South Carolina Officially Bans Gay Marriage »
Posted by: Alexia 1 year, 4 months ago744 CommentsReflectReport this Story
South Carolina officially banned gay marriage Thursday as legislative leaders ratified a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November. New Hampshire, meanwhile, moved in the opposite direction, with a state House panel endorsing the creation of civil unions for same-sex couples.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 744
-
86%
pinkroses6891 year, 4 months ago
PRAISE THE LORD!!!! As a PROUD (not to be mistaken as a HOMOSEXUAL)resident of South Carolina, I completly back them 100%!!It about time a state stands up for whats RIGHT!
Reply-
83%
vor1 year, 4 months ago
Yep thats right. We know whats good for you. And we ain't takin the flag down either. You know, our flag, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy. Wouldn't be part of this screwed up country today if we had won. We'd still have our slaves and woulnd't be sending our representatives to Washington but to Richmond instead. And why, oh why, did our beloved Strom have to die? Why did Gawd take him from us? We loved our mummified Senator. Voted him in twice after he should have been legally dead. Then them evil liberals gave him a black child. Is there no mercy Lord?
And why can't we git out of dat 49th or 50th place in education? Why are we one of the most unhealthy states? Why are we just so plain backward? Most of us go to church every Sunday like weer sposed to.
Seriously, if my home state is what the Right envisions for America we are in major trouble.
Reply-
0%
CatholicRedneck1 year, 4 months ago
If San Francisco and New England are what the left envisions for America we are in major trouble.
Reply-
71%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Well, I'm not a San Francisco liberal, but why don't you explain yourself further.
Reply -
75%
vor1 year, 4 months ago
You are referring to the Kennedy's and Harvard intellectuals and Castro Street progressives, and sterotyping the rest of the population. Throw out the extremes and those areas are not so bad.
That is hardly the case here is SC where the extremes are the norm. Bush still has 70% approval around here. Can't say many other places are that ignorant.
Reply-
-
-
75%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Well Charlson, I do loathe living in the "Bible Belt" but other than that, I am as southern and redneck as they come. I fish and hunt and ride a harley and I even watch NASCAR every now and then. I am a proud Tarheel originally and currently from NC and have lived in four Southern states and one neutral one(Kentucky). And I am not some inbred mental defective as many will probably assume, I am an honor graduate of UNC Chapel Hill with a B.S. in Chemistry. It is not simply a Southern issue, because twenty-six states have constitutional amendments defining gay marriage already so SC was kind of behind on this one, and forty-three states have statutes defining marriage as between two members of the opposite sex including NH, SD CO, NY, etc. Full list at:http://...">http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?site
The problem is narrowmindedness in general, and not just Southern inbreeding as some would suggest.
Reply-
78%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Brag, brag, brag. Honor grad, blah, blah, UNC Chapel Hill, blah, blah, Chemistry, blah blah, not an uneducated redneck blah, blah.
I had to graduate from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. With a BA in History. Doesn't have quite the same gravitas as UNC Chapel Hill with a BS in Chemistry does it? LOL>
Reply-
50%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Yes I am proud of where I came from and what I did. Sorry if it comes off as being cocky. I do detest it when people automatically assume I am intellectually deficient just because I was born and raised in the South and speak with a Souther drawl especially when I am tipsy. lol
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago
Only Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships that offer similar benefits.
Can a unmarried male/female couple get the same "special rights" that a male/male or female/female couple is afforded?
Reply-
100%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
Yeah. There is a thing called "common-law marriage". And that has existed for a long time.
