sort by best latest
Best Answer LandmarkWealth says
you are so correct. the precedence will provide openings for all the radical immoral society members.
Back in 07 SCOTUS declined to hear a polygamy case. With the new standard set, I don't know how they can deny them the same right. You can't defend this new civil liberty by denying it to others. Immigrants from polygamist nations might be offended.
I welcome the legalization of polygamy too, I am so sick of all these "small government" conservatives who favor legislating their morality, the hypocrisy stinks. Thankfully they have lost the public and will soon be just an unpleasant memory.
Yes...and now we can add on more social entitlement benefits for multiple spouses and their offspring, and eventually send us off the economic cliff the way the Europeans have destroyed themselves with their entitlement state.
#1 the average European debt is less than third of ours compared to gdp and lower in nations with bigger welfare states.
#2 the numbers will be utterly insignificant.
#3 the law can be adapted to account for the factors you raise.
Europeans productivity in terms of GDP per capita, and GDP per hours worked is horrific when compared to the US. They have become an unproductive society based on their entitlement culture with perpetually high unemployment. But were catching up.
Nope several European nations have higher productivity per hour, they do work less hours a week on average because they have better workers rights and quality of life and hence happiness.
Yeah like some of the Scandinavian nations that went insolvent in the early 90's and were forced to reduce entitlements, lower tax rates, reduce reg's and float their currency. I am in agreement 100% with that approach. Europe as a whole is doomed.
I don't actually think I need to explain to you how incredibly weak an argument that is.
BTW No Scandinavian nations has been insolvent since the 30s only one nation reduced entitlements in the 90s, they are now higher than they were before that.
No, I must have imagined the disaster they created in the early 1990's and that Sweden subsequently cut gov't spending's share of GDP about 18% since then. And that they now allow private companies to run public hospitals. Corp tax cut to 22%
much has been discussed, but little really explains the damage to society as the morals erode. The immoral would never want to allow a complete vote, because they are unwilling to follow the law created by states like California. Society destroyed.
We just had votes on the issue in several states in the last election, several states legalized same sex marriage by vote, some will legalize it through elected officials instead.
And some states won't legalize it. Which is why I ultimately agree with the SCOTUS. I believe this to be a 10th amendment issue. And the states should decide this. If only they'd recognize states rights more often.
So, L.W. if every state but Texas stops attacking women's rights and legalizes same sex marriage - that is OK with you? Then we must change our name to the "divided state of America"
I believe in the 10th amendment, states have rights to decide what is not explicit in the constitution. I don't believe they are attacking women's rights. But if they legalize same sex marriage, so be it. The states are already divided culturally.
LW: what kind of country is this without uniformity in equality? = rights R the issue, no state should have the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs. the concept of "religious morality" has no bearing on equality or laws governing crimes
I don't see it as discrimination. They want the same federal benefits, many of which I don't believe should exist to begin with for anyone. Which civil unions can accomplish. The concept of Federalism is to not have total uniformity.
the issue is based on a corruptive government that chooses to support immoral activity to destroy the nation. equality has already been shown through court cases where civil unions resulted in the same benefits for the immoral individuals.
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments
I have been living in the real world where the voters in California passed a law that was ultimately overturned by those who believe the immoral actions of the few outweigh the moral majority. Human decency was just sidelined.
No plurality via poll that I have seen agrees with you, and in most polls the majority doesn't agree with you either, and all of those trendlines are increasingly in the direction away from you.
People do not have the right to vote on the equal rights of others which is why slavery no longer exists and women can vote. Human progress is often fought by those with narrow minds.
@ junseller, From an earlier post...Yes I did wish for my kids to be born heterosexual. I can't imagine anybody wishing to see their kids denied the opportunity to experience the amazing joy of producing a child with the one they love.
There is nothing decent OR "HOLY" about exclusionism, elitism and discrimination. *NOTHING*.
Than you wished for your child to have a specific joy. Fine. I'd wish for nothing but for my child to have a life full of joy (whatever that joy for them was). And same-sex couples can and do bear/raise children with the one they love.
Biology doesn't permit Same sex couples to produce their own offspring without a 3rd party. And for many of us, its not the same to adopt, which is a noble endeavor, as it is to hold your own child that you created with your wife.
