Off topic. Clearly, the argument is whether or not homosexuality is natural.
I definitely and wholeheartedly agree!! And how could this "modification" even begin? There are certainly no legal grounds with which to catalyst such a change. And I am sure that this country would never pass legislation which discriminates against certain groups, ethnicities, or profiles in respect to voting (except Alabama, which just passed a bill which discriminated against same-sex couples. Obviously, they would no doubt pass another bill illegalizing voting for gay people if they could get away with it.)
I agree, wholeheartedly!! Democrats are people. They uphold the Constitution. They are of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Republicans are an institution. Clearly, they get elected and ignore constituents.
Yes, it is the ability/necessity to revise the Constitution. Democrats are progressively acting to change the country's wayward course instituted by Republicans. Once, the Grand Old Party was grand. Not anymore.
And Republicans have never argued a "codified process for Constitutional altercation," because Republicans don't do ANYTHING!!
While I have close ties to animal rights organizations, I do not believe that hunting animals for sport should be illegal. Hunting is almost a religion to some people. And this issue really has no basis. Just a clear path back to the issue of gun control.
And obviously, by creating all these LGBTQ-centered debates, you either must be highly discriminate or an aspiring gym owner.
No, psychologically speaking.Transgenders are born in the wrong body and seek to change physical features in order to clarify their physical, social, etc. identity.
Therefore, transgender people only wish to fit into society. Creating a separate environment specifically for "segregating" them would not only be discriminate, but also unnaturally cruel. Statistically, transgender are the most suicidal out of the LGBTQ community. Rates would presumably soar if transgender people were further separated from society.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that all men are created equal. Furthermore, the US Constitution is clear when it dictates that the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all the laws of the land, including but not limited to, the individual states' constitutions.
It would be dilatant to assume that the states ever had or ever will have jurisdiction over matters concerning the protection of a certain race, group, or ethnicity.
Most definitely! If gay people are treated as if they're committing a crime, then siblings committing incest should also be billed as deplorable to society!!
Therefore, if you disagree with the entire idea of marriage, then you should start your own debate based on your own ideology. Registering your opinion in a debate on a completely different topic invalidates your point.
First, I want to say that I abhor anyone who is legally forced to go against his will. With that being said, I am gay, and do not believe that pastors or other clergy should be forced to go against his or her religion. But, consider this:
1. Some states require that marriage/wedding officiants be ordained. Notary public's and clerks are not certified to officiate ceremonies.
2. So, if not the clergy, then who? Think about it. Most of the probate judges in Alabama refuse to marry same-sex couples. So, if probate judges, private individuals, and clergy are not legally bound to wed gay couples, then who can we turn to??
Its pretty simple. As soon as this (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/
Perhaps rubber ammunition is an effective means by which to regulate and subdue the populous. But one must look at the broad picture. If it means saving even one life, police forces should be allowed to use unrestricted lethal force. With the common knowledge that criminals and citizens of ill repute use such means, police forces should also use these measures. Criminals wearing padded clothing and/or bulletproof vests would be practically invincible! Not only that, but foreign terrorists would be virtually unstoppable should they plan and execute a home invasion.
No, statistics show that lethal force is more effective for saving lives than using non-lethal ammunition to prevent deaths.
I highly agree! The procedures and policies of police forces have never been called into question more than quite recently. Police forces already use rubber ammunition as part of, as you said, riots and such. But, again, debating whether or not to allow the police to use lethal ammunition is as pointless as debating gun control. Honestly, it as not about lethal or nonlethal ammo. Its about guns. And that's where politics begin.
If you're not taking sides, please validate your neutrality by not joining my he debate.
We are not here to attack personal beliefs and character. Therefore, please do not give the rest of the liberals a bad rap by calling names. Let us professionally debate this subject.
I believe that liberalism is the preferred method to revitalize America; however, I find it odd that conservatives feature liberal diplomacy, while liberals prefer a more conservative approach to diplomatic relations.
First of all, I would like to add that the Republicans are starting off once again by taking a rabbit trail off of a comment made by the moderator. And I would also like to add that I do not believe Democrats or Republicans are stupid. I believe that both parties are made up of persons of intellectual wit and stamina and should be praised for their goals of wanting to make this country a better place for all citizens.
Democrats, in a word, compared to Republicans, believe that this country is not adapting itself to modern times. Too many conservatives want to reach out and grasp the inevitable by quoting the Fore Fathers and by insisting that they would be ashamed at the thought of progressively editing and adapting the Constitution. The great men who founded this country, believed that every individual had rights and every individual mattered. The Constitution was drafted and signed to protect and preserve these rights.
In summary, Democrats believe in adapting the Constitution in order to allow for the freedom of each citizen and group. The Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the Constitution is to be taken at face value, and that this country is to remain as it was economically, fiscally, militarily, and politically when the Founding Fathers signed the Constitution.