Reply -
100%
Alexia1 year, 4 months ago
Re: unmarried heterosexual couples getting dom. partnership benefits - your so-called "special rights" - yes, they can, and have been able to since the dawn of Domestic Partnership benefits. Dom. Part. benefits have never been exclusive to homosexuals, it's just that most unmarried heterosexual couples are unmarried because they want to be, and have a choice to marry. Dom Part. benefits is also a distinction that is left up to the individual company offering them. The company also decides what specific benefits will be offered: dental, no dental, major medical, accupuncture, etc. Most require "proof of relationship" like a joint bank account or same address. In most companies offering dom. part. benefits, the benefits are as extensive as those for legally married couples. Many companies have found that it is cost effective to offer dom. part. benefits rather than train new employees month after month. Employees with proper benefits stay in a job longer.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
I live in CT, and they are so far and so consistently left, they think they're in the center == and Massachusetts is worse.
Reply -
0%
ScottMiller1 year, 4 months ago
As I have said numerous times, bans on gay marriage are the fault of the gay community.
Marriage is so associated with family values and religions of one sort or anther that it is perceived to be a religious institution itself or at the very least a bastion of morality and monogamy.
While the gay community is not inherently immoral, they don't make a visible effort to promote issues that protect families and children. On the contrary, the issues that the gay community LOUDLY promotes are things like AIDS awareness and the right to be gay.
AIDS awareness is great and they certainly have the right to be gay, but the gay communities in your face strategy for getting the straight community "used" to seeing homosexual activity seems to include protecting activities for gay individuals that would not be acceptable for straight people.
Reply-
0%
ScottMiller1 year, 4 months ago
As a result, demands for "Gay Marriage" sound like an attack on religion itself and mainstream America is not comfortable with that yet.
Until the gay community shows that there is more to their agenda than protecting their ability to hold circuit parties and to recover from the health consequences of those events, their desires to achieve legal equality for their relationships is going to be an uphill and perhaps futile battle.
Reply-
100%
Filby1 year, 4 months ago
Demands for gay marriage (and yes it is real, no need for the "iffy quotes") are an attack on un-American inequality, and on the un-American politicians who exploit that inequality for personal gains, regardless of the destruction they leave in their wake.
Your stereotype of all gay men holding circuit parties is not only laughably stupid and entirely inaccurate, but has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Unless you want straight people who wreck their health going to parties to be banned from marriage too..?
The day you homophobes make sense, I swear, is the true day hell freezes over.
Reply
-
-
0%
Filby1 year, 4 months ago
You have said it numerous times, and have been wrong exactly as many times. Bans on gay marriage are the fault of homophobes. Always.
Marriage is a throw-away concept for many straight people, as evidenced by Brittany Spears' 10-second marriage spree in Vegas. Neither moral nor monogamous, but highly hypocritical to say "its about morality" when its really about getting shoved onto the "gotta get married" conveyor belt.
The media decides what gets reported on loudly or otherwise, not gay people. The media chooses to play up certain angles and ignore others to create an image of gay people that is unreal and that serves their own purposes as definers of culture.
Being gay is not a right, its a state of being. What straight people consider acceptable or not is a set of constraints that are self-imposed by straights onto straights. You're as constrained as you want to be. Why gays should accept those same constraints without warrant is an argument without merit.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
Since when does defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman equal bigotry?
Or have we come to the point in this country that establishing minimal legal definitions of someone else's chosen associations now called "bigotry?"
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
When it singles out a particular group of individuals that have done nothing that is criminal.
Reply-
0%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
In actually sodomy is a crime in SC and NC, and many other states. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but to make an argument for something you must use the facts. Just preparing you for someone who might throw that in your face. I don't think they are criminals, nor do I think they should be prohibited from "tying the knot" around their necks, so to speak ,if others are allowed to do it. I don't think anyone should get married though, hetero, or otherwise. It's a bunch of bullsh*t and it takes a whole year to get out of what took you fifteen minutes to get into.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Sodomy laws are ridiculous. That is true and it is a problem. The issue here is that the law is rarely applied and when it is it is generally applied only to homosexuals. I am ready for that argument although I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
I used to think they way you do about marriage, even (or especially) after I was married myself. However, now, after years of struggle I am happy being married. So, I hope that you can find the kind of joy that I have. It is work, but when you find that right person it is glorious in a way I can't really describe.