Even were we to accept that one is less joyful than another, which is arrogant presumption, it still doesn't give anyone the right to try and prevent one or the other. More importantly, why would you WANT to deny any pursuit of joy?
I outlined the reasons in my comment.The only other issue I have is I don't agree with children intentionally placed in non-traditional families,including straight single people adopting.I believe the counterbalance of mother/father is important.
LandmarkWealth - if the parents are not bothered that one of them if not both (in adoption) does not share the biological DNA of the child, why are you? If biology is the case - what of adoption? No relation of anyone's yet still family
I was referring to why I wished my kids be born hetero and not denied an opp. But I personally believe it is important for kids to have the counterbalance of a father and mother.I don't believe straight single people should be able to adopt either
- See all 11 commentsHide extra comments
you're so right - I'm sure that will work as well as it always has! ;)
Your radical statement is the same one used by many of the immoral factions in an attempt to justify their immoral activities. Such thinking and broadcasting is why the society is being destroyed.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
SO - you believe that all judges and juries are immoral? How about teachers or professors that grade students work? Your subjective does not secure objectives of true moral society. Abnormal is abnormal no matter how you dice it.
no sir. I am talking about Ur irrational judgmentalism based on erroneous religious teachings. Ur beliefs belong 2 U & cannot B imposed on others. U R entitled 2 Ur beliefs, but can't condemn others 4 theirs. So Ur overreach of my comments is fal
your objection is based on your personal feelings concerning this matter. I have stated nothing other than the truth, while you continue to spew the same rhetoric as those who work to destroy the moral society.
You have stated nothing other than what YOU believe is the truth, Tab, just as d.william has. Not all truths are in fact truths for everyone. Teachers, judges, etc judge objectively - not on race, sex etc. This is a subjective matter of what u dislik
once again truth is not being used in the discussion. the question is based on destruction of the moral society, not the subjective definition of objective pursuit. the objective is nothing more than saving the society.
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
The rights of each individual are mutually exclusive-until the government decides to modify the definitions of that exclusivity. With the ruling by the supreme court my marriage license means nothing-maybe we should eliminate the license. barbaricly
How does your license change in the slightest?
So you ask this broad and over-reaching question all because what's really irking you is equal rights for all sexual orientations. Sorry (not really) but gays can now eat at "your" lunch counter, too.
the definition of the license changes through the addition of immoral acceptance through it. due to this, the license then does not depict a moral activity but an immoral one. license elimination then removes the demanded immoral acceptance
You mean immoral as hatefully portrayed in your Book, and as so blindly obeyed by those of your ilk? Blind and unexamined faith is not faith at all, but fear. Fear of what though? This is hardly more than "just in case" ritualism.
if normal, it would reproduce. but, nature does not allow such because God made sure it took a man and woman to provide the newborn. It is the truthful way that the immoral cannot accept. Truth is where morality breeds-immoral comes from lies.
So taburkett - if I reproduce its normal? What abt infertile couples - they immoral too? Older people no longer capable of reproductive sex but still having it - immoral? Any non timed 4 conception sex is merely pleasure + there4 immoral? Judge all
"Normalcy" and morality have nothing to do with each other.
physical impairment to reproduce is not an immoral mental affliction. therefore, the moral couple that are infertile are not immoral as you would like to classify them. once again, you elude the truth. when truth is accepted immoral support dies.
I think you are quite deliberately playing "Mickey the dunce" wrt my application of "normal". I don't give a hoot about infertility. I'm saying that being "abnormal" in some way is not immoral. Doctor, heal thyself!
stanwshura - you continue to attempt an apples and oranges dissertation regarding my question. this is the same expansive impractical spread that supporters of immoral acts portray to spread confusion within the moral community.
SMH the fixation of the anti on the sex lives of those whom they despise is beyond me. You seem more worried about what it going on behind our closed doors than what is going on behind yours. Is it moral to be judging another whom you've never met?
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments
True. Gallup has revealed the results of a recent poll showing support for marriage equality at 53 percent. It's even higher among the younger generation or "our future". http://tinyurl.com/bhlwwdy
well - some poles are shady - while others simply provide a hole questionable as a fissure.
You wish it to be, so you state it is so.
degradation of society is orchestrated by the immoral
soon the society will be gone -
as the incapable destroy it.
