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.
Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 01:04 pm
3
2
So Burn...if you are going to
Unpublished

So Burn...if you are going to lift THAT restriction, why not all of them?

Gary Ross
3346
Points
Gary Ross 06/01/12 - 01:10 pm
1
2
...One nation, under

...One nation, under God...
Oops, I almost forgot. The Obama administration is an exception to everything regardless of the topic.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 01:10 pm
2
3
So Burn...if you are going to

So Burn...if you are going to lift THAT restriction, why not all of them?
------
Well, since these other "restrictions" are entirely different in type and legality, that would be hysterically mindless.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 01:15 pm
3
2
No..... Siblings can be
Unpublished

No..... Siblings can be consenting and yet can't marry. Why discriminate against them? Why discriminate against polygamists? Why is it ok to discriminate against some, but not all?

DMPerryJr
1698
Points
DMPerryJr 06/01/12 - 01:16 pm
3
2
howcanweknow: I love the trite old adages.

Please keep them coming. It's making me want a mint julep and a rocking chair.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 01:19 pm
3
3
Shea, if you still don't

Shea, if you still don't understand the distinction between an existing legal status involving two parties, from a non-existent legal contract involving 3 or more parties, I can't help you.

As to incest, that's an interesting question. Not being Karnak, I can't give you the answer. However, I CAN tell you that it is an issue entirely separate from gay marriage, even if someone might want to try to confuse the issue.

InChristLove
22468
Points
InChristLove 06/01/12 - 01:58 pm
5
3
Wow, appears I have struck a

Wow, appears I have struck a major nerve with Tparty. My comment stated:

“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’s response: “ICL- Keep that god stuff to yourself. Your gods laws do not apply to other people who follo a different set of laws from a different god, or people who follow no god at all.”

Tparty, last time I checked, I believe I have the same right as you to speak my opinion (unless they changed those guidelines also). Please explain what you mean by “God stuff”? If you would have taken the time to actually read my comment instead of blowing a gasket when you saw the word “God”, you would have noticed I didn’t say anything about God’s law applying here. I said, I regret to admit but I believe society will eventually redefine what marraige is, but that my God definition never will. Don’t worry, I wasn’t trying to witness or convert you, simply stating my opinion on the way I view this whole debate.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 01:59 pm
3
2
Burn...do YOU understand NC
Unpublished

Burn...do YOU understand NC law that states that a marriage is between a man and a woman? Just because YOU define something doesn't make it so.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 02:00 pm
3
2
How is incest between
Unpublished

How is incest between consenting adults different from gay marriage?

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 02:01 pm
3
2
Interesting....so 3 or more
Unpublished

Interesting....so 3 or more people can't enter into a contract? I didn't know that.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 02:06 pm
4
3
Never had a mint julep or a

Never had a mint julep or a rocking chair. But, unlike many here (apparently) I can spot a phoney who as a candidate promises the world, but then delivers nothing once in office.

Just keep repeating, "hope and change" "hope and change" as you sing kumbaya with your cronies in the unemployment line.

Retired Army
17512
Points
Retired Army 06/01/12 - 02:07 pm
4
3
shea_Addams writes:

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

Exactly, to include..........? Or didn't you really mean that?

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 02:38 pm
4
3
RA....did I ONCE say that
Unpublished

RA....did I ONCE say that there is someone that should not be allowed to be married?...Or did you make that up yourself?

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 02:49 pm
3
2
Burn...do YOU understand NC

Burn...do YOU understand NC law that states that a marriage is between a man and a woman? Just because YOU define something doesn't make it so.
------
Nope. But when Federal courts decide that DOMA violates civil rights, it DOES make it so. That's the beauty of America. Even cultural biases have to conform to the law.

"Interesting....so 3 or more people can't enter into a contract? I didn't know that."

Good God. I hope people are being deliberately obtuse on this, and not unable to process simple reality. Marriage is an existing legal status entered into between TWO people. TWO. That is 1 + 1 = 2. Please tell me you're still with me. The civil rights basis for gay marriage is that this legal contract between TTTTTTWWWWWWOOOOOOOOO people, and all the rights and privileges derived therefrom, are denied them. Recognition of polygamy would require an alteration of the TYPE OF CONTRACT, not WHO CAN ENTER INTO IT.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 02:45 pm
6
1
marriage?

Let's just forget marriage all together and just live like animals. No responsibilities, no child support, no fidelity, no strings-attached, no society, no culture, no nation...

Oh, I forgot. There are folks who live like that already.

Maybe we should define marriage then.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 06/01/12 - 02:48 pm
5
2
howdo weknow-you are right

howdo weknow-you are right they are too naive, too cocky, too inexperienced to spot a phoney...and i would really like to know what govt programs that were given to me..and to this day i have not recieved an inheritance but my wife and i have taken care of our elderly parents who were part of that greatest generation and glad to do it. dm perry seems to think we havent worked .and lived off inheritance... sounds like wealth envy to me .and he evidently hasnt a clue what he is talking about...

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 02:55 pm
6
1
Funny how often it is that

Funny how often it is that "work" results in "wealth". Been a tried and true formula for a long time, hasn't it?

Anyone that relies upon the Gov't for wealth and care is fooling themselves and is taking the entire nation down with them. Gov't TAKES our money, it does not generate it.

Oftentimes it is those who most rigorously demand "wealth distribution", that are the doing the least "wealth generation" by working like others have done for years.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 02:55 pm
2
4
Nofan, by "inheritance" I

Nofan, by "inheritance" I suspect he means all of the infrastructure, R&D, educational institutions, etc etc that THEIR parents helped PAY FOR to their CHILDREN'S benefit, and in turn their children are content to let rot because to them real patriots in this day and age flee the country to evade tax obligations (see Limbaugh, R. in re Saverin, E.).

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 02:59 pm
3
2
"Good God. I hope people are
Unpublished

"Good God. I hope people are being deliberately obtuse on this, and not unable to process simple reality. Marriage is an existing legal status entered into between TWO people. "

THAT is only ONE definition.....different states define it differently. Some people seem to be deliberately obtuse on this one.

carcraft
25346
Points
carcraft 06/01/12 - 03:09 pm
4
1
Shea-Addams, Georgia also

Shea-Addams, Georgia also defines marriage as between a man and a women in it's constitution. One of the legal reasons DOMA was over turned, as I understand it, is because as a state rights issue the court ruled the Federal Government had no right to define marriage!

Bizkit
30900
Points
Bizkit 06/01/12 - 03:11 pm
3
4
Well I can't see why people

Well I can't see why people don't also support polygamy. Polygamy is between consenting adults and you have the freedom of religion factor too. Seems gay unions and polygamy should be no brainers. Beastiality reminds me of Woody Allen's movie and Gene Wilder falling in lust with the sheep. Seems in America you should have the freedom to marry your livestock or pet and leave all your wealth to them (sheesh). I guess I do discriminate against perversions and have to draw the line with necrophilia and pedophilia. The age of marriage should be the age you can give birth and procreate-which seems to be getting younger and younger. I love biology. Hey because of evolution and common descent we are all having incestual relations-because we are all related. Get it. hee,hee,hee.

carcraft
25346
Points
carcraft 06/01/12 - 03:11 pm
2
1
Now the reason DOMA was

Now the reason DOMA was passed was because ther was the start of a movement ot creat a US constitutional amendment that dfined marriage as between one man and one women. The congress short circuited this process by passing DOMA.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 03:12 pm
4
0
THAT is only ONE

THAT is only ONE definition.....different states define it differently. Some people seem to be deliberately obtuse on this one.
------
Please Shea, educate me. Which states define marriage as a legal status between three or more people? And on the Federal level, where does the Federal gov't define marriage as a legal status between 3 or more people?

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 03:16 pm
3
2
If you can change the
Unpublished

If you can change the definition of marriage from the union of one man and one woman, to the union of any two consenting adults, you can easily change it to the union of 2 or more adults......but someone seems hung up on the one and only definition they are willing to aknowlege.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries...

It seems a contract can be between a person and theirself as well.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 06/01/12 - 03:20 pm
4
2
burn i suspect he didnt... he

burn i suspect he didnt... he sounds envious of those whom have accumlated wealth by working 40 or so years..and as for your little remark at the end i would love to have the dollars rush pays into taxes. compared to 45-48 percent who dont pay federal income taxes..

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 06/01/12 - 03:39 pm
5
1
amazing

Isn't is just amazing that we are actually having a discussion regarding what a marriage really is?

That alone is enough to make us realize just how far our society has fallen. Not unlike the Roman Empire of old. External pressure and internal decay destroyed what was, at that time, the greatest nation on earth.

Those who do not remember the past are certainly condemned to relive it.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 03:43 pm
3
2
Shea, that Huff Post link

Shea, that Huff Post link clarifies that on this matter, you really don't know what you're talking about. The woman is not legally married to herself. She created a ceremony for herself with no legal contractual basis.

And as to "but someone seems hung up on the one and only definition they are willing to aknowlege", you are absolutely right. I think we should be focusing on what's real, which is marriage as a two-party legal contract, vs what is fantasy, which is marriage as a three-or-more-party legal contract. I think I'm beginning to understand right-wing paranoia. It's not just what is real that they're freaking out about, it's also anything they can make up as possibly real, maybe, someday, in some nefarious hypothetical future ...

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 03:49 pm
3
2
OK...what's real. NC and
Unpublished

OK...what's real. NC and over 20 other states define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.....but you constantly ignore THIS definition because you don't agree with it.

burninater
9418
Points
burninater 06/01/12 - 03:51 pm
2
2
Isn't is just amazing that we

Isn't is just amazing that we are actually having a discussion regarding what a marriage really is?

That alone is enough to make us realize just how far our society has fallen.
--------------
Not everyone -- in fact the majority of Americans don't -- agree that respecting consensual marriages between two adults, regardless of gender, is a "fall". Rather, the majority of America respects freedom, and respects love. That a minority would seek to obstruct that says less about society as a whole, and more about the inability of that minority to respect freedom and love.

Shea_Addams
1337
Points
Shea_Addams 06/01/12 - 03:54 pm
3
1
Good thing we live in a
Unpublished

Good thing we live in a republic, and not a democracy.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs