1 - 10 Next
Would it be out of bounds to say that Bill Clinton brought the cause of women's rights to its knees?
See, the difference is, those who say they are "pro marriage" actually ARE pro marriage--as it has been defined for thousands of years. No terminological trickery there. The term says what it is we support. Those who talk about "marriage equality" don't really want equality of marriage. They want to change the definition of marriage to something it is not, and never has been. It would be more honest for them just to say so, "anti-traditional marriage" or "in favor of same sex marriage." They won't do that because then they couldn't claim to be fighting for "equality" , which adds a halo of respectability to their sordid cause.
Tell you what, Jim, when gays and lesbians start producing their own children, through their homosexual relationships, without the interference of any sperm donors or surrogate moms, then, and only then, will we allow them to marry, and raise children, and call their unions "families." Until then, they can whine about it all they want, but we shouldn't have to listen. Produce your own kids. Leave mine (and other people's) alone.
Yes, you can always tell the leftist propagandists because they use the correct terminology. "Marriage equality" instead of "gay marriage" or "same sex union"; "A woman's right to choose" rather than "abortion" or "voluntary termination of a pregnancy." You can call a dung heap a fertilizer pile if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a pile of c___.
"NeoconZionistCommies"? Are you for real? That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying StalinistReaganiteScubaDivers.
In response to:

The Super Bowl and Sex Trafficking

Scot62 Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:35 PM
Okay, um, let's see. How to stop sex trafficking? It's not so much about enforcement, or tougher laws as it is something much more difficult: building character on the one hand, and societal disapproval on the other. First, you must change people (Which, incidentally, genuine Christianity has a record of doing) on the inside, so that they no longer see sex outside of marriage (or at the very least, sex they have to buy) as morally acceptable, and thus, don't engage in it. Second, you must change society, so that sex outside of marriage (or at least, any kind of sex you must buy, whether prostitution or porn) and the rampant sexual exhibitionism in our current society/culture becomes viewed as wrong, and socially unacceptable. Make anyone suspected of engaging in it a social pariah, the same way that child molesters are now. Then, those few who still have not been changed inwardly will at least be more discreet about it. It will no longer be "expected" or dismissed as "no big deal." So, there will be less of it, and the suppliers will be disincentivized. Only THEN will stronger laws and tougher enforcement have any hope of actually combating this evil. Like many things, this is a cultural/societal problem, not a law enforcement one.
I know the class I took in high school, which was "only" 20 or so years ago, told us, "Of course, we would prefer that you not screw around untill you are married. But, since we know you are going to, here is how you prevent stds and pregnancy:use a condom." That was the entire gist of the class, and it took a whole semester to drive that message home. Then, you wonder why kids didn't actually wait to have sex. We were also told to "wait until you feel like you are ready" with no definition or explanation of what "ready" looked like.
And? Other than being a slave owner, what is wrong with that list? And it is arguable whether Jefferson was an elitist.
"Deal with it"? You mean by killing babies in the womb? Or by subsidizing women raising kids without a man, which is bad for the woman, bad for the man, and bad for the kids (Oh, and bad for society)? It's not the sex, it's the context. Sex inside of a committed marriage is a good, uplifting, healthy thing. Indiscriminate sex just for the fun of it, ultimately leads to disastrous, life destroying consequences. Please study the social science on this before making asinine comments.
The problem that noone seems to grapple with is, as the old ball coach used to say, "You play how you practice." So, if you "practice" relationships by having all the pleasures of marriage, without the responsibilities, and with the overt expectation that you can leave any time you want, that attitude doesn't somehow magically change because you throw a party and get a piece of official paper. You have conditioned yourself that 1)There is really no difference between being married and not being married, and 2)You can leave marriage type relationship whenever things get too rough. Therefore, "test driving" a relationship before getting married is actually setting yourself up to get divorced--and the social statistics bear this out. Far better to draw a clear and distinct line between being married (which is the relationship in which you live together, have sex, and raise kids, to the exclusion of all other relationships), and anything that is not marriage. So, the privileges come with the responsibilities, and one of the responsibillities is a binding commitment "till death do us part." Anything else is simply a recipe for disaster. Ignoring this basic fact is the reason we have so much marital instability nowadays.
1 - 10 Next