What will be gone soon, taburkett, is people like you. Just a footnote in the history of bigotry. The sooner the better.
obviously the majority voted in California but the minority has overturned it through immoral wrangling. The bigotry portrayed by the immoral factions and their immoral lawyers is immense. The judges should be removed for failing to retain morals.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments
No church imposed - no religion portrayed.
This is simply a matter of moral and immoral.
So - please explain when the rights of the immoral are discriminated by the moral. And if they are, then reversal has provided reverse-discrimination.
The definition of immoral is corrupt or depraved. Is allowing equal rights for single adults to marry the person they love immoral or discrimination? There was a time people considered "living together" to be immoral. Marriage is NOT an immoral act.
Leviticus 18:22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions...women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature...
Truth above all
The Bible may be YOUR truth (for who knows what reason!) but it sure isn't THE truth. I believe Euclid, Newton, Einstein and Hawking - not so convinced by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
Taburkett - in your first comment you speak of no church, no religion. Yet your ONLY reasoning why it may be immoral is religious. Contradiction? Your religion doesn't make the law for all. In fact your constitution is designed to PREVENT it being so
jlpark- your premise is hypothetical due to assumption. Truth is truth and lie is lie. Immoral acceptance of same-sex marriage is not truth. Truth is found in the normal reproduction of normal - not abnormal.
Yet it is 'normal' reproduction that results in homosexuals. It's the straights having the gay babies. If u seek 2 tell me it's a choice, pls enlighten me as 2 when and how u made the choice of yr sexuality - if 1 is a choice, so is the other.
homosexuality is an emotional abnormality - not a physical trait. That is why the immoral individuals must continually press for society acceptance as they do. therefore, homosexuality is a decision, not a physical impairment.
FIrst of all, your implication that mental disorders are less serious and less real than physical impairments is disgusting and flat out WRONG. Second, homosexuality is not a choice. You are one sorry, harmful individual if you argue otherwise!
my question is not based on any religious sector but the moral society that is being destroyed. The federal government is supposed to protect the nation but has recently been focused on destroying it. This is just one of the destructive actions.
The cowardly removal of appropriate comments that comply with hp tos - now THAT is immoral!
Does homosexual marriage cause the economy to slide? The $$ with the gays is likely to HELP. Does it cause buildings to erode from under us? Does it cause anarchy and lawlessness in the streets? Is is contagious? No. Hatred is more destructive.
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments
Billie Kelpin says
When you live through truth, you can be confident beyond all those who do not. The moral majority do not waiver under the immoral banter regardless of the corrupt level of those who spew it.
Yeah it's *such* a majority look at the answers on this question :D
Or you know a poll.
People who live morally know the challenges presented by praising and broadcasting the righteousness of God. The individual who has accepted God as their guide will be stronger and do good in their life. Those who deny will never recognize the way.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
The majority live under principles and rules of correct actions founded on fundamental truth of right conduct rather than an immoral culture deemed legal through custom modification. Though I walk through an immoral valley, I shall remain clean.
Assuming you're a human being, good luck with that.
Taburkett, The argument on a moral basis is subjective and can't be absolute. I approach it from the standpoint of biology, and the laws of human reproduction that mother nature has laid down for us that tell us what is or isn't a normal behavior.
Funny how it is only Christian non-biologists who make a biological argument against homosexuality, isn't it? Your notion of natural would be laughed out of a biology class.
The triumph of immoral has continually shown to be temporary through the ages. That is because truth cannot be defeated. The truthful lip shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment. Proverbs 12:19
Actually my cousin is a Professor of biology at the university of Stony Brook, and made the same point. And he is an atheist. Find me one person who ever wished their kid would be born gay before birth, and that tells you how normal it is.
Yes, well, "my Cousin said so," would also get laughed out of a science class, and I've never seen a parent wish for any particular sexual orientation (dear Lord, please give me a heterosexual child, amen). Maybe you would, I don't know.
Many scientist don't hold with your ideals and views,and are people of religious and spiritual faith,despite your attempts to portray the scientific community differently.Actually about 75% of Drs and 50% of Scientist are faith based.
Religion isn't science. Scientists can be religious and they can via faith believe homosexuality is wrong, they still can not scientifically say it is unnatural. It's been observed in many animals and has always been present in humans.
