The ORIGINAL gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)
This silliness is becoming all to common. I bought food at Chick-fil-a ( a chain I seldom patronize) simply because I supported their right to support whom they wished. And I have numerous friends and extended family who belong to the GLBT community. To me their sexual preferences are a non issue. Like wise I read , and enjoy greatly the Science fiction books ( particularly the 1632 series) of Eric Flint who in his own words is an "avowed communist", (a clam I admit I had difficulty warping my head around) and in all candor I have spent time searching for any sign of political bias in his books and have found surprisingly, none. The medium is NOT always the message.III% Dr.D Co. Ben W. Hooper BgdFor the republic
It doesn't open until NOVEMBER?! Don't these clowns know anything about timing their message?
this is like the "browncoats for obama" thing...I kept asking..did any of you actually WATCH firefly??? you know the browncoats were the "leave us the hell alone" guys, right???
+1 for Dr. DThe Constitution prohibits the government discriminating. Me? I can discriminate all I want in perfect moral certitude. It may be stupid and counterproductive, but those are not crimes.
Riiiight. I tried to catch a little of this on another site, but the audio of the video was so poor, I gave it up.What I think I understand (if you can call it that of the mental meanderings of the PC crowd), is that the GLBT PC crowd wants you and me to boycott the film "Ender's Game" because of the author's anti-gay pro-religious "bias". Not because of anything explicitly or implicitly in the film itself. Well, all I can say to the LGBT PC crowd is, "go eff yourself". More then ever now, I WILL go see the film. I admire Orson Scott Card, his writings, and especially "Ender's Game".So, by your silly rantings, you have turned what may have been a questionable "to do" (tight money), into a "must do".ThanksB WoodmanIII-per
Well, I was going to say "F*** 'em," but that's prolly what they're looking for.
A little anecdote:I once was trying to explain to someone why I was against gay marriage. My point wasn't one of religion, or morality, or ethics, or even natural law, all of those are a distant second.The point I was trying to make was that they really should reconsider giving the state a list of millions upon millions of gay people -- which is what marriage licenses really are.I can foresee a time in the future when someone who doesn't like gay people may come to power, and says to their supporters: "Break into various city halls around the nation, and take the marriage licenses, separated out the gay ones from the straight ones. These abominations must be exterminated."That sort of thing is what the nazis did:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust"On May 6, 1933, Nazi Youth of the Deutsche Studentenschaft made an organised attack on the Institute of Sex Research"Replace "Deutsche Studentenschaft" with "local records of marriage licenses".Why would one want to give a list of names from an historically-persecuted group of people to the state, or any state for that matter?Just because the state supports you today, there's no guarantee that will be the truth tomorrow. There are plenty of people who don't like homosexuals (I'm not one of them, I'm more or less neutral towards them to be honest.) and sooner or later, one of them will run and win public office...I tried to make this point, but it fell on deaf ears. The idea that the state could be used for evil didn't even register in their mind. All I got was more about how it's their "right" and how it's "right".I also tried to explain that marriage should be separated from the state as well, but with no luck, their mind was made up.It would have been similar to going back in time to Germany in 1910, and telling a group of Jews that in a mere 30 years things would be getting really interesting for them.
Anonymous:excellent point on marriage licenses, but the logical solution is to remove government from marriage, this provides numerous advantages to all people. Churches can still solemnize marriage for those who want it, and as they are "private clubs" who can set their own rules still reject those whom they consider unsuitable, if they wish. However a simple application of contract law can be used to protect the material ( financial and inheritance), parental interests those who want to be married.Allen: "Browncoats for Obama...?"WOW that is something I will NEVER be able to wrap my brain around....even when I do stop puking..
Post a Comment