"Anti-Bully" Advocate Bullies Christian Teens

[Roadie]

Again, if you think its wrong for all Christians to be lumped together and demonized because of a few, remember not to do the same to other groups.

Mr. Savage's rant tells you something about Mr. Savage (the individual).

 

[buckwacker]

Again, if you think its wrong for all Christians to be lumped together and demonized because of a few, remember not to do the same to other groups.

Mr. Savage's rant tells you something about Mr. Savage (the individual).

Just watch a gay marriage protest and it will become appearant what I am talking about. People like Dan Savage are the majority in these activist groups. Folks like WBC are nowhere near the majority of Christians.

 

[Roadie]

Just watch a gay marriage protest and it will become appearant what I am talking about. People like Dan Savage are the majority in these activist groups. Folks like WBC are nowhere near the majority of Christians.

It's still unfair to lump all homosexuals into a group because of the actions of a few.. just as it is unfair to lump all Christians, Jews, Muslims, nerds, geeks, gun owners, Harley riders, rice rocket riders, teens, ad infinitum, into a group because of the actions of a few..

 

[buckwacker]

It's still unfair to lump all homosexuals into a group because of the actions of a few.. just as it is unfair to lump all Christians, Jews, Muslims, nerds, geeks, gun owners, Harley riders, rice rocket riders, teens, ad infinitum, into a group because of the actions of a few..

You all are not reading closely. I did not lump "all homosexuals" together. All my comments have been with regard to ACTIVISTS.

 

[Double T]

This will not end until their is an amendment to the US constitution and/or a SCotUS ruling.

I understand the religious intolerance from many different sects, BUT the constitution as is now does not define or give any rights to homosexuals. If a couple decides to live together for the rest of their lives, why not consider them married?

Shouldn't they get the same tax stuff a married hetero couple gets?

For or against it, they still have human rights, and they also are human beings equal like everyone else.

 

[J_Wales]

This will not end until their is an amendment to the US constitution and/or a SCotUS ruling.

I understand the religious intolerance from many different sects, BUT the constitution as is now does not define or give any rights to homosexuals. If a couple decides to live together for the rest of their lives, why not consider them married?

Shouldn't they get the same tax stuff a married hetero couple gets?

For or against it, they still have human rights, and they also are human beings equal like everyone else.

So often, folks scream, "Why is the state not doing more in this field?" and "Why is the government not doing more in that field?" when what we should be asking is "Why the hell is the government out of its cage and in any of these fields?"

The matter of marriage is yet another example.

For the sake of Lady Liberty, the government needs to be put back in its cage.

 

[Double T]

And I'm sure the people were saying similar things with slave rights, black rights, womens rights, etc.

It would be far more effective to quit wasting time and introduce an amendment, or let the SCOTUS decide. That is what they are there for is it not?

 

[J_Wales]

And I'm sure the people were saying similar things with slave rights, black rights, womens rights, etc.

It would be far more effective to quit wasting time and introduce an amendment, or let the SCOTUS decide. That is what they are there for is it not?

To expand the reach of the state?

Yes... I suppose some believe it is.

 

[Double T]

How is it expanding the reach of the state? This involves zero govt spending, and involves human rights...which is what the constitution sets out to protect?!!?

Our forefathers stated in the declaration of independence that we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

aration,

We hold these truths to be self–evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The sole purpose of our government is to protect life, liberty, and inalienable rights. I think that Same sex marriage would constitute to all men/women being equal, and that it is also part of the pursuit of happiness.

While the original forefathers based the inalienable rights on their faith, our government has turned sucular with the separation of church and state. Soooooo, everyone is equal and should receiev the same benefits regardless of sexual preference.

Strictly speaking, this is an issue that is at the heart of the debate. Will their be an amendment, or will the SCotUS rule? This is not an issue for the people to decide, its an issue for the republics representatives, legislature, and justices to decide. Popular opinion doesn't fly with human rights. Just look at the issues involving segregation.

This opinion may not be popular, but its the truth.

 

[J_Wales]

It expands the reach of the state by furthering it's say into private arrangements adults enter into on their own free will.

I want the state out of defining my marriage just as I want it out of defining that of others.

The engagements entered into willingly by my spouse and me and what the two of us do together in our bedroom or any other place on our private property are none of the state's business.

The state needs to be restricted.

 

[Double T]

While I would agree, the states are imposing, or trying to impose an unconstitutional restriction on a persons free will to love and marry whomever they please.

