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
509 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

"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 545 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 545 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 545 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 545 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 545 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 545 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 545 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 546 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 546 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 546 days ago.

Tiredofit

The right reverend speaks lets all listen

Posted 546 days ago.

harryanderson

As far as "gay marriage" goes, I see no reason why government--especially the Federal government--should need to define marriage at all.

And all this talk about "defending marriage" doesn't impress me.

I'll be willing bet that alcoholism, heterosexual infidelity, and plain old selfishness have destroyed many more marriages than homosexuality. Let's defend marriage against those threats, too.

I say anyone who wants to "defend" or "define" marriage in a positive way should begin by perfecting her or his OWN marriage.

Posted 546 days ago.

harryanderson

"...behavior doesn't have to follow wants."

Ithink nailed it.

It really jerks my chain when people say things like, "He made me mad enough to punch him in the nose."

I love my freedom. There's no way I'm letting anybody or anything snatch it away from me. That includes what Ithink calls my own "wants."

Posted 546 days ago.

h ttp://ije.oxfordjournals.o rg/content/26/3/657.abstract

" Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men."

Myth you try hard to imply that gay behavior is normal, but it can't be done. We waste a lot of time on a subject that has no impact on our security or the economy.

I have never said that gay behavior is a sin. That is up to God, and I have enough sins of my own to work on. I don't care what they do in private except when they try to force me to approve of it, or try to change the definition of a family oriented establishment like marriage.

Watching them force their behavior on us in public, is as uncomfortable to me as a two headed person. Very sad and not normal.

And behavior doesn't have to follow wants.

Posted 546 days ago.

harryanderson

"Homosexualality (sic) is a genetic defect."

I agree, provided there is such a gene.

I can't believe that a loving God would put something in our DNA that would make it difficult for us follow his instructions.

Posted 546 days ago.

Tiredofit

Homosexualality is a genetic defect. For some reason they all want to have children and pass on the mutation.

Posted 546 days ago.

mythravere

The amount of detail they can pull down is immense.

They dont even need GPS to track you. Cell tower triangulation can do that just as well.

Not to mention that there are more than likely filters on communication lines that are aimed at picking out targeted words etc. Then linked right back to you.

If people really knew the streets would full of people calling for some heads...

Posted 547 days ago.

mythravere

And Ithink I have a big issue with the scanning of private web traffic and all that entails.

That can of worms was opened after 9-11.

Dont think for a second I support any of that. Because I do not.

I dont think people truthfully grasp how invasive that is.

All they have to do is type a word or phrase in and EVERYTHING put out there is collated and stored.

Also the patterns of when and where those posts are scrutinized.

They know exactly where the hot zones of anti government postings are.

I guarantee you everything we have said on this site is saved somewhere in the NSA's files.

Posted 547 days ago.

mythravere

But seeing as how your beliefs on this issue are informed by your religious beliefs and seeing as how that is a personal matter. Dictating how things should be according to what you believe is tantamount to forcing your beliefs on another.

That goes against the true spirit of freedom.

Posted 547 days ago.

mythravere

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.

A homosexual couple isn't going to be faced with that issue.

Besides not all of them engage in "play" as I talked about already. At least not in the manner you implied.

Posted 547 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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