Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Good Women Have Abortions

NCLaw441 Wrote: Oct 28, 2014 9:16 AM
Some otherwise Good Women may have abortions, but it is not abortions that make them "Good."
In response to:

Good Women Have Abortions

NCLaw441 Wrote: Oct 28, 2014 9:15 AM
And why lesbians would be so concerned about abortion is truly unfathomable. How often do they impregnate each other?
And without suggesting that they are in any way equivalent, if your are opposed to murder, then don't kill anyone. If you are opposed to gambling (which is illegal in most states, with the exception of the lottery), then don't gamble. Your argument reduces law to meaninglessness.
We still prohibit marriage between (among) certain people, despite their "choice." Siblings and parent/child cannot marry. Groups of 3 or more cannot marry. Since we are throwing out the concept of conceiving and raising children as part of the consideration of marriage, we can avoid the distasteful image of physical intimacy between those who might wish to marry. So what are the limits, and what is the logical basis for those limits?
Siblings have been known to fall in love. Groups of 3 or more fall in love. Some may fall in love with inanimate objects or even animals (sex is not a pre-requisite to marriage, is it?). Shall we extend the definition of marriage to include such relationships? Why not, if it hurts no one to do so? As long as love is the only requirement, should I not be able to marry my son/daughter or parent? Again, physical intimacy is not required to love, is it? So we don't have to consider what some might find to be disgusting in order to extend the meaning of marriage to include such unions, right?
We own 3 Priuses... and vote conservative. No Hagan votes
In response to:

Bill Maher vs. Chris Hayes

NCLaw441 Wrote: Oct 08, 2014 7:56 AM
Is Chris Hayes Muslim? If not, why, given his own "rules", is he commenting?
Whether something is "right and proper" is not the same as whether it is constitutional. There are many bad laws (e.g., Obamacare) that may not be unconstitutional (I know that there are arguments that Obamacare is not constitutional, but there are plenty of other laws-- many in the tax code).
The underlying basis for marriage may be discussed in religious terms, but it is really not necessary. Marriage is an institution founded to protect the biological family unit, including the spouse (traditionally the "weaker" sex) and the children created in the union. Marriage protected wives from being run over by husbands who might otherwise impregnate women and take no responsibility for the care and support of the children. You need look no further than today's society to see why it is important. Same sex unions do not need this protection, since the genders are the same and arguably neither party is weaker than the other, and no children can be created by the couple (without outside scientific assistance). I support civil unions for same sex couples, and I support the continuation of domestic laws to protect spouses, children and the union of the nuclear family.
The Democrat side passed the Employer Mandate. You'd think they'd want it enforced!
In response to:

DOW at 17,000 -- But You're Not Invited

NCLaw441 Wrote: Jul 10, 2014 3:28 PM
Did you include your employer's portion as well? If your employer did not have to pay into SS that money would have gone to you as salary.
Previous 11 - 20 Next