Reply-
0%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Thanks Bkumm, I mainly like to rant about marriage to blow off steam and for comic effect. I most certainly do think that it is something not to be taken lightly, and I wish the young women of my generation would quit pressuring their boyfriends for it so much when neither of them is ready for it. I can't believe some one gave both of us negatives for this little discussion! What a dork!
Reply -
100%
makoshaleycomet1 year, 4 months ago
sodomy laws are ACTUALLY most often used in the prosecution of rapists & child molesters who have sodomized their victims, which for most, especially those with no prior experience in anal penetration, is an incredibly painful, horrific, disgusting, & devastating experience. it creates an additional charge which generally adds time to sentences and with most jury members will increase sympathy for the victim. sodomy laws are not ridiculous. they are there for your protection if you happen to be a resident or have a child who is a resident of a state with a law like that.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Well, ACTUALLY, that is a charge that is added on because it is on the books. They use it as a way to punish the criminal more. Rape is rape.
If what you say is true then they should write in the law that it will only be used against child molesters and rapists. That is not the case to my knowledge.
Sodomy laws were put on the books to punish people for their lifestyle, not to punish rapists further. As I said, rape is rape. If the crime is especially heinous then the time should be more.
Reply -
100%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
It ought to be sufficient for a a crime to make a law that covers it and not an additional two or three to make punishment worse. Use of a gun in a felony, for example. Sodomy, in your example. Hate crime laws, for example. These laws prey on and encourage FEELINGS about crime and punishment that have little to do with the reality of the offence comitted, and should not IMHO exist at all. Conspiracy also, in most instances.
There is a significant difference between sodomy and forcible sodomy.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
The sodomy law was shot down. Now it can never be used because of precedent. That is not a fact anymore.
Reply -
-
75%
makoshaleycomet1 year, 4 months ago
ahhh, my bad, not an attorney or leo so no reason really to keep up w/ such. i do remember being younger and hearing on the news about people being charged w/ sodomy among other things in child molestation cases. i remember asking my parents what it meant when i was much younger.
Reply -
-
-
-
44%
makoshaleycomet1 year, 4 months ago
it's kind of like the goth kids that get mad when people stare at them and talk about them...
Reply
-
-
0%
maxdiputs21 year, 4 months ago
If I am correct bigotry is the intolerance of some belief. When you consider the situation, you have to look at the motivations. I highly doubt that the people of South Carolina passed the law because of all the confusion over the term marriage. It is far more likely they did so because they thought what they were doing was "the right thing to do" and therefore were making a judgement. This judgement implies that they are intolerant of something. Logically, this is bigotry.
Reply-
100%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Actually a bigot is "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Merriam Webster Dictionary. It has to do with hating someone just for how they were born and that's how I always thought of it. Since homosexuals are of all races and ethnicities, and since it hasn't been proven that homosexuals are born that way, homophobia does not constitute bigotry. Personally I don't care either way whether they are allowed to marry, or have civil unions or not. Some states approve of one, and others approve of the other. Though started as a republic, we are now pretty much a democracy, so what the uninformed masses say goes. It is unfortunate and homophobic perhaps, but it is not bigotry.
Reply-
100%
maxdiputs21 year, 4 months ago
Your distorting things to make a point. After comparing 5 definitions from different dictionaries, and using the one that is the most general and encapsulating, it claims that bigotry is intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Either way, fighting over a definition is stupid. You and me both know your stupid and are trying to say that TECHNICALLY being against gay people isn't bigotry when we both know conceptually it is the same thing. In absolutely none of the definitions did they saying anything about the way someone was born. Your just interpreting things completely incorrectly and inserting your views into definitions.
