Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So is "banned" the only word anyone on CD knows? Try "replaced", and it happens a lot for a variety of reasons that you don't care about any more than you actually care about this. "banned" invokes a Pavlovian response in some people. The same people. Over and over.
I'm really astonished at all the hatred of Dr. Carson. He's actually very intelligent and does great works. From what I understand, he's been well known in the black community for years. Now people want to call him Uncle Tom because he had the audacity to disagree with gay marriage or Obamacare? It's all very strange. The guy's a brilliant speaker with an incredibly inspiring story.
Just because you don't agree with some of his beliefs does not mean he's a bad person. I highly doubt he's out there getting it on the down low. I don't think he's been on a mission against gay marriage, but it is a topic on everyone's mind with the high court hearings going on so naturally he was asked about it when he was on a political talk show. So don't go thinking he's another Ted Haggard who made speaking out against gays his mission, all the while having sex with a male prostitute.
No where did I say he said anything offensive...but it is currious to lump gays, nambla, and practitioners of beastiality into same thought.
It was implied in your response.
His point was clear. If we let one group redefine "marriage," we open the door to the other groups to also redefine it. Incest, to some, should be allowed where their is mutual consent.
Surely, you can understand where this leads, can you not? That was his point, and there is nothing at all controversial about his statement.
The left will find controversial, anything anyone says that doesn't agree with their egalitarian philosophy.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 03-31-2013 at 05:35 AM..
His point was clear. If we let one group redefine "marriage," we open the door to the other groups to also redefine it. Incest, to some, should be allowed where their is mutual consent.
Surely, you can understand where this leads, can you not? That was his point, and there is nothing at all controversial about his statement.
The left will find controversial anything anyone says that doesn't agree with their egalitarian philosophy.
"Surely" you understand this is an absurd argument to make.
You don't know how many times the left has accused the right of being haters because they have a different opinion than theirs. It is one of their favorite words to use against the right and I think you know that. Oppose a traditional gay marriage....you hate gays. Oppose abortion....you hate women. Oppose illegal immigration....you hate Mexicans and you're a racist. Advocate for people to get off welfare and go to work....you hate the poor and minorities. Oppose Obama's policies.....you hate him cause he's black. Shall I go on?
Yeah - Christie didn't get invited because some people didn't like his words or his actions during this election. But - that was fine with you guys. All of a sudden ~ it's the 'libruls' banning free speech.
Give me a break.
Pretty big ass assumption. There were a lot of people not invited to speak at CPAC. Not everyone can be invited, or the thing would go on for weeks!
Rush Limbaugh wasn't invited either again this year. I can think of many whom I would like to have heard from that were not invited. That's just the way it works.
Were you invited to every party anyone ever had when you were a child? In the real world, we get to choose our guests. CPAC is no different.
I don't know the context of his comments, but it's not a stupid statement. You have to admit that if the Supreme Court rules that same sex couples can marry because it's a basic right, then what's to stop three people from marrying? After all, they love each other and it's their right. Obviously NAMBLA isn't going to be able to make a case as what they want is completely illegal. So is bestiality probably (I've heard of buggery laws). But it's not out of this world to think polygamists might try to make a case. I didn't see the show, but could he have said those things because someone else (probably Hannity) made that case? I've heard that argument before so I wouldn't be surprised.
That is my point. Just as you listed above, both Pedophilla and Beastiality are illegal[unlawful acts]. Then why the link? Homosexuals are seeking rememdy to an issue in which 9 of the States have made same-sex marriage lawful. Why would Dr. Carson made link marriage that is accepted "Legally" in 9 states with unlawful taboo practices "legal" in 0 states.
If The Supreme Court has upholds the lower courts ruling, that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, that does not mean all forms of marraige would then be legal. It simply says that the federal govenment can not write a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
His point was clear. If we let one group redefine "marriage," we open the door to the other groups to also redefine it. Incest, to some, should be allowed where their is mutual consent.
Surely, you can understand where this leads, can you not? That was his point, and there is nothing at all controversial about his statement.
The left will find controversial, anything anyone says that doesn't agree with their egalitarian philosophy.
Who exactly is "we"? Why does "we" believe "we" has the exclusive right to define marriage in the first place? Where is it written that "we" are the exclusive holders of that right?
The only We I know of, is the We in "Wethe People". To my knowledge..."we" is a subset of the larger "We the People".
so when a Liberal is invited to speak at an event you frequent, you fear them by not wanting to listen to what they have to say?
Liberals have nothing meaningful to say. Their brains are filled with nothing but gibberish and gobbledygook. They have exchanged reason and discernment for unrestrained acceptance of all things, all beliefs, and all life styles, as equally valid.
Egalitarianism will be the death of mans freedom. Democracy, without limits, leads to oppression and tyranny.
"When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters." — Tocqueville
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
