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
451 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

mythravere

Ithink. I didn't want to bring this up but I am going to. Sorry if it offends but its the truth.

The using of body parts in ways not intended also takes place between a man and women too.

Far more than you think. And I am willing to bet a sizable number of anti-gay heterosexual couples engage in "play" of that type.

Heck I seen a story once that stated that the adult entertainment industry has more customers in conservative areas than other less conservative areas.

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

My mother was married at 15. I think that the reason behind age of consent though is that young kids/teens dont have the necessary reasoning skills when it comes to making relationship decisions at such a young age.

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

Age of consent laws are on the books to protect younger folks from being taken advantage of. Incest and marrying your sister have obvious non-moral determined problems associated with them. Namely genetic issues from siblings etc if a pregnancy resulted from the relationship.

And animals. W T F. Its obvious why.

But two adults? As long as they willingly consent. Then where is the problem?

There should be none.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

Homosexuals are deviants. It is not natural is a sin. Not for me to judge, I base this on the Bible.PrPremarital s,ex is as well and I am guilty of that so I cast no stones.

Posted 489 days ago.

"US plan calls for more scanning of private Web traffic, email "

You democrats should be ashamed to even mention the word "freedom"

And religion sure must be mighty important to your chosen leaders. Everyone take note of the fortune we are going to pay to send idiot Biden to the Pope's festivities. Wahoo !! What a worthy cause for our nation in debt.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

Why so angry Nancy

Posted 489 days ago.

You will never be free from the influence of religion,myth. Do not steal. Straight from the Bible. Why don't you work to get rid of robbery being a crime???? The Bible is the origin of our laws.

But you are not rally interested in other laws. You are pushing the homosexual special interest agenda with all your might.

It would change who I am, to have marriage be represented by two same sex people. They cannot be parents of a family and invite early death by using body parts in ways that were not intended.Great cause for you libs to endorse.

Gay marriage is not about equality. It is about changing the definition of marriage. If that happens, it will no longer define the permanent family relationship my husband and I have, and I will call it SOMETHING ELSE.

Brother and sister have just as much right to be "equal" as two men. You are discriminating.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

The fact is our laws around marriage are based on morality in many cases.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

No one said anything about raping children. If two syblings wished to marry, who is harmed?? If a 14 yr old wishes to marry a 50 yr old again who is harmed. Most women were married much younger than is accepted today in older periods of history for a variety of reasons. Don't try to twist wait I say with your sick mind.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

I would think that most folks would be fine with those laws but they are in fact strictly made on moral grounds.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

Despite the fact that most of our gg grandmothers were married at 14, we don't allow it now for moral reasons

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

Age of consent laws, **********, incest etc are all based on morality when you get down to it. You cannot marry your sister or a farm animal. By your logic Myth if no one is harmed these things should be ok?

Posted 489 days ago.

I agree marriage is a legal issue and I agree DOMA violates the Constitution. That being the case, why should the government be able to force the church to marry people they don't want to marry?

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

It doesn't matter how this nation was supposedly founded. The realities of today are different than then and the issue of personal freedom must be honored.

Posted 489 days ago.

mythravere

I have to ask though why is it that the church thinks it has a right to influence the laws to be conducive to what they want?

We speak of freedom of religion but when is a persons right to be free from the influence of religion.

To me this being a free nation everyone should be free to do as the wish as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Religious and moral concerns are a personal issue. No one should have the right or ability to bring their choices down on someone else.

A person doesn't have to agree or support what someone else chooses to do with their life. As long as they conduct their lives in a lawful manner I dont see why such a fuss is being raised over this issue of marriage equality.

To me any law that reaffirms a religious position on marriage is in violation of the Constitution and the separation of church and state.

Posted 489 days ago.

Tiredofit

Marriage is a legal issue that's why a boat captain or justice of the peace can perform them. The church position is a moral issue see the difference?

Posted 489 days ago.

The views held on marriage equality and abortion are the official views of the Church. The don't expect support and will not negotiate those stances. If you do not agree then you are free to move on.

Posted 490 days ago.

mythravere

But the church is also guilty of doing the same in regards to marriage equality and the abortion issue.

They expect people to support them in the way they see those issues when obviously people dont.

If those issues are to ever be dealt some sort of understanding and mutual respect is going to be necessary. Otherwise the arguing will go on forever.

Posted 490 days ago.

mythravere

I can concede the points mentioned in response to my posts as being right and in keeping with the free exercise of religion.

I will say that after some thought on the issue. A problem that almost every group is guilty of is the seeking of others to play by your rules.

It is indeed wrong to expect someone to support something that goes against their beliefs.

Posted 490 days ago.

Tiredofit

Aaron again, the facts are not important. She wants to force her needs on the church. Not really needs bit her wants. The left is bent on destroying any semblance of decency or morality in this country.

Posted 490 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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