Previous 11 - 20 Next
My cheeseburgers topped with bacon-wrapped shrimp aren't respected as much as food with with a "kosher" label, so I'm going to sue the people (represented by their government) until they are forced to apply the "kosher" label to my cheeseburger. After all, it doesn't hurt your food and your synagogue can still refuse to offer my cheeseburgers.
Oh, good. More talk from my fellow social conservatives about what makes someone a "real" man. Notice we never hear about what makes someone a "real" woman. It seems that for one gender, simply turning 18 is what matters. Members of the other MUST take on responsibility for other human beings, including another adult, to be "real". Now I am, BY CHOICE, a married father and sole provider for my family, However, I do not deny that someone can be a "real" man if he never marries and never has children. There are men who have lived such lives as REAL MEN, contributing more to society than they take.
So men NEED nagging, but not women?
Weddings are one thing. Marriage is quite another. As we're increasingly seeing, religious marriage and state licensing of "marriage" are becoming two completely different things. If we conservative Christians want to foster intimacy, then perhaps it is time to avoid the state involvement in the first place, especially in states that no longer honor brides and grooms, husbands or wives, only "spouses", and that punish the earning spouse (alimony) in the event of a divorce, while not holding anyone accountable for breaking vows (no-fault). Worse than welfare's attack on independence, "community property" and alimony as set by no-fault states is an attack on intimacy, especially when one spouse realizes they will have their bills paid, married or not, and no matter what they do to hurt intimacy within the marriage. A plain-worded example: some women, who have been supported for years in their desire to be SAHMs, encouraged by their friends and culture, abandon marital obligations, perhaps even committing adultery. Adultery is not punishable in most states even by civil lawsuit ("alienation of affection") and getting a divorce is not shamed (and he'll have to pay for her lawyer anyway), so some take the easy path and collect lifetime alimony. As long as they don't remarry (shacking up? no problem!) they can force their (ex) husband to pay their way through life, without having to listen to him complain about the lack of emotional support, the physical rejection, the overspending, the overeating, the lack of domestic accomplishment, etc. If you're a woman and you can't fathom doing that, that's because you're not one of those women. But they exist. (And before anyone tries it... yes, I'm married. I've never been divorced. I am not blind to what goes on around me and the sufferings of others.)
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 12:05 PM
I propose that any convicted murderer who objects to lethal injection as "cruel and unusual": be executed by methods employed by the men who wrote and adopted those words into our Constitution.
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 12:04 PM
"and not return violence with violence" To which verses do you refer? Remember, you must consider context and think about details. Turning the other cheek is about insults. Do not insult someone in return for their insulting you. "Live by the sword, die by the sword" was a very specific context. Jesus also told His disciples to sell extra clothing for swords. Defense is appropriate. Executing murderers is defense.
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 12:02 PM
Not all homicide is murder. It is not murder to execute a justly convicted murderer. The people who wrote "cruel and unusual" into our Constitution would laugh at you. Do you know what they did with murderers?
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 11:59 AM
Actually, TV can be punishment these days.
In response to:

Lockett & Load

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: May 08, 2014 11:58 AM
Leftists love to cause problems then offer "solutions" to the problems they created in the first place.
Leftists must minimize the differences between the sexes so as to break down the family and increase dependence on Central Government. Devaluing both masculinity and femininity is one of the things that has allowed them to make so much progress on neutering state marriage licenses. Leftist feminist misandrists will can then claim that being masculine is entirely a chosen, and inferior, way of life. Look at how many boys we drug now simply because they are BEING BOYS!
In response to:

I Hate to Say I Told You So

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Apr 07, 2014 10:45 AM
Leftists need to destroy marriage, family, and parental authority any way they can, because that will make more people dependent on big government. I used to scoff at the "bestiality is next" statements... until Leftists started demanding other species get "human" rights and that members of those species be recognized as persons. It is already happening. Unless somehow thwarted, they literally will not stop until there are mandatory public orgies in broad daylight on public land, complete with children, animals, and sadism. I doubt this is what most self-identified LGBT people want, but it is what the Leftist hedonist activists want, and to end to which they are actively working.
Previous 11 - 20 Next