Junkseller brings up a standard point in the animal community. But like all others fails to identify that in the animal world, the immoral beast is cast out of the clan and is sometimes eradicated by its own kind. They seem to know how to handle it
Yeah Tarburkett that is not true at all, no animal displays homophobia, only humans, over 95% of mammals have homosexual members..
Josak always explains away the immoral activity as a brotherhood venture with the standard malaise of crony biased commentary rather than the truth. No scientist has ever discovered a clan of reproducing homophobes. None ever will.
That wasn't my point, only that people of faith are not inherently ignorant to science as you have portrayed them. And there are scientific theories around intelligent design as well, such as irreducible complexity. regardless of whether you agree.
Taburkett: reproducing homophobes? what are you on about, other animals don't punish homosexuality, you were wrong, it's very simple.
Landmark: irreducible complexity is not a scientific theory at all, biologists laugh at it in general.
It is a theory as it is proposed by a Biochemist, and there are others in the field who agree. Just because it is not a majority opinion doesn't mean it's not a theory. Nor is evolution a fact, but a theory which is still unproven.
LW: U certainly live in a world of ur own.(right there with burkett).The evolution is a proven theory. Creationism is not.
Some might argue that Irred. Comp. is on the edge of the science tent (not me), but no one would argue it is mainstream or central. Same is true of homosexuality being unnatural. You're not going to find any primary scientific support for it.
Theories, by definition, have no proof. They have ever evolving (so to speak) support in the known evidence, but never proof.
Attikos: Ur very comment is true of ur beliefs of creationism, but evolution has archeological evidence 2 support their theory. U have only superstition & unsubstantiated religious decrees. (I believe is is true so it must be) this is not a theor
It is not a fact, and there are scientist who dispute it, there just a small minority. And many believe that ID and evolution can coexist demonstrated by their commitment to faith and religion. Scientific truth itself evolves and is never final.
LW. Ur correct & the ideal would B to accept that evolution is the result of a creative process. 2 continuously try 2 individualize them is illogical. God did create the evolutionary process without the magic that religion insists on believing.
You say that with certainty as though you spoke to God yourself. My problem is the way many comments here portray the faithful, many of which are respected scientist & Dr's as medieval ignorant people, which in itself is a form of bigotry.
To d.william: Just a question here. In real life, do you kneejerk your way to the fatuous assumptions you keep posting, or do you just play a reactionary bigot on Hub Pages?
lol...Attikos...Don't you know that only the non-religious understand God and all his actions...Not the religious. So much for d.william believing in only that which is a proven fact.
My only point is that the Bible is not an acceptable scientific reference. That's not intended as an insult to the Bible. It is what it is. And without the Bible the support for homosexuality being unnatural becomes almost non-existent.
Many people,including some atheist I know disagree. Not all opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in religious belief. In a few cases even gays opposed it http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-homosexual...
"Not all opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in religious belief" (Here, for example, is an article from the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute)...That's pretty funny. At least you have a sense of humor.
If you read the article, the people cited who were homosexual & atheist themselves were not citing their non-existent faith as their reason. They were concerned about the family unit & children. You're fee to disagree, but don't make up stu
They weren't citing anything for their reasoning. Generally, that's what we call belief. The only 'reasoning' given was a 'study' done by CFAM. Article was also written by CFAM.
Yes they did, They cited their own personal experience as a rationale.You can disagree with him,but they are still gay atheists.I am simply explaining that not all opposition is based on religious faith,whether you agree with the view is a diff issue
Well, I did say almost non-existent, not completely. Even so, the ONLY identified atheist in that article specifically cited a junk 'study' which traces back (as most on this topic do) to a religious organization.
Actually the study was done by the Univ of Texas...Only reported by them. It's findings contradict other studies. But it was done at the University level.
Study was done AT the university, not BY them. If they could, they'd erase their name from it. Study was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and is widely considered to be rubbish. The short version of the Journal's own audit was: "It's bulls**t."
The study was done by a Phd from the university, and backed by another from Unv of Penn. The funding is irrelevant. Lib prof's get funding from congress with an agenda of pol correctness. As usual, any scientist who disagrees is not credible.
Poor science is poor science. It really isn't very subjective. You can go in yourself and see his flawed methodology.
