TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying Nevertakecandyfromsocialists's 10 most recent comments.

• Rick Santorum’s Dire Warning on Gay Marriage

  April 9, 2013 at 5:33pm

  In reply to Azzman.

  I’m with ReverendBlueJeans. Maximum liberty + minimal morality=libertarianism. Libertarians love to talk about the constitution but I don’t think the founders would be in agreement with their line of thinking.

  “Our Constitution was made for only a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams

  From the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress in 1787 : Article 3. Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. (Meaning religion, morality and knowledge should be part of a formal education.)

  “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. “- George Washington

  And finally, an article on how homosexuality was viewed in colonial America.

  http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/how_the_founders_would_view_same_sex_marriage.html

• Will the GOP Platform Ever Endorse Gay Marriage? This Prominent Republican Doesn’t Think so

  April 1, 2013 at 5:16pm

  In reply to seanmom.

  The state does have a vested interest in marriage. They realized that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society and is the best environment to raise children and it is in their best interest to support it. That is why they give tax breaks to married people and their dependents. It ensures a law abiding, self sufficient citizenry. Children need both a mother and a father. A lack of a father in the home means a greatly increased likelihood that the child will live in poverty, be less educated, more likely to commit crimes, and have more physical and psychological issues. Does paying for all the social programs that the government provides to replace fathers in the homes not affect the economy? Does an uneducated citizenry not affect the economy? Do high crime rates not impact the economy? That is why government is in the marriage business, not to collect some paltry one time fee for a license as some others have suggested. Joseph Unwin, an anthropologist, conducted a study published as “Sex and Culture” back in the ’30s. He found societies with a strong conjugal marriage culture were the most prosperous and successful. Those that loosened up their morals were soon on a downward spiral, likely because it reflected their lack of discipline and self indulgence. And for all the “get the governement out of marriage” people, I don’t disagree in theory, but the likelihood of that happening is slightly north of nil. Redefining marriage will lead to mor

• 28 Teens Arrested After ‘Wilding’ Mob Action Rocks Chicago

  March 31, 2013 at 7:11pm

  In reply to Joviwan.

  How much do you want to bet most of their fathers are m.i.a.?

• Krauthammer Warns: Gay Marriage Case Could Lead to All-Out ‘Assault on Religion’

  March 31, 2013 at 5:48pm

  In reply to wilbstal.

  @Bob
  Why do you not consider 4% of the population(of which only about 20% want to marry so really more like .8%) demanding we change the current definition of marriage an imposition? Are they not imposing their beliefs on the 96%? All laws legislate morality. The question is whose? This is not a debate about religion vs the rights of a “special class”. This is about natural law and common sense versus a nonsensical premise. We are born male and female, and that is how the constitution and the institution of marriage should deal with us. This should not be viewed through the lens of heterosexual versus homosexual. People are equal, behaviors are not. People have rights, institutions (like marriage) do not.

• Why Is the Federal Govt. in the Marriage Business?

  March 28, 2013 at 9:28am

  So glad they finally had someone on who could voice the socon position vs the libertarian. Why do some insist on squaring the circle and amplifying the problem? Traditional marriage, if it was upheld, affirmed, and nurtured would actually promote smaller government. Children from fatherless homes are: 7x more likely to live in poverty, 6x more likely to commit suicide, 2x as likely to commit crime, more than twice as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, worse off academically and socially with more physical and emotional problems when they reach adulthood. US children from fatherless homes account for: 60%percent of rapists, 63% of youth suicides, 70% of long term prison inmates, 70% of reform school attendees, 71% of teenage pregnancies, 71% of high school dropouts, 72% of adolescent murderers, 85%of youth prisoners, 85% of youths withbehavioral disorders, 90% percent of runaways. There’s a government program to address most of those. You’re pocket should be feeling picked right about now. Those statistics came from “Correct, Not Politically Correct, How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone” by Frank Turek.