That is why the US government needs to either rule, or make an amendment either forbiding or condoning it.

As it reads now, homosexual marriage should not be restricted and should be equal to a heterosexual marriage.

This is another instance where the government is actually needed to step in. Not like the meddling we are doing in other places.

 

[J_Wales]

While I would agree, the states are imposing, or trying to impose an unconstitutional restriction on a persons free will to love and marry whomever they please.

That is why the US government needs to either rule, or make an amendment either forbiding or condoning it.

As it reads now, homosexual marriage should not be restricted and should be equal to a heterosexual marriage.

This is another instance where the government is actually needed to step in. Not like the meddling we are doing in other places.

I absolutely disagree.

Doing so only furthers the central government's say in the lives of citizens.

I encourage you to examine further the ramifications of increasing the role of the central state in the lives of individual citizens.

Best regards.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This will not end until their is an amendment to the US constitution and/or a SCotUS ruling.

I understand the religious intolerance from many different sects, BUT the constitution as is now does not define or give any rights to homosexuals. If a couple decides to live together for the rest of their lives, why not consider them married?

Shouldn't they get the same tax stuff a married hetero couple gets?

For or against it, they still have human rights, and they also are human beings equal like everyone else.

You proceed from an incorrect assumption. The constitution "gives" you no rights. As our president so succinctly put it, it is a bill of negative liberties. To his chagrin, it restricts the federal government. Unless the constitution prohibits gay "marriage" or gay "rights" (whatever special rights those are), they are reserved by the states or the people.

If you want to get married, there are several states that have decided it is in their best interests to sanction said unions.

 

[cobber]

It expands the reach of the state by furthering it's say into private arrangements adults enter into on their own free will.

I want the state out of defining my marriage just as I want it out of defining that of others.

The engagements entered into willingly by my spouse and me and what the two of us do together in our bedroom or any other place on our private property are none of the state's business.

The state needs to be restricted.

Not disagreeing, just curious.

So actually any State or federal laws that address or define marriage are beyond the legitimate authority of the government?

So would you oppose the IRS distinguishing between married and unmarried taxpayers?

Social security benefits for survivors or dependents?

I suspect there are myriad built-in State and federal benefits for traditional married couples, too early to think of them all. Should there be any?

 

[hornadylnl]

Not disagreeing, just curious.

So actually any State or federal laws that address or define marriage are beyond the legitimate authority of the government?

So would you oppose the IRS distinguishing between married and unmarried taxpayers?

Social security benefits for survivors or dependents?

I suspect there are myriad built-in State and federal benefits for traditional married couples, too early to think of them all. Should there be any?

No

 

[J_Wales]

Not disagreeing, just curious.

So actually any State or federal laws that address or define marriage are beyond the legitimate authority of the government?

So would you oppose the IRS distinguishing between married and unmarried taxpayers?

Social security benefits for survivors or dependents?

I suspect there are myriad built-in State and federal benefits for traditional married couples, too early to think of them all. Should there be any?

No.

Further I would advocate the abolishment of the income tax and SS but that is another topic.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I suspect there are myriad built-in State and federal benefits for traditional married couples, too early to think of them all. Should there be any?

The states are free to do so as guided by their respective constitutions unless prohibited by the US constitution.

I'm all for repealing the amendment that permitted the income tax, ending social security, ending Medicare/caid, etc, etc.

 

[Double T]

Can you honestly tell me that in the eyes of our government homosexuals are equal? No.

Aaaaaaaaand. The constitution outlines rights that are not to be abused, therein defining certain things as rights. Not necessarily granted them.

Forgot that I had to clearly annunciate on a written forum....

Anyways, this needs to be legislated or ruled on.

 

[Expat]

Can you honestly tell me that in the eyes of our government homosexuals are equal? No.

Aaaaaaaaand. The constitution outlines rights that are not to be abused, therein defining certain things as rights. Not necessarily granted them.

Forgot that I had to clearly annunciate on a written forum....

Anyways, this needs to be legislated or ruled on.

 

[J_Wales]

Can you honestly tell me that in the eyes of our government homosexuals are equal? No.

Aaaaaaaaand. The constitution outlines rights that are not to be abused, therein defining certain things as rights. Not necessarily granted them.

Forgot that I had to clearly annunciate on a written forum....

Anyways, this needs to be legislated or ruled on.