Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Fusion Power on the Right

matt261 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 9:48 AM
Rand Paul has the right approach. In the current DOMA case, only section 3 is before the Supreme Court. And that section deals solely with how the federal government defines marriage, not what states have to recognize or not recognize. So, don't worry about "subsidizing gay sex" whatever that means. Though, considering that low-income gay men with hiv qualify for gov't benefits now--especially for medications--well then you may already be "subsidizing gay sex."
Actually, this post is in error--the Warren v DC case was not decided by the US Supreme Court, it was decided by the DC Court of Appeals and is cited at 444 A2d 1, decided in 1981. It really has not been cited by courts much beyond those in DC, so its reach is quite limited. The case certainly does not stand for any national or otherwise broad principle of law. FYI
In response to:

The Opposite of the Civil Rights Movement

matt261 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 12:18 PM
"The second is to reduce the threat of epidemic-level, taxpayer-crushing, out-of-wedlock births." Considering the current rate of out-of-wedlock births, we're already at the "epidemic level." Perhaps more attention should be paid to this issue, even though, by common sense, it is a purely heterosexual failing.
What ignorance and hubris. There is not extensive hard data on alcoholism among gays and the data that does exist often links drinking among gays to the fact that gay socializing has most often been forced into bars. We do know that alcoholism is very high among native Americans, so I guess you count them as all miserable. And do you even know any gay people? Anyone that makes broad statements that all gays "are miserable people" displays the kind of ignorance that destroys their credibility. So, let me take your approach and say that all people called "Ms Kelly" are miserable people...
So, there are no sinners? Only good people who sin from time-to-time?
It's sad. With most Christians it seems, the knives come out sooner or later...
Well, honestly, it is quite unlikely I'll pick up a Bible any time soon. Anyway, as to what you say above, no, you do not have to "condone" or "participate" in that with which you disagree. But, you do have to recognize that gay people exist all around you--it's how we all treat each other that matters.
I'm actually not very concerned with what the Bible says. So, there's the rub: you believe in absolute truth, I do not. But somehow we must live in society together.
What I meant by the "reconciling to the here and now" is not that you should change your belief. Rather, it is about how one lives in civil society with others who hold very different beliefs and with whom one has profound disagreements.
I would not have turned in a Jew in Nazi Germany. But it is not what is fashionable that we're really discussing. Are there people who change their views of gays because of current fashion? Sure. But I think most of us have held our beliefs despite fashion. I went to college in the 80s in a very conservative part of the country--it was definitely NOT fashionable to think gay was ok. But, I did then just like I do now. So, I insist on what I believe is right despite fashion, too.
All of the "sodomites" I know are happy... Maybe you just need to meet more people.
Previous 21 - 30 Next