the ban against gay marriage is found unconstitutional, there will be those on the left who wish to force the church to perform gay marriages and private business to acquiesce the practice by performing services for a practice they morally oppose. I think that is wrong and that is the only problem I have with this issue.

Posted 585 days ago.

mythravere

And Ithink you dont want to imply that gay behavior is abnormal for the simple reason that it in my opinion creates a slippery slope situation.

That in itself implies there should be some response in dealing with it. And as people on the right like to point out in regards to gun rights. If they come for one thing now then your guns will be next.

That same logic can be applied to the issue of abnormal behavior. What will be defined as such next?

I dont think that is such a good idea.

Posted 586 days ago.

mythravere

When I argue for marriage equality that is the angle I am coming from.

If we value freedom who are we to deny people what they choose to do as long as they are abiding by the laws that govern our personal behavior toward other people?

And as far as the definition of marriage. Definitions change. Social norms change too.

Posted 586 days ago.

mythravere

Dwarfism is a genetic defect. Should we disallow little people from having children?

I have wondered if homosexuality isn't the result of all the chemicals permeating what we come into contact with.

But that still is no reason to discriminate against them.

Also the government should not step in and show favor to any one party.

We are a free nation. That freedom should allow consenting people to do as they wish.

Catering to one group and giving it exclusive "ownership" of a right isn't in keeping with the principles of personal freedom.

Posted 586 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or