Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Same could be said about the extreme right and their hatred of the public sector. Both sectors are important towards the economy of our economy.
Profit isn't everything as fairness and a high quality of life are also very important.
So it is left wing to want a high quality of life and fairness within the economy???
The far right wants the worker to be no better then a drone.
Yes I embrace all of the above. I believe in Eugenics and making a better race,jews I hate because they are the enemy of my race. There has been a war for the soul of civilization and there always will be until either all jews or all whites are dead. Hitler was a great man I think he should have left the military stuff up to his generals and I wish he had embraced more anti capitalist policies but understand why he didn't. Yes I embrace the left wing section of the party and no I don't blame the Strasser brothers,I blame the capitalist backers of Hitler for forcing him to choose their backing or what he truly believed.
You must be fun at parties.
I thought the extreme right hated the government telling people what to do??? WTF?
I thought the extreme right hated the government telling people what to do??? WTF?
And the far left proves they only can speak in talking posts and propaganda.
It's a pretty sick and disturbed mind that would prefer starvation over the government keeping its nose out of people's private lives.
What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.
Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com
I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.
With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.
Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.
Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).
I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.
What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.
reversing the argument doesnt make it true.
anyways who cares.
right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is, what they call it, when and if it will end.
reversing the argument doesnt make it true.
anyways who cares.
right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is, what they call it, when and if it will end.
Yes, but there are far more other things they don't have any rights about. If one of them is ill and unable to make decisions, they cannot make those decisions for them. For example, if you have been with a partner for many years and your partner gets in a car accident and is in a coma which he will probably never get out of, according to the law, next of kin makes life and death decisions for the patient. That means a person who has been someone's partner for 20 years is not allowed to have a say, while a cousin who has had no contact with the patient for 20 years has the right to make a decision about life support, as well as any other decisions.
I knew a woman who had been with a man for about 20 years. They lived together but never married. When he became ill, and eventually died, she had not say in anything about his treatment. She was not treated like a wife because she wasn't one legally, and she very much regretted it, that they had not married, because she hadn't realized it would be like that when one of them became ill. This type of thing is one reason why people want legal, civil unions. There are a lot of rights married people have that unmarried couples don't have.
What are you talking about? Gay marriage is about government getting involved in the private lives of people. Right now, homosexuals can enter into any relationship they want to for as long as they want without any interference with the government. Gay marriage gives the government power to regulate same sex relationships. It creates more regulation for same sex relationships. It gives the government power to determine when it sanctions the relationship and when the relationship is disolved.
I don't understand how that could be.
The government used to say:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.
Now it says:
Heterosexual marriage is ok.
Homosexual marriage is ok.
There is no difference in the amount of regulation.
Are you serious? How can you not see that empowering the government to license (and by doing so charge a license fee) to more people regulates people and relationships they didn't previously regulate? How exactly is the government saying people end relationships without their approval not the government regulating more people?
If you truly want the government not to say you can or can't do something, then don't demand that they approve and regulate it.
right now gay couples can determine how long the relationship is, what they call it, when and if it will end.
Yes, but there are far more other things they don't have any rights about. If one of them is ill and unable to make decisions, they cannot make those decisions for them. For example, if you have been with a partner for many years and your partner gets in a car accident and is in a coma which he will probably never get out of, according to the law, next of kin makes life and death decisions for the patient. That means a person who has been someone's partner for 20 years is not allowed to have a say, while a cousin who has had no contact with the patient for 20 years has the right to make a decision about life support, as well as any other decisions.
I knew a woman who had been with a man for about 20 years. They lived together but never married. When he became ill, and eventually died, she had not say in anything about his treatment. She was not treated like a wife because she wasn't one legally, and she very much regretted it, that they had not married, because she hadn't realized it would be like that when one of them became ill. This type of thing is one reason why people want legal, civil unions. There are a lot of rights married people have that unmarried couples don't have.
Power of attorney and medical proxy contracts would have solved that problem
Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com
I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.
With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.
Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.
Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).
I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.
Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com
I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.
With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.
Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.
Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).
I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.
I encourage this sort of protest.
I just wish every homophobe in UTAH would join him.
Yes, but there are far more other things they don't have any rights about. If one of them is ill and unable to make decisions, they cannot make those decisions for them. For example, if you have been with a partner for many years and your partner gets in a car accident and is in a coma which he will probably never get out of, according to the law, next of kin makes life and death decisions for the patient. That means a person who has been someone's partner for 20 years is not allowed to have a say, while a cousin who has had no contact with the patient for 20 years has the right to make a decision about life support, as well as any other decisions.
I knew a woman who had been with a man for about 20 years. They lived together but never married. When he became ill, and eventually died, she had not say in anything about his treatment. She was not treated like a wife because she wasn't one legally, and she very much regretted it, that they had not married, because she hadn't realized it would be like that when one of them became ill. This type of thing is one reason why people want legal, civil unions. There are a lot of rights married people have that unmarried couples don't have.
Power of attorney and medical proxy contracts would have solved that problem
Again, why should gay couples go through all these extra hoops, that straight people get by default just by geting married?
