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
450 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

Tiredofit

Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness?" THAT is a very scarey thing to contemplate. Sounds like a good idea until you stop and think of a Govt agency having that kind of power over somone.

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

I personally would deny some from having children, especially those who have already had children and left the responsibility for them to me.

Neutering may not be a popular viewpoint, but I feel some people should be neutered.

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

True, Tiredofit.

There is a big difference between taking children and caring for them and preventing people from having children.

I thought I acknowledged that difference when I wrote, "Here's the pertinent question: Should we evaluate prospective parents for fitness?"

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

Sorry about that, Tiredofit. Please excuse my mistake.

Posted 486 days ago.

Tiredofit

HARRY SAYS .......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 TAKE OVER the responsibilty of thier children but in NO WAY stop them from HAVING more and more. Big Difference

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

I object to homosexual marriage. Nevertheless, I must admit that my objection is largely based on my own religious and cultural preferences.

Posted 486 days ago.

Tiredofit

Tiredofit asks,

"Should we disallow little people from having children?" THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. If you would read more carefuly, both statements are attributable to MYTH.

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree with Ithink that the family is the cornerstone of our society. Many have made that argument compellingly.

But there's an important point in that argument that gays use to make a case for gay marriage. Family is defined as a man and woman and children. We recognize that men and women each have strengths to use. But gender is "a range of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics distinguishing between masculinity and femininity."

Gender goes beyond biology. We have all known feminine men and masculine women. Homosexuals argue that a masculine woman can teach masculinity to a young boy at least as effectively as a feminine man can teach it.

Posted 486 days ago.

harryanderson

And I also believe that homosexuals want special privileges. They want special privileges denied to single heterosexual people.

Posted 486 days ago.

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 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 days ago.

Tiredofit

MYTH SAYS As I stated brother and sister etc relationships have serious issues attached to them that has nothing to do with any moral quandary. Inbreeding can introduce genetic defects into the offspring. THEN MYTH SAID Dwarfism is a genetic defect. Should we disallow little people from having children? Sounds like you are on both sides of the issue.

Posted 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 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 486 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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