Excellent!

well said

Hello jmlesniewski,
Age is not a determining and limiting factor to ones perspective, however it does often change one’s perspective as you suffer a longer period of change you find oppressive. I find you are a brilliant young man and I predict great things in your future. You are a skilled debater and a considerable force. However, if the trend continues as it has, thirty years from now you will look back and say “I wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then.” It is inevitable. We all do it. Thirty years ago when I was about your age I did not feel so acutely the weight of the changes. The progressive agenda is all about redistribution. This as you well know, is a Marxist tenet associated with communism. There may be no overt communists or “conspiracy” in control, but the Marxist leaning politicians are not so ignorant as to adopt the label. They now call themselves progressives, or socialists, or liberal democrats. Either way if you believe the communists haven’t entered our governance in significant numbers, they have infiltrated/ corrupted our public psyche, and regardless of the label they are enemies of Liberty! For my self I would say our present administration acts more like fascists than socialists, but the distinctions are of little significance, and totalitarianism is also in the eye of the beholder depending upon whose ox is being gored.
In 1944 the Socialist Party candidate for president of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “Liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the socialist party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”
Regards,
O.A.

Hello davidkachel,
For those of us (like you and I) who have lived significantly longer our perspective is colored by the amount of Liberty and Freedom lost. One does not miss what they never had. For instance people born thirty years ago do not remember driving cars without seat belts because our cars didn’t have them. The government came along and forced manufacturers to install them, saying they were there for our safety but they wouldn’t mandate use, then they said you have to use them but we won’t pull you over for not using, and now they do. Liberty is lost in increments. Remember when if you were old enough to die for your country you were old enough to buy a beer? Remember when you could smoke wherever you pleased, eat what you want? Remember when a crime was a crime and there were no special punishments/ protections for some (hate crimes), and ones motivation was irrelevant except as a supporting evidence. Remember when politicians weren’t above the law and a policeman’s life was not worth more than a civilians. Nobody questioned your right to firearms. I am not arguing the good some of this may have brought, only the right of dictation by our government, the paternalistic nature. Yes, the list could go on, but the essential point is that the longer you live in this environment the more instances of this you experience and the less tolerant you become because you feel a longer string of oppression. We have seen more and felt more keenly the preponderance of evidence, having lived it.
Regards,
O.A.

What? Morality's source is either an opinion or the Bible? Have you not read Atlas Shrugged?

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work."

and

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it."

Morality is objective, not an opinion. It comes from assessing reality and acting to best further (your) life.

Mr LeoRizzuti: Your posts do not sound to me at all like that of a Christian. You may profess to be a Christian, but you are woefully ignorant of the Bible if you truly believe the things that you are saying. I am not trying to "market" my ideas. I have simply presented the facts for any rational person to access. You may not like it, but that is your right. I would suggest that instead of trying to attack me, then it would be wise to address the facts and show me why you reject them. Next, the government has had the right to regulate marriage even before the Constitution was made, "By the power invested in me by God and the state... you are now declared man and wife." The government also handles marriage licenses as well as mediates in divorce cases. There has never been nor is there anything totalitarian about it. Finally, as I noted above: to tolerate something that is against both the Law of Nature and the Law of God is to incur the Wrath of God, and that is something that will affect you. Blessings in Jesus Christ.

Quite right. The Venona Project papers released in 1995 spell it all out.

I think they're cute. if I had alot of grass, I'd have a few. where I live it is strictly fence out.

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wow. Just, wow. I wrote something a while back called "How to ineffectively market your opinions online", aimed specifically at my fellow Christians. I may need to post it here simply for your benefit. If you are trying to persuade anybody to your side I can assure you that you have done the opposite.

I understand that there are complicating factors when speaking of the "gay community" and marriage, first and foremost a culture that has been rife with promiscuity and violence (which is also rampant in the "heterosexual community", but whatever), and that specific diseases are more abundant there. I do not see a correlation between that fact and it effecting me personally. The black population has a higher instance of sickle cell anemia, should that bar them from marriage?

A little aside for a moment: can we PLEASE get over the separation of Americans into groups? I think someone else said it in another comment, we are ALL Americans. It is the left that wants to split us into little collections, first and foremost because it is then easier to pit us against each other. Don't fall into their trap. Respect for the individual starts with recognition that that person IS an individual, not a unit within a group.

Sorry about that, back to my original statement. I personally hold to the idea that marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. But where did that belief come from? My faith as a Christian (and several thousand years of history). If that is the case, what right do I have to force my articles of faith on you? Even with history on my side (which is an admittedly weak argument, since historically, polygamy was seen as normal in marriages. I assume that you are not in favor of that.) America is a unique situation in comparison to the rest of history. We were established as a beacon of freedom in a world that had none. Those freedoms should extend to marriage for all groups, and the only true way to secure those freedoms is to get the government out of the marriage business. I don't expect my laptop to be a very effective microwave oven, it wasn't designed for that purpose. Stop trying to get the government to do things that it wasn't designed for.

