1 - 10 Next
David, some people always will feel discriminated against no matter what. Homosesuals now that most heterosexuals don't especially like their "lifestyle" and that is something no one can ever change. You choose to live a dabauched lifestyle you will not be liked, and tha's that!
Libertarians don't seem to have well defined principles other than no government involvement in their "private" lives. That is immature and whimsical to say the least. What about that our Constitution is meant for a "moral and religious people"? Libertarians seem to me to be an immoral and Godless bunch, where there are no societal rules, nor even natural laws that govern mankind. Individual “liberty” trumps it all, even the God of nature and the nature of God. God NEVER meant unfettered freedom to His creation. If you choose not to submit to His rules, you are damned and are damning mankind’s future.
I any criminal investigation, motive is of utmost importance to channel towards the possible suspects. Who would have most to gain and who would be the most to lose with international involvement? Assad never displayed interest in international involvement. The rebels need international support. Logically, it is most likely that the rebels were the perpetrators of the chemical weapons used, since they obviously got what they wanted, help from the US with weaponry.
In response to:

The Gay Marriage Sham

annplato Wrote: Jul 03, 2013 9:35 AM
"And isn't it the height of arrogance to say that gay relationships are just "friendships"? This particular lie is repeated often -- the idea that gay people are just not capable of profound, loving and caring relationships." Friendship can be profound, loving and caring but it does not need to be called marriage. Marriage is an entirely different kind of relationship with all the attributes of friendship but bilogically constricted to the two different genders merging into one through procreation. Yes there were barren heterosexual mariages, however societally they were considered of lesser value than the procreators.
I can' believe you cannot see that Mr. Brown sees things for the benefit of the whole not only a segment of it. Marriage is, was and always will be for society to grow and perpetuate. Same sex can never fulfill that function for societies. In these morally nihilistic times instant self-gratification (and a sense of empty victory) appear to be something that realistically can never be fruitful. Mr. Brown only elucidates this fact.
In response to:

Obama Adulterates Marriage and Federalism

annplato Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 12:02 PM
God DID approve wars when it came to self-presevation of the nation of Israel.God DID approve the for,mation of the Israeli nation and to be "set-apart" from the neighboring nations. God put forth the deaht penalty for unrepenting sinners.
In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

annplato Wrote: Mar 05, 2013 10:05 AM
"the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom." Prevalence synonym is frequent. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is NOT frequent. It is most likely an anomalous condition where members of the opposite gender are not readily available for copulation.
In response to:

Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows

annplato Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 5:15 PM
Obviously you have no idea what "collectivist" means, if you call Ann Coulter one. For your information, collectivist means someone who believes in coercively pooling resources for the benefit of the collective. It was the reason why businesses were "nationalized" by Communists in Eastern Europe where I immigrated from. Ann Coulter is famous for her individualism and not that popular even with Republicans for that character. One cannot be an individualist and a collectivist!
That is a non-sequitur. The resistance against homosexual marriage is for the future of our children, whom as parents want to be growing up with LESS confusion not more. You as a homosexual cannot internalize this since you CHOOSE not to reproduce; for you an orgasm is more important than loving a human being beyond yourself. Homosexuality is a destroyer of family, heartache for parents whose children choose such a lifestyle and undermines society at large. There are absolutely no positive consequences to homosexual behavior, only selfish, perverted pleasure. If major Western powers succumb to this idea, than we ARE at the beginning of the end.
In response to:

Newt vs. Newt

annplato Wrote: Jan 05, 2013 9:59 AM
Newt did not say he approves of destruction of marriage, but merely stated that it is inevitable. It is not what he would work for but he was not elected to even be nominated and merely just states the fact as it is under the present administration that the Americans voted for. Were he the one who would have run against Obama we and him may not be stating the obvious. His statement was not that of a cheerleader, but a sad conclusion and acceptance of a sad fact.
1 - 10 Next