• Starbucks CEO Tells Shareholders to Invest Elsewhere if They Don’t Like Company’s Stance on Gays

  March 25, 2013 at 1:23pm

  In reply to RagstoRiches.

  I agree with you Rags. As Christians we should stand by our convictions but still be compassionate.

• Starbucks CEO Tells Shareholders to Invest Elsewhere if They Don’t Like Company’s Stance on Gays

  March 25, 2013 at 1:16pm

  In reply to MAProg.

  @Allen45371
  Traditional marriage, which has been the standard throughout recorded history across religions and cultures, is the bedrock of civilization and it is about children and family. It is the joining of male and female with their unique set of attributes in body and mind, becoming one flesh with the concrete example of this being children. It is preferrable that this bond is exclusive and permanent to contribute to the well being of the children. These children then grow up to be educated, law abiding, self reliant citizens who are not dependent on the government for support. Traditional marriage is already weakened by no fault divorce and single motherhood. Same sex marriage is the revisionist view of marriage. It only requires that the participants be in love, and does not require exclusivity or permanence, it is not about childen and family. It devalues the unique and individual contributions of a mother and father, if children are present. It also means you will then have to draw some arbitrary line as to who you will choose to exclude from marriage (polygamists, polyamorists, consenting incestuous adults?). Having this made into law will affect public opinion (well they passed a law so most people must agree with it so it must be OK). The standards and values for revisionist marriage will eventually become more accepted in the public consciousness and weaken traditional marriage.

• Starbucks CEO Tells Shareholders to Invest Elsewhere if They Don’t Like Company’s Stance on Gays

  March 25, 2013 at 12:58pm

  In reply to cliffattheblaze.

  They don’t actually believe in diversity of all kinds. When a pro-tradtional family group in Charlotte asked for a donation for their event, Starbucks turned them down, citing their “diversity policy” even though they had sponsored the local “Gay Pride” event.

• Starbucks CEO Tells Shareholders to Invest Elsewhere if They Don’t Like Company’s Stance on Gays

  March 25, 2013 at 12:51pm

  In reply to lessoneleg.

  I agree with the first part of your post but completely disagree with the second. Traditional marriage is(should be) the vehicle that produces dependable, self reliant, morally upright, hardworking citizens that contribute to society. It promotes smaller government and is worth of being defended. I’m sure most are aware of the statistics pertaining to children raised in broken homes or by one parent. That is why we should be defending traditional marriage and not throwing up our hands and saying to he## with it. The revisionist definition of marriage (I’m in love so I need a piece of paper to prove it), will lead to a further weakening of marriage as the standards that are applied to it, including a willing lack of exclusivity and permanence, will be applied to all marriages. Much the way no fault divorce and having children out of wedlock have weakened marriage. We should not contribute to the problem because that will only lead to more government intervention (BIGGER government). And by the way MAPROG all laws basically legislate morality. The question is your morality or mine? Sorry there is good and bad, right and wrong, better and worse in this life, that’s reality. In this case traditional marriage is the better.

• Is Gay Marriage a ‘Profoundly Unconservative Thing?’ See This Explosive Fox Debate

  March 25, 2013 at 11:14am

  In reply to BARELYHANGINGON.

  I agree with the comments in this thread. This argument is not about religion or homosexuality per se. We are debating traditional marriage versus the revisionist view of marriage. Traditional marriage is the joining of man and woman with their unique attributes to make a more complete and complementary whole, the concrete proof of this being their offspring. Their marriage, which includes permanence and exclusivity, then provides the social institution to raise and nurture that child to become a productive, responsible, morally upright, educated, hard working citizen who contributes to his community. Support of traditional marriage is support of smaller government because the government does not have to play the role of a missing parent providing food stamps, health care, supplemental education programs, or possibly corrections programs. Revisionist marriage is only about consenting adults and “love”, which can include almost anyone, does not require permanence and exclusivity, and denegrates the truth that every child deserves a mother and a father. Revisionist (same sex) marriage will damage traditional marriage like no fault divorce and single motherhood have and in the end will lead to bigger government.