Dems tearing nation down

  • Follow Letters

President Obama has publicly embraced the idea of same-sex marriage. In doing so, he has ignored and insulted that majority portion of our citizenry who are adamantly against this, and see it as another huge tear in the fabric of our society – all foisted on us by Democrats intent on tearing down America!

Another finger in the eye to us, then! He also states that he feels it is up to the individual states to decide this question, but he has an appalling record of hostility toward the rights of the states and doesn’t mean this.

If he is elected for a second term, he will push hard to make same-sex marriage a federal law regardless of what he says now. What could be next on the Democrat agenda? Perhaps bestiality, pedophilia or legalized incest? Don’t those who advocate these practices deserve to be heard, too? In the interest of fairness, will there be a special niche created for them and their cause in the Democratic Party?

When does this ripping and tearing of our societal values end?

Those on the extreme left of the political spectrum have a preconceived mind-set of how the world is and how the rest of us should think and act. They segregate this notion in their mind and allow nothing to penetrate the firewall. Neither facts, ideas nor anything else is allowed in to disrupt the model. Anything contrary to what they think they know is automatically excluded.

They see themselves as the smartest, most caring people on Earth, and if they think something, it absolutely must be so. Feel free to characterize this as arrogance, for it is! Of course, Democrats know with certainty that the rest of us had best put aside our morality and common sense and get on board with them.

In their minds, they’re always right, you know!

Robert Smock

Hephzibah

Comments (98) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
allhans
23688
Points
allhans 06/01/12 - 09:16 am
6
1
So if a person "wants"

So if a person "wants" something...then that is a "right", is that what we have come to.
If so, we are in big trouble.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 09:30 am
3
6
It's discriminating when you

It's discriminating when you don't give rights to people based on race, religion and yes, sexuality. We should be embarrassed we don't do it- and history books in the not too long future will be saying the same thing- much like it does now with our past discretion's.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 09:32 am
4
4
But TParty, this isn't about

But TParty, this isn't about sex (as we have heard so many in favor of homosexual marriage). This is about two sisters, or two brothers, or even a sister and a brother, truely loving each other and wanting to spend the rest of their life together. The two sister or two brothers don't want to reproduce, they will adopt children. The disgust of incest to you isn't a reason to prevent siblings from getting married.

Medical research has also documented the damage done to the body through male homosexual behavior and the health concerns due to it. After reading this article, I find both incest and homosexual behavior disgusting but unlike yourself, I don't think we can just sit back and say "whatever" because eventually this will come to effect us all. These serious illnesses are past from homosexuals to bisexuals, then to hetersexuals. I'd like to know that my grandchildren and great grands could one day marry someone of the opposite sex, without a death sentence hanging over their heads.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 09:41 am
4
4
TParty, it's not

TParty, it's not discrimination. They have the right to marry but the guidelines for marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as the guideline for not allowing close siblings or relations to marry. Just as the guideline that once you are married you can't marry another unless there is a divorce or death prior to the next marriage. The right is there, they just have to follow the rules for the right.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 09:47 am
5
4
Not even going to open the
Unpublished

Not even going to open the link? Afraid it might be true I suppose.

And no one said "fool around" with a sibling. Why can't they marry....even if they are sterile? According to those who support gay marriage, they should be able to. Why do you hate them so? Why do you want to take away their rights? Why is it ok to be disgusted with incest, but not gay marriage. Oh my God at the hypocrisy.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 09:48 am
3
4
I think fat people are

I think fat people are disgusting. There is a lot of health issues to being fat, and it also ruins my day when I see fat people. That does not mean obese people should not get jobs, cannot get married, and be banned from the public.

The health risks of homosexual behavior is not different than other consenting adult relationships.

If siblings want to spend the rest of their lives together, that does not affect me in the slightest besides the ick factor. It doesn't affect us at all.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 09:49 am
3
4
You can be disgusted with gay

You can be disgusted with gay marriage, but that's not a reason to deny them rights.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 09:50 am
4
3
So you are in favor of
Unpublished

So you are in favor of siblings having the right to marry, TParty?

