Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, at least it would have preserved marriage in its traditional form, you know, like it has been since the beginning. It would define something in a legal way that has been understood for thousands of years. Right now, it's just being perverted.
Good thing they didn't think about preserving in regards to the 13th amendment.
Well, at least it would have preserved marriage in its traditional form, you know, like it has been since the beginning. It would define something in a legal way that has been understood for thousands of years. Right now, it's just being perverted.
In early cultures, men often had many wives. What, then, is the traditional form and what is the perversion?
Weren't women considered to be more like property in those cultures?
In early cultures, men often had many wives. What, then, is the traditional form and what is the perversion?
Comment, I don't understand why any political party would try to appeal to an extreme minority with anything. It isn't as if they will vote for the opposing party, at worst they will try to run as a third party candidate, and we all know that doesn't work out for the extreme sides.
At least they were wives, rather than fellow dudes. Have you seen any instance in the bible where a guy had a harem of men?
Did they have those things in biblical times???
Goalposts? Sure. People have been playing competitive sports for millenia.
Anyone, such as the President, or Dianne Feinstein, who claims that the Constitution is "negative" and needs to be changed, and that the second amendment is something they'd like to see repealed (and have introduced bills to accomplish this), is someone who is assaulting the constitution.
No, it isn't.
See, the Constitution isn't, and has never been, set in stone. It changes all the time, sometimes directly reversing itself (see the 21st and 18th Amendments).
So what you have there is simply that you disagree with someone else's views on the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
-- A2SG, be willing to bet there's one or two things in the Constitution you, yourself, wouldn't mind being changed....
At least it takes a vast majority to make changes to it. One thing we don't need is for some emotionally charged event to take place and sway the emotions of enough people to make foolish changes to the foundation of our country's laws. It's bad enough we gave up so much freedom after 9/11 for the "Patriot Act" because so many people were swayed by fear so soon after the event.
If you're saying the Patriot act was unconstitutional, I'd agree. But enacting unconstitutional laws, even those not rules as such by the SCOTUS, isn't an "assault" on the Constitution.
When people use language like that, talking of "assaulting the Constitution" and such, all it means is that they disagree with some change to it or amendment someone proposes for it. That's it.
No one's assaulting the Constitution.
-- A2SG, not even when laws change, which they do. Often....
Maybe assaulting our freedom would be a better way to say it.
However, if the constitution is ignored in favor of a law or regulation that violates it, then the system is broken if nothing can be done to reverse it.
As of late, the SCOTUS has proven it can override the constitution if it wants to.
It may not "assault the constitution", but it can pretty much neuter it if it wanted to.
PsychoSarah said:It seems to me that the Republican Party might be on the decline long term if it doesn't begin to appeal to more moderate voters. With the Tea Party, now officially the most hated group in the United States ...
Note: I myself do not really associate with any particular political party, on many views I am rather liberal, but there are still issues on which I am rather conservative.
IMO, the idea that the GOP needs broaden it's appeal to more voters inherently misses the reason why their support is waning. Decades ago there used to be liberal Republicans, in the 90's there were moderate Republicans. Today there are only conservative Republicans. The only divide among these groups is if they are socially or fiscally conservative or both. It's starting to get to the point where one has to be both and someone is either socially or fiscally is being driven out. Before the GOP can broaden it's appeal, it's needs to stop narrowing what it means to be a Republican.
The GOP reminds me of churches that splits and splits again over minor doctrine disputes until there remains a "church" with a dozen members who are all related.
I wonder if you realize that you completely supported my post. You claim that the only the Tea Party "real conservatives" which supports my claim that Republicans that are either socially or fiscally conservative are being driven out of the GOP by Republicans that are both (Tea Party).Not really. It seems that the Republicans have only started leaning more and more left to please people, and THAT is what has hurt them. The only real conservatives now are the Tea Party members. That's why that group formed--because the Republicans keep dropping the ball on conservative issues.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?