I have read it and know the critiques already, I don't view it as poor as it was portrayed. And a number of other Phd's in the field agreed. Just because someone with your view agrees doesn't mean its more valid. As usual only your science is sciene
as usual, many individuals deny the truth based on personal feelings rather than accurate information. the selling of falsehoods by the government and media in this situation is what is destroying the society by classifying immoral as moral.
ta, the Internet attracts little poo flinging monkeys like road kill draws flies. Its virtual nature makes it safe for them. You can't have a dialogue with bullies who make up their facts as they go along, though, so most just quit the threads.
when the weak follow the immoral - the society and nation perishes. the current immoral support is destroying the USA and as a patriot I will never stop protecting it. others chide and hide but I deliver the truth.
It isn't my view. It's the view of the publishing journal which called the article "bulls**t," the American Sociological Association who filed in amicus brief in the recent DOMA case and denounced the study, along with several other major med. orgs.
And received some positive feedback by Dr. Paul R. Amato (Chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association) Dr. David J. Eggebeen, & Dr. Cynthia Osborne. None of their Phd's count in your world.
So I'm getting attacked for allegedly ignoring 3 PhDs (which I'm not by the way), but you see nothing wrong in ignoring the mass of collected PhDs of the major med. orgs. Do you even realize how completely stupid that is?
Mass collection...The overall body of work in this area is extremely limited to begin with.Academia in general is dominated by left leaning thinkers. But you assume only the few conservative professors produce biased work. Lib's would never do that
A good chunk of this country's medical organizations denounced that study. That's true whether you change the subject or not. You are the only one who has introduced partisanship so it's silly to accuse me of it. My interest is for the science.
I am the only one who introduced partisanship...You went out of your way to cite who funded the study and implied that they were inherently biased. Otherwise the source of the funds is no more biased than the lib professors and their govt grants.
I said it traced back to a religious org. (which it does). That isn't partisanship. And I never said it was "inherently biased". It is, however, a conflict of interest which is worth being concerned about by anyone interested in objective science.
No,meant to say it traced back to a religious org,because it had no impact.For the record I think all Univ studies are prone to some bias.Thats why Krugman is only held in esteem in academia.In the investment world results count,an he's a non entity
- See all 47 commentsHide extra comments
with the support given to these immoral activities, the human race will be eradicated just as Sodom and Gomorrah. Such mental impulses for immoral institutions have shown to destroy society as moral people stand and watch. many chose this trend.
Sodom's sin was inhospitality, haughtiness, greed and unwillingness to help the needy, (as per Jesus - in Ezekiel). So, you could be right re demise. Due to all those same reasons. Unless you are going to tell me Jesus was wrong + the sin was gayness
jlpark, Very well-put! You also support your thesis well in your comment. It's interesting that those who would put on the mantle of the "moral majority" don't realize some of us actually view their prejudices as immoral and un-Christian!
government prejudices supporting immoral acts continue to degrade the society. Those who demand such support fail to accept truth that abnormal is not normal. Those of us who are normal will never be equal to the abnormal and vice-versa.
So, you agree that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality? Or are you ignoring the point? Normality is a societal concept. If you look at it - prejudice and bias against another for being different (race, sex, orientation etc) is NOT normal.
when the government promotes immoral activity, it targets destruction of the nation. history has shown that promoting such destruction results in the Sodom and Gomorrah effect.
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
Just a question - where is the attack? Disagreeing is not an attack, it is part of a conversation. I'm merely curious.
I think the problem with your type is the unnatural belief that sex is only about procreation. You completely ignore the social bonding aspects of it, the pleasure of it, and the useful practice one can get by slimjimming your buddy's smokestack
I consider myself a very moral person. My Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Atheist friends (and I DO have them) consider me extremely moral, highly ethical in my dealings, compassionate, loving, and kind. . I'm just saying -- over and out
BK. i find most gay people are way more moral than those who defile them in the name of their religions. Hatred and intolerance is what is truly immoral.
d.William. Exactly! That's what I'm trying to say.
people who live by the truth do not represent an acorn tree as a redwood. they also do not represent abnormal as normal. homosexuality is an emotional choice not a physical deformity. Due to the emotional abnormality immoral activity occurs.
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments