Previous 11 - 20 Next
What we do need is stronger laws and penalties against libel and slander. Maybe that would get these crazy leftists from telling so many lies.
In response to:

Middle East 'Democracy'

GatoLuchador Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 5:19 PM
What we need are informed voters.
In response to:

Middle East 'Democracy'

GatoLuchador Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 5:18 PM
Mr. Sowell, I think your article is fine argument against the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. Sims. I see that decision as a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Instead, they basically imposed majoritarian democracy on the states. It's a decision that should be challenged and overturned or defied by the State Legislatures.
Politicians who feel no compassions for babies born alive tell me all I need to know about them. Is it any wonder that someone who fails to protect the most vulnerable fails to protect U.S. citizens in Benghazi? And people keep voting for politicians like that? That's the most shocking. Everything that's bad is said to be good. Everything that's good is said to be bad. These truly are the end of days. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.
In response to:

A New Birth of Education Freedom

GatoLuchador Wrote: Apr 01, 2013 5:13 PM
Star Parker has a very good point. Look back in history and you'll see that the first thing totalitarians take control of is education. Why? To mold the minds of young people. It's about time we stop abdicating control of education -- and our children's minds -- to self-appointed masterminds. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The purpose was not to establish one church sanctioned by the State to the exclusion or detriment of all others. And yet, by redefining marriage for all of us, is not Congress effectively controlling your religion without establishing one?
Agreed. Otherwise, what you get is the rule of man. And the self-appointed masterminds in Congress begins to invent rights out of thin air -- as if rights come from Congress. The Constitution was written to preserve -- not to destroy and create.
Agreed. Otherwise, what you get is the rule of man. And the self-appointed masterminds in Congress begins to invent rights out of thin air -- as if rights come from Congress. The Constitution was written to preserve -- not to destroy and create.
Self-anointed hypocritical masterminds.
UPL1210190967206 If you really want to be technical, the only carnal relations sanctioned in the Bible is within traditional marriage. Everything else is sin. But we don't abolish marriage because we all don't live up to that standard. But my point is, technically, the Bible condemns all extracurrilar activity outside of marriage -- gay or straight! That should be an argument against gay marriage somehow. Though I can't articulate one at the moment.
I disagree with the premise of your question. I'm not prohibiting anyone from participating in traditional marriage. Gay men are free to marry gay women. Atheist men are free to marry atheist women. In fact, a female friend of mine -- a Christian -- is married to an atheist man. Wrap your head around that one. But your question raises another: Why do people wish to participate in a tradition whose origins they don't agree with? I hear gays and atheists disparage the Bible and yet they want to get married. It's like a Hindu celebrating Christmas.
The Constitution's role is preservation -- not "creative destruction" -- not the destruction of traditional values and the creation of new rights that never existed. Why? Because rights don't come from man -- they come from God or from nature. Marriage predates the Constitution by thousands of years and is common across diverse cultures and religions (not just Christian). So would not SSM effectively destroy the right of religious people to preserve it a religious tradition and create a new secular right for people who never had it to begin with???
Previous 11 - 20 Next