Reply-
100%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Look at my other responses on here, I'm not against gay marriage, I'm against marriage in general. If you broaden your definition to, "it claims that bigotry is intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." That makes you and me both bigots against Christian fundamentalists, because both of us have a complete intolerance for fundamentalist Christian dogma. So by YOUR definition, we are bigots, calling bigots, bigots. There is no need to be insulting, after all, I was not insulting to you and insulting someone is what bigots do. The way one is born is an extrapolation of the meanings of race, creed, and ethnicity, because after all no one chooses to be any of these, we are simply born that way. I am interpreting the definition of bigotry in a way that is consistent enough to not be called a hypocrite for impugning someone's character for practicing the same thing that I am criticizing them for.
Reply
-
-
100%
mcarpentry1 year, 4 months ago
storeyteller81, There is no proof that homosexuals are born that way. I have a question for you, do you like the government taking your tax dollars and spending them as THEY see fit? If your answer is no, Then why would you want specific groups using your tax dollars to fund their agenda. As far as hatred goes; Were is the main stream media about the Christians that were verbally attacked in San Fransisco last week?, Where is the outrage for the bigotry there?
Reply-
0%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
That is why I don't approve of throwing the word bigot around like it's the word of the day. I believe that neither this law, nor the situation in San Fran constitute bigotry, because if you say that one does, then other is also bigotry. It is merely people throwing their ideas at each other like their ideas are bombs. From my understanding both parties in the San Fran event expressed themselves vocally, and if neither party was physically assaulted, then no laws were broken, and each had their right to say what they said. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, because I haven't been following the San Fran story.
Reply -
100%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
Sexual orientation is established very early; this is agreed upon by all professional psychological and psychiatric associations. In the end it doesn't matter whether it is genetic or not, established it is by the time a person is permitted to be responsible for himself. The government has ways of spending my money for all kinds of things I disapprove of, not the least of which is the present war. I would say it spends a great deal more money on religion and the support of it than it does on homosexuality. As to the Christians, let them practice their faith in their churches and homes in peace, but if they care to enter thier beliefs in the political arena, they need to be prepared for the free-for-all that American democracy is. No special treatment. No tax exemptions either.
Reply
-
-
100%
kctrixter1 year, 4 months ago
storeyteller81:
Since your fond of Merriam Webster Dictionary, did you try looking up marriage?
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Reply-
29%
kctrixter1 year, 4 months ago
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Reply -
33%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Well done kctrixter, however, I'm not sure what you are stabbing at. I'm not against gay marriage, however I do not think that marriage in general is a good idea. As far as bigotry, when you call someone a bigot because their opinions offend you, no matter who is right in the matter, you are in fact practicing bigotry. That is why I felt the need to interpretively narrow the definition to exclude such things as homophobia, and fundamentalistophobia (from which I suffer). If you will look at the definition from Merriam Webster for bigot, you will notice that their is no qualification for whether the opinions one holds so vehemently are right or wrong, only that they are obstinately held with intolerance for the opposing opinion. When I think of a bigot, my mind immediately brings up pictures of Nazis and KKK members and people who acted on their prejudices against people who were born a different race or creed than they were.
Reply-
100%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Upon further self analysis, and analysis of this law, yes it is bigoted, as we all who call people bigots are. It is a useless word used as an insult to fight fire with fire resulting in one big a$$ fire. We are all bigots and that's just the way it is. Perhaps a synonym for bigot should be human. LOL
Reply-
43%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
Hmmm...Well it obviously helps some people to sleep better at night and call themselves "Christian," when they can pretend to be confused about the definition of bigot (just like people pretend not to know what hate speech is or insist that it's a "liberal" construct). Anyone who thinks that simply declaring to themselves that a given word has an innocuous or neutral meaning makes it so is living in wonderland.
Reply-
100%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
Yes Meso, but we must not lower ourselves to their level by constantly making up names to call them. We must confront this ideology head-on with facts. After all if we just sit here on our computers calling these people names, it does nothing for the cause of freedom and logic for all of us. This name-calling and such is one of the causes for how divided we are today, and yes it was started by Carl Rove and Hush Bimbo along with a bunch of other political operatives, but we cannot continue to throw gas on the fire and divide our country anymore. We must attempt to understand each other and move on. If they don't want gay marriage, how about civil unions, which I think is the best compromise given the current political atmosphere. And I am agnostic, so nothing helps me sleep at night. LOL
Reply-
100%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
There can be no compromise. We are all equal citizens, or we are not. And the pigs cannot be more equal. I will not sit idly by while others attempt to curtail or subvert my rights for whatever reason: their religion, or their political ideology. Laws that require social comformity for its own sake instead of for the protection of citizens from actual harm are morally repugnant to me, and anti-American in spirit, and I will resist them with the necessary persistence and force to negate them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
storeyteller811 year, 4 months ago
That broad definition of bigotry includes just about everybody in the US under the current relentless division we face. It also includes me personally, because I can't stand anyone that is a fundamentalist of any religion, whether it be Islam, or Christian, etc. I prefer the Merriam Webster definition as seen above.
Reply-
100%
Charlson1 year, 4 months ago
Hey just giving what I got. That's all. Besides we really know what it means don't we?
Reply -
100%
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
Why are we so divided? It is the "culture war" that is being forced down the throats of all right wing pundits. I can't stand to hear this divisive language perpetuated by the president. Reunite this country. We are not at war with each other. We are not at war with Christmas. We shouldn't be at war with anyone. We should be working together to make our society better rather than tearing each other apart over semantics and small mindedness.
And to address one thing I find ofensive. Teaching "intelligent design" as fact in school is not "presenting both sides." It is pandering to a lowest common denominator. Scientific fact and religion to not need to go together. It is doing a disservice to your children to teach them that a religious belief is scientific fact.
Reply -
100%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
Not liking people who are different from us isn't the same as not tolerating them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
JohnLock1 year, 4 months ago
Alright, I don't care about the rhetoric from either side. We've all heard it all before. I'm a liberal from NYC so I have my views. I read peoples' views who may be very religious and that's your faith so there's no point in arguing that.
What I want to know is....is there any argument out there that goes into why homosexuality is bad for society or for peoples' emotional/physical health? Yes, we can say it's condemned in the Bible, Koran, Torah etc. or it is immoral but again that's your faith/belief system. Are there any hard arguments using data or reasoning?
I'm not being ironic or sarcastic or rhetorical. I truly am curious about that side of the argument.
Serious replies would be appreciated.
Thanks
Reply-
58%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
Well, all I know is that when I hear someone "straight" insisting that all gay people are unhappy or "tormented" (as one poster here has), my gut tells me that that person is probably projecting.
Reply -
64%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
There are in fact several studies out there that claim to demonstrate health risks associated with homosexuality. The ones I have read closely are not adequately controlled, and probably cannot be. Some of the health statistics cited are alarming, but conclusions are difficult to draw: eg: the suicide rate is much higher for gay teens than straight teens. Why? How you answer this question will say more about your opinions than anything proven. I am certain that anyone posting here can write the answer for either the pro- or anti-gay rights point of view.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
DaneL1 year, 4 months ago
thousands of good americans died for the battle flag of the confederacy and it was not just about slavery. Almost like the states are being divided in two camps then, it is also happening today..
Seriously, if the Left is the invision of America we are in major trouble, removal of God from schools, Gay marriage, redistribution of wealth, etc.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Thousands of rebels died for the battle flag of the Confederacy. You're right it wasn't just about slavery, but it was about the dissolution of the Union.
Seriously, if the vision of the Right is the vison for America we are in major trouble. Putting the Christian God into every school, removing science from education, eliminating the rights of the individual, making the gap between rich and poor wider, destroying our economy, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, etc.