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 09:51 am
4
5
There was a time too, ICL

There was a time too, ICL when blacks could not marry whites because it was a rule. Times change, and the world did not crash because it opened up.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 09:52 am
4
4
Yeah, I don't care if

Yeah, I don't care if siblings want to marry. I doubt any do though, but doesn't affect me. There are genetic problems though like I mentioned earlier with reproduction- so that's my only hang up.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 09:59 am
4
3
So I suppose polygamy is ok
Unpublished

So I suppose polygamy is ok too. We can't deny anyone their rights. We should remove ALL restrictions to marriage.

Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage business all together........it's none of their business.

And why do you doubt any siblings want to marry? Just curious.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 10:15 am
2
4
Marriage is between two

Marriage is between two consenting adults, so polygamy would not work. It's not part of the contract. Nothing would stop a married couple from exploring with other people though, happens all the time, behind the spouses back or not.

Reason why it's a contract between two people and not three or more- is the tax benefits, subsidies, etc... married people get, and perks at work. But hey- if a married couple wants another adult living in their house, we can't stop it, it's not illegal.

Government needs to honor marriages and protect the rights of them, that's why they should be involved.

Now if a church doesn't want to hold ceremonies where a same sex couple join hands- that's fine. That's their right. But that couple should be allowed to go to a court house and fill out papers to marry.

And I've never known anyone who was a willing participant in an incest relationship, and I've met a lot of people, and traveled a lot around the world. It's like that in all cultures. So my personal experience tells me the market for siblings to marry is not there. Of course there's always an exception to everything.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 10:18 am
3
2
Tparty stated : “I think fat

Tparty stated : “I think fat people are disgusting. There is a lot of health issues to being fat, and it also ruins my day when I see fat people. That does not mean obese people should not get jobs, cannot get married, and be banned from the public.”

Homosexuals are not denied employement (this is proven by the fact that we hear all the time how so much more economically successful homosexuals are compared to hetersexuals), homosexuals can get married as long as they follow the guidelines for marriage (a man and a woman), and homosexuals are not banned from public. They walk among us every day and much to my distaste they even march in parades and have their own special “Gay Day”.

Tparty stated: “You can be disgusted with gay marriage, but that's not a reason to deny them rights”

I am disgusted by the homosexual behavior, not the homosexual him or herself. They are human beings just like the rest of us but that doesn’t mean I have to like their sexual preference. Their right to get married is not denied, just the choice to marry someone of the same gender.

Tparty stated: “There was a time too, ICL when blacks could not marry whites because it was a rule”

Yes, but this rule violated human right not the rules of marriage. The issue here was the color of someone’s skin but was still between a man and a woman, not violating the sanctity of marriage. Not even the same, but keep repeating it.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 10:20 am
3
1
I see.....YOU can define
Unpublished

I see.....YOU TParty, can define marriage, but the voting people of over 20 states can not?

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 10:24 am
2
2
TParty, if we are changing

TParty, if we are changing the rules then why make marriage between two consenting adults, why not just say marriage is between consenting adults. That way as many men/women or whatever can all become married.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 10:31 am
2
2
It's not just me Addams who

It's not just me Addams who say this- majority of American's believe it. As for voting- well, this is what happens when no goes out and votes. In NC for example, only 20% of registered voters went out and voted on the banning same sex marriage, and only 60% of those folks voted in support of it.

This is what happens though when people don't vote though....

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 10:33 am
3
2
Uh-oh. TParty admits to being

Uh-oh. TParty admits to being an "obesiphobe" or maybe "lipophobe". According to some on here, that makes TParty a "bigot" and a "hater". (I disagree, but that's what so many do nowadays).

Gotta be careful with these new terms we keep throwing out.

nofanofobama
6825
Points
nofanofobama 06/01/12 - 10:36 am
4
2
tech...im sure the dims and

tech...im sure the dims and the gay movement poured millions and millions in Cal. and NC...and im sure your referring to north carolinas as bigots and homophobic really adds to the dialogue .the research triangle area has one of the highest concentration of PHDs in the country..