Last thing. To say that government has a "right" to determine who can marry whom is giving a lot of power over my personal decisions to an entity that, frankly, I don't even trust with my mail these days. Government has no "right" to do most of what it does these days, and we need to stop empowering it to have control over us (unless, of course, you enjoy living in a totalitarian state, in which case ROCK ON! Feel free to leave at any time, though.) The whole issue has been approached from the wrong angle, and intentionally so for the reasons stated stated in my original post. To ask the government to step in and state that homosexuality should be "illegal" because it goes against what you believe and what you see as the "laws of nature" is to ultimately say that we are government property, that our actions, whether genetically driven or driven from our free will, are subject to being deemed illegal by a State that has no authority to do so. I am for freeing my fellow man from the bonds of an onerous government, not adding more chains to his burden.

The voracious appetite of this bloated, gluttonous and rampaging government that apparently the majority of the voting public has placed in power, will never be satisfied until it has ALL the goods. That means that all the moochers who have been claiming all of their "fair share" from we producers, will find that they now are getting looted. But I hope I won't be around for that. And the govt needs to keep out of who wishes to marry whom. As long as we're not talking bestiality, rock on! To love and derive joy from the happiness you share with another human being should be honored in all it's myriad forms.

Ok, I have too many thoughts swirling around and I need to compose them for later. I must get my son from school.

you can't contract with a goat
that at least rules out some unions

Well said. Thank you.

Morality has 2 sources: 1. someone's opinion or 2. bible. Most laws legislate morality: you can't attack someone else, you can't kill, you must fulfill your contract. We want these basic rules without which we have chaos. Through my study of history, I see God has raised countries and destroyed countries depending on whether they obey, trust in, and honor Him. We did as a fledgling nation and were blessed in return. If we accept that God knows best and want to honor Him, then we wouldn't have to suffer though these experiments. Now science shows that children raised in homosexual families are much more likely to have poor grades and social problems. All these problems cost our taxpayers much money and cause problems for our citizens. It is in all of our best interest for government to have a standard that is set on the bible instead of someone's opinion and then another's opinion....

I disagree with you. Are we living in a full 100% communist country? No. Are we living in a full 100% Capitalist country? No. My opinion is the scale is tipped in communism's favor. Here's a great quote that was given back in 1948 by Norman Thomas:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." The difference here is, I know this to be true, and you appear not to know this.

I am not "oversimplifying", I am just showing examples that it was part of a plan. it is not the only thing. but for those who love freedom, it should be terrifying. and our President has close relationships with people who have strong ties to communism. it is a philosphical battle and we've been losing it in our country. mostly because people are unaware or down play its effects on new generations of voters.

how do you want to rectify it? if you say transfer of govt benefits, tax advantages, etc. I'll say no govt entitlements and no income tax. If you say hospital visitation, inheritance, children, I say contracts, medical powers of attorney etc. the only thing that I see is different here, is that one partner would have to adopt, and that process is prejudiced towards birth parents.

There are some fundamental logical flaws in thinking that Gay marriage is "Ok, as long as it does not affect me." It does, and it will affect you. First, it affects you in that homosexuals have significantly higher incidences of diseases: AIDS, MRSA, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Proctitus, Hepatitus. Some of these diseases can be spread by more than simple sexual contact. Psychological studies at Harvard and Yale have shown that homosexuals are more likely to have mental health problems, especially in the areas of violent crime, child rape, and substance abuse. Domestic violence and the murder of one's "partner" is far more likely among homosexuals. All of these social diseases and social issues affect society adversely. The US Center for Disease Control has noted that all forms of these diseases, and others, are more prevalent in communities where there is a large number of homosexuals. These are facts, and they are not subject to dispute. To say that heterosexuals have not been affected by the outbreak of these diseases among homosexuals is to turn a blind eye to reality.

For those of you who believe the myth of Evolution: Homosexuality does not promote the survival of the species - in fact just the opposite. Thus, according to nature, Homosexuality is a bad mutation and should not be promoted nor encouraged in the species homo sapien. No homo sexuality among homo sapiens! The Law of Nature clearly tells us that homosexuality is immoral, and, therefore should be considered illegal.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a women. Consequently, the government has a right to control and enforce such a contract as it has the right to control and enforce any contract.

Nevertheless, it is clear that homosexuality is against the Law of God, Romans 1:26-32. To tolerate something that is contrary to the will of God is to invite the wrath of God. The warning signs are in the Law of Nature. The final judgement is in the Law of God. Be Wary

no special rights for heterosexuals?

Hit that nail right on the head.

Same guy from a few weeks ago, different screen name. They just can'r stay the fuch out of your face.