Reply-
0%
mcarpentry1 year, 4 months ago
Bkumm, No one is removing science from the schools, How about teaching both sides to the story? You speak of the "quote" right as if they want nothing more than to force only their opinion. Are you afraid by hearing or being taught both sides that it may show what the real truth is? All I see on this board is " you should have tolerance, tell the truth", OK lets tell the truth, science is nothing more than man's best guess, with some theory thrown in. I asked the same question about were the outrage was on the story about Gore with the "Rich" being able to afford to purchase Carbon Credits, when the "poor" can't afford to, or the ability to install solar panels. Again were is the outrage?
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
I assume that you are running your smack about ID. Intelligent design is not science. Period, full stop. If a being of infinite power came from somewhere else and POOF created the eyeball it is not science it is a miracle. There are not two sides to this issue.
A theory IS mankinds best guess. Like the theory of gravity.
Further, you have no concept of the trouble I have when I tutor astronomy in college. The answer to every question as far as some kids see it is, "Well, God did it." I know that makes people like you estatic, but it is going to bite us right where we sit, when the Chinese move ahead of us in science because we decide to teach mythology as real scientific investigation.
And, unlike you, I won't even neg your comment.
Reply -
0%
crimsonsplendor1 year, 4 months ago
how about this. god created the universe and the laws that govern it. science is the attempt to understand the universe and the laws that govern it. therefore science is about trying to understand god. however religion is based on the idea that the answer is already known, and the answer is god. science is based on the idea that we don't know the answer and must ask questions to find out.
being told 'both sides' only works when both sides are based on factual evidence. intelligent design has no factual basis. every argument runs back to 'because the bible says' and since it's impossible to prove the bible is based on actual events and is anything more than a collection of fables, like any other mythology, it can't be used as the foundation for any 'factual' logic. that's running along the same assumptions as bkumm about you trying to shoehorn ID into this issue.
Reply -
100%
mesodude1 year, 4 months ago
Do you also recommend that we teach about all other religions equally when we go to worship? Keep that intelligent design CRAP out of public schools. If you want your kids to grow up with religion infused into every crevice of their existence, home school them. Just keep RELIGION out of public schools. Period.
Reply
-
-
50%
DaneL1 year, 4 months ago
"Rebels", spoken like a true "Northener"
"Seriously, if the vision of the Right is the vison for America we are in major trouble. Putting the Christian God into every school"
1)The country was founded under a Christian God.
"removing science from education"
2)Because we would like creation and evolution taught in schools.
"eliminating the rights of the individual"
3)It's the Left who wants to remove the second amendment by which all other rights are guaranteed.
"making the gap between rich and poor wider"
4)If you don't want to be poor make good decisions and work hard and you won't be poor.
"destroying our economy"
5)The economy is in great shape. People have more money and the unemployment rate is low. But now with the Left taking over you will be taxed to death.
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
I'm not a Northerner, but thanks for asking, but when the several states broke away from the Union and declared their own country they were, by definition, in rebellion to the Constitution.
1) blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I can post fifteen things here to show that you're wrong, but you don't care, so I'm not going to.
2) Creationism is not science. Full stop.
3) The Second Amendment was never meant to gaurentee the right of every Tom, Dick and Jane to own a bazooka and if you had one single shred of intellectual honesty you'd admit that.
4) That's BS. I know of at least five people in my life (four of whom are single moms) working their butts off to get ahead, sometimes two jobs and they are getting nowhere.
5) The economy is in crappy shape. Unemployment is low because a lot of people have had to take lower paying jobs just to try and get by. Yeah, the Right has done a great job of passing the buck to my kids and grandkids.
Reply-
0%
DaneL1 year, 4 months ago
You may have come from some tide pool or evolved from an ape but I sure as heck didn't.
And the second amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own a bazooka, machine gun or even a sawed-off shotgun,these were outlawed in 1939 (unless you have a special permit). You should read it for yourself sometime.
Do the single mom's you know have children before they could afford them? Bad decision. Did they marry a bum who left them without any means of support? Bad decision. Do they refuse to retrain of even go back to school? (there are student loans)? Bad decision.
