TheQuestioner

As a libertarian conservative who is proud of the American Constitution, I don't agree with everything I hear here from the Christian social conservatives, I don't agree with the state becoming involved in '''''any''''' constitutional amendments on marriage - no matter who is getting married. People should only abide by the rules of the church they are associated with, the state has no business regulating people's belief systems. I agree that the gay rights movement has exploited the whole marriage issue for the purpose of allowing gay people to run for politics on the issue. If the gays want to start their own "gay-friendly religion" where they can get married, let them, that should be their individual right and they should be responsible for themselves, but it is no one's business to challenge the liberty of religious faith in America. The practice of religion is an individual right in America, and people have the right to choose their belief system, that is why our country has various denominations of Christianity as well as other religions such as Judaism. The state should never control religion, it is completely against freedom, just look at Hitler's persecution of Jews, Stalin's persecution of all religious faiths, and Ayatollah Khomeini's persecution of Christians and Jews.

As a libertarian conservative who is proud of the American Constitution, I don't agree with everything I hear here from the Christian social conservatives, I don't agree with the state becoming involved in '''''any''''' constitutional amendments on marriage - no matter who is getting married. People should only abide by the rules of the church they are associated with, the state has no business regulating people's belief systems. I agree that the gay rights movement has exploited the whole marriage issue for the purpose of allowing gay people to run for politics on the issue. If the gays want to start their own "gay-friendly religion" where they can get married, let them, that should be their individual right and they should be responsible for themselves, but it is no one's business to challenge the liberty of religious faith in America. The practice of religion is an individual right in America, and people have the right to choose their belief system, that is why our country has various denominations of Christianity as well as other religions such as Judaism. The state should never control religion, it is completely against freedom, just look at Hitler's persecution of Jews, Stalin's persecution of all religious faiths, and Ayatollah Khomeini's persecution of Christians and Jews.

I am tired of hearing liberals note that because some small parts of the American Constitution are obsolete, that thereby the whole Constitution is obsolete. For instance, liberals note that the 2nd Amendment mentions that because one small section mentions that an American citizen has the right to park his horse, that thereby the entire 2nd Amendment is obsolete. That argument is exaggerated, of course the American Constitution was written in a specific time period, but look at what has happened recently when people are not given the right to bear arms - neo-communist Putin rose to power in Russia and is running a tyranny - if the Russian people could form their own militias, Putin would have been overthrown by now. So there is a darn good reason even today for Americans to have the right to revolt, as for the liberal complaints about some minescule section of the 2nd Amendment about allowing horses to park his horse - they have the right to press for a constitutional amendment to the 2nd Amendment updating the material on the parking of horses to something on cars - I don't have a problem. But if they try to scrap the right to bear arms I will always oppose them because even recent history shows that tyrants can stay in power longer when their is no ability of opposition to seriously mobilize to challenge them.

I am tired of hearing liberals note that because some small parts of the American Constitution are obsolete, that thereby the whole Constitution is obsolete. For instance, liberals note that the 2nd Amendment mentions that because one small section mentions that an American citizen has the right to park his horse, that thereby the entire 2nd Amendment is obsolete. That argument is exaggerated, of course the American Constitution was written in a specific time period, but look at what has happened recently when people are not given the right to bear arms, neo-communist Putin rose to power in Russia. Putin is running a tyranny against the wishes of the Russian people - Russian protestors do not have access to weapons and can do nothing against his police state, but if the Russian people could form their own militias, Putin would have been overthrown by now. So there is a darn good reason even today for Americans to have the right to revolt, as for the liberal complaints about some minescule section of the 2nd Amendment about allowing horses to park his horse - they have the right to press for a constitutional amendment to the 2nd Amendment updating the material on the parking of horses to something on cars - I don't have a problem. But if they try to scrap the right to bear arms I will always oppose them because even recent history shows that tyrants can stay in power longer when their is no ability of opposition to seriously mobilize to challenge them.

Facts of life that are proven that some people irrationally do not accept:

Facts of life that are proven that some people irrationally do not accept: