Bio not provided
I don't think anyone is saying LGBTQ should not have the rights.
1 month, 3 weeks ago on OPINION: "Government Shouldn't Be Involved in Gay Marriage Debate"
Yes. Trust me, it is hard sometimes. I have to keep saying every 3 statements that yes I DO NOT personally agree with it, but it is not my right to impose my feelings on others. Same as it is not the right of the church to push their opinions on others. Same as the worlds opinions are not to be pushed on the church.
Your right, that opinion has shifted towards acceptance. If you read what I have wrote, I am in favor of gay unions. Let them have all the rights and recognition from the government. I feel as if your trying to paint me into a racist/bigot that wants to never allow gays to have any rights, I am not that. I just don't want to government to infringe on my religious beliefs. People say that won't happen, but using contraception issue in the new healthcare law and how that effects catholic companies as a example of how it could happen.
I don't want the government to back my religiously based "bigotry". Just as I don't want the government to tell states that have put on the ballot and the vote has gone to not recognize same sex marriage to be told their vote doesn't count, you have to do it this way. I want them out of it from a federal standpoint. If a state voted for it, by all means.
Currently I am not married. However when I am married, I will accept those tax benefits if they are there. It still doesn't change the fact I don't believe anyone should get "tax benefits" just because you are married. To your point about the pension, social security and full estate. Any retirement, you can pass that to your children. So you don't have to be married to someone to have a beneficiary. Social Security won't be around when I get older, so I could care less about that system. If anything is it just something to take $ I earn from me that I will never see when I get older. Estates are passed to children in a will, you don't have to be married for that. All of those can be covered via a legal contract. I guess the thing I am having trouble getting across is I feel marriage and a civil contract are two separate things or should be.
@Brice Cameron @GlennMurray
Well, is the real issue being able to call it marriage or the rights associated with it? I would also ask why someone would want to have the word of Marriage associated with their same sex relationship when it has a history of being a religious institution that has always spoken out against same sex marriage? If the whole thing is over calling a same sex union marriage, your going to control one group or the other. The traditional marriage group would be able to say your are forcing them to change what they believe is marriage. The same sex marriage group would be controlled in not calling their union a marriage. So at some point the government will control everyone and tell them what marriage is. Back to my point of the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. I hope that makes sense, maybe not.
@Brenda55 @GlennMurray @Brice Cameron
It was shot down by the courts. It didn't stop him from trying it and I'm sure in due time it will be revisited with another way to impose it. Only time will tell.
Brenda you are correct, we do not live in a Theocracy thank God. But I do believe there should be a separation between the religious aspect of Marriage and a civil contract between two people. That contract part is legal, and as thus should have to deal with the laws of the country via the government. I guess my general distrust of those in government makes it so I don't want them to be involved at all with my religious marriage.
@GlennMurray @Brice Cameron
Very good point, although you do hear people in power say that the bill of rights can be limited. Example is Mayor Bloomberg when dealing with guns or drinking soda. He feels you have that right, but it can be limited for the greater good. Guess you can say I HOPE that the First Amendment would now allow that to happen. But you never know in these days.
Thank you for your comments. However, reading the bible as a whole you put this together. Now, this is my viewpoint on the bible, some may have other viewpoints. You take the following scriptures: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Gen. 2:18). and then just down the line Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:22-24). And another: "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?' And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.' They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery'" (Mat. 19:3-9). But, this is what I take from the bible.
My church doesn't have to do same sex ceremonies now. But, what is to stop the government from requiring churches to do same sex marriages? Otherwise they could charge them with a hate crime. Who knows if that will happen, but who is to say it couldn't?
I don't know much about this story, but please correct me if i have it wrong. They fired him because he is a conservitive and the public was outraged that he was a conservitive and white and male?
If that is the case, they shouldn't have let him go. As long as his POV didn't cause him to do his job incorrectly, shouldn't matter. Now, if they could tie him to declining sales and such, that is a different story. But no one should be fired over their political viewpoints. Much less if they are black/white or male/female.
1 year ago on Should Facebook Get You Fired? "Essence" Dumps White Male Editor Over His Conservatism
Figures the one country i point out they would drive on the same side...well exchange the country with england.
1 year, 2 months ago on Shooting in France Raises Questions About Liberal Immigration in European Countries
This is another example of the double-standard that takes place is most western countries. We are held to a different standard than most other countries. You can't go to china, and turn it into the USA or the UK. You also can't go to Iran or Egypt and turn it into the USA or Israel. Now this isn’t just a Muslim thing, this can be said for any culture. I as an American shouldn’t think that I can move to France, and then get pissed when I have to drive on the other side of the road from what I am used to. You have to adapt, all locations are different and all locations have their own culture. If you want to live there, you have to adapt. If you don’t want to, then there is no reason to move to your new location.
@Christelyn I was speaking more of along the lines of this.
Romney talked about de-funding Planned Parenthood. And as someone who is pro-life, i and understand his point. He dosn't want tax payer $ to go to abortion. Now the arguement will be "They do more than abortions", but the fact still remains that is apart of their practice. If you give $ to them as a whole, you have no control over what that money goes to. I don't support Romney, but that is just my take on it.
1 year, 2 months ago on Why is Sex Front and Center on the 2012 Republican Ticket?
@The Working Home Keeper I say follow the person who matches with you most in values and on the issues. No one said Santorum was going to win the states he did, because the establishment (GOP) has been behind Romney this whole time. I can't vote for Romney because i don't trust him. I don't think you see the REAL him when he speaks and is in the public eye. But i have a long list of dislikes about him, but don't be fooled. There are some things i dislike about Santorum as well, but you got to put it on a scale. Who do you align with more.
1 year, 2 months ago on Guest Poster, Stang Brumfield, Weighs in On Crazy Anti IRR Folks in Dixieland
@Zindzi_Zenani They are main stream to...when something gets pushed by most of the outets. The others have to pick up the story as well.
The only reason this is a issue in this election is the Media. The main stream media is using this issue to hide the REAL issues facing our country. The main stream media is protecting the current president, most of them have his back. You don't want to talk about the REAL issues because that puts a focus on the president and what he has and hasn't done.
So, instead. Lets take a social issue, that no one has said they would Ban contraception or anything. Put that at the for front, and keep it there. That way we don't talk about inflation, unemployment, gas prices, cost of food, military is strained and everything else that would highlight how bad the president has been at addressing the major issues facing our country.
@Zindzi_Zenani Ah, yes i saw this video. I have also seen him talk about this. He addressed this clip.
Now, those who don't like him will say "he is lying; he was calling out black people". I however like to get people the benefit of the doubt. He has never had any other action that would show wants to hold back black people. Of course, you will only hear what you want to hear. So, if it is set in someone’s mind that he hates black people, nothing is going to change that person’s mind.
@Zindzi_Zenani Well, who was he speaking to? I don't have the quote on hand, but odds are it was asked by a black person or they were on the topic of what did he want to do for african americans to get back to work?
When i said "you" i was speaking of all americans. Not just a single group or person. *i could have used better wording on that*.