There are numerous good paying jobs to be had if you're willing to start a new career. Remember "excuses are only good for the person giving them"
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Well, just because you say it doesn't make it true. The evidence is overwhelmingly on my side.
From memory: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's pretty close. Doesn't say anything about the kinds of weapons. And if the right to keep and bear arms extends to weapons for a militia then that right doesn't end at long and short firearms.
What do you mean, before they could afford them? Bad decisions mean that they don't have the right to a good paying job? Ever tried to 'start a new career' when you have a kid in day care, one in school and it is all you can do to pay the bills? One of those people mentioned did just that. If it were not for govt. assistence it would have been impossible. So, stick that in your capitalistic pipe and smoke it.
Reply-
0%
DaneL1 year, 4 months ago
Show me the evidence you have on the creation of a life form. You only have evidence that species have the ability to evolve. When you can create life then you might have an argument.
And the last time I checked you have no right for a good paying job, only a right at an equal chance to get it. So put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it.
Reply-
100%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Evolution doesn't discuss the creation of life. Nice try though. It doesn't explain how life got here, what it explains is what happens after life is here.
No, you don't have the right to a good paying job. That is true. But, you should have the right to equal access to a good paying job regardless of non-criminal mistakes or life choices that you have made.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a peopleist.
Reply-
71%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
But you have some damned yankee attitudes, son. The right to govern derives from the consent of the governed. Every state that seceded from the Union (NOT rebelled against it) did so by plebescite. The seceded states, then a legally constituted separate nation, were then invaded and conquered by the Union, just as Mexico was before.
The intent of the 2nd ammendment was not only for home protection and defense of the nation, but also to empower the people to overthrow the government by force if it became necessary for Americans to do so AGAIN.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
justpayingattention1 year, 4 months ago
Let me quickly evaluate the nonsense you wrote. Your answer to number is 1 WRONG: America was not founded it was Stolen, it was also created by people who wanted to ESCAPE from religious persecution.
2. Creation has no place in a PUBLIC school, while we are at it, lets teach the kids EVERY religions creation story. WE have to teach kids things that can be PROVEN.
3. You said if you dont want to be poor, "If you don't want to be poor make good decisions and work hard and you won't be poor".
You sound like a true conservative with this one.
34million people in America live BELOW the poverty level, ALL of them are lazy? LEts not forget the MAJORITY of the poor come from the BIBLE BELT region..how do you explain that? I thought if you worked hard and put trust in GOd you would succeed? Guess you southerners dont work hard enough an love God as much as you say you do.
Reply-
100%
DaneL1 year, 4 months ago
Talk about nonsense. So do you think that Calif., Ariz. and Texas should be given back to Mexico? I'm sure you think they were also stolen. Why stop there Alaska was bought from the wrong people and so was the Louisiana Purchase.
Show me the proof you have for the creation of life and I'm all for teaching evolution.
The 34 million you claim live in poverty ALL had the same chance to better themslves. In alot of cases it is very hard but it can be done. I worked hard and put my trust in God and I'm retired at 53 and owe nothing. How about you?
And by the way I'm not from the South.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs10 months, 1 week ago
Evolution has nothing to say at all about the origin of life. If that is your only problem, you don't have a problem. The most ardent athiest scientists freely admit that we do not know how life originated, only the religious claim to know that. Claim what you will, but if you can offer no proof then it does not belong in a science class.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
maxdiputs21 year, 4 months ago
I honestly don't know what these people are talking about when they are praising the lord all over the place. Regardless of religion, most try to teach people to be non-judgemental and focus more on improving themselves. They say that if someone does something immoral, it is god who will ultimatley judge them. This is especialy true with actions that do not harm others. Most of the people who go around praising the lord over things such as this are probably just pseudo-relgious and/or ignorant to the actual relgion they are a part of. Beer harms people at least as much as being queer, so why isn't that banned and why aren't people praising the lord over that. I'll tell you why, because most people are just judgemental creatures who try to use religion to justify their actions.
Reply
-
-