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 04:28 pm
8
1
no safety in numbers

Hey, the "majority" is not always right. 170 years ago the majority of folks in some states were pro-slavery. But, that did not make slavery morally acceptable, did it?

Just because a majority wants something is not always a criteria for making that a law or policy.

Really_Really
129
Points
Really_Really 06/01/12 - 10:44 am
5
1
Give it time

TParty wrote
"That does not mean obese people should not get jobs, cannot get married, and be banned from the public."

Just give it time if President Obama gets re-elected. Its already being discussed in NY to have large sugary drinks banned. One soda doesn't make one fat, but one cigarrette does do damage to a persons body. So, why not ban cigarettes instead. I mean, if we really want to talk about the health of our nation.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 10:45 am
1
3
I don't know if those are

I don't know if those are real words, Howcanweknow- but if they mean what I think they mean, then yes I am bigoted in some ways. And I own it. The things I do not personally approve of though, I would not ban unless it harms other people without their consent.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 10:48 am
1
3
Obama has nothing to do with

Obama has nothing to do with that large soda ban. That's a silly thing, which will be not only be impossible to enforce, I doubt it's even legal. That's another topic though, but even most liberals should know how wrong that government ban on large soda is.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 10:48 am
4
1
Polygamy does not harm other
Unpublished

Polygamy does not harm other people without their consent. Why the inconsistancy?

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 10:57 am
4
1
"That's a silly thing, which

"That's a silly thing, which will be not only be impossible to enforce, I doubt it's even legal"

Yeah, that's what I thought several years ago about homosexual marriages, but look how far it's come. As much as I hate to admit and as much as I hope it never comes to be, looks like redefinition of marriage according to society is going to change soon. Notice I said society....God's ordination of marriage will always be between one man and one woman.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 11:00 am
1
4
Because of the tax breaks,

Because of the tax breaks, and contracts involved. Like I said before- contract between two people.

The polygamists in Romney and Obama's family haven't affected or bothered me at all. Has it affected you?

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 11:09 am
2
1
"Like I said before- contract
Unpublished

"Like I said before- contract between two people. "

Like I said before.....TParty has no problem changing the definition of marriage, but the voting people can't. Makes sense.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 11:09 am
2
1
Who are the polygamists in
Unpublished

Who are the polygamists in Romney and Obama's family?

burninater
9606
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 11:13 am
3
2
Uh-oh. TParty admits to being

Uh-oh. TParty admits to being an "obesiphobe" or maybe "lipophobe". According to some on here, that makes TParty a "bigot" and a "hater". (I disagree, but that's what so many do nowadays).
----------
But here's the difference howcan: TParty doesn't think his personal bigotry is a basis for denying equal rights.

Most mature, intelligent people recognize their own personal bigotries, and recognize that the rights of others are more important than those bigotries. Denying rights to others based on personal bigotry was the root of the persecution that America's Founding Fathers fled. It is the basis for modern oppressive groups such as the Taliban.

That some political groups think this type of bigotry-based denial of rights is going to serve them well at the polls shows they really don't understand how many Americans understand that liberty is more than just a word you use to win votes and sell advertising.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 11:16 am
3
1
Burn...he stated that HIS
Unpublished

Burn...he stated that HIS definition (or bigotry) of marriage is a basis to deny polygamists.....didn't you read?

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 06/01/12 - 11:16 am
3
3
ICL- Keep that god stuff to

ICL- Keep that god stuff to yourself. Your gods laws do not apply to other people who follow a different set of laws from a different god, or people who follow no god at all. Your god gave instruction of how to marry captive women, women who were raped, and all sorts of things. Don't force that on everyone. Should we be conducting our marriage affairs like Abraham did? You might be okay women getting knocked up when not married by a guy who is also not her fiance, but that's your religion. It's not everyone's.

And I said it earlier- if your church and others don't want to be part of it, this same sex marriage, that's fine. You and friends do not have to conduct ceremonies or anything. It's no big deal.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs