Texashiker
Lifer
You've asked the same question at least 15 times and it has been answered more times than that.
I have not seen a direct yes/no answer.
Maybe you would care to give me a yes or no?
You've asked the same question at least 15 times and it has been answered more times than that.
I have not seen a direct yes/no answer.
Maybe you would care to give me a yes or no?
I have not seen a direct yes/no answer.
Maybe you would care to give me a yes or no?
I dunno if your point makes any sense. The Nazi's had the "authority" to round up 6 million Jews and slaughter them like cattle. The authority to do morally repugnant, despicable, genocidal crimes against humanity is hardly a solid argument.
Rephrase your argument because it don't make a lick of sense.
You must not read ALL the posts. I answered in post #72 and many before me aslo have.
Every thread is the same thread.
Nah, I like that they're contradictory.
"A fetus is a human, it has rights!"
"Homosexuals have no rights because they're icky!"
Nah, I like that they're contradictory.
"A fetus is a human, it has rights!"
"Homosexuals are icky. No rights for you!"
Nah, I like that they're contradictory.
"A fetus is a human, it has rights!"
"Homosexuals are icky. No rights for you!"
My penis has rights damn it!
Everyone has a right to life.
Well, that is unless you are outside the USA, then the government can kill you without due process.
Obama slammed Uganda for an anti-gay law.
I am sure this was for political reasons so he can win friends in the gay community, and maybe win votes for democrats in the 2014 mid-term election.
However, shouldn't a nation be free to pass whatever laws they wish? Personally I do not care what some third world nation is doing.
If a government wishes to restrict certain rights, dont they have the authority to do so?
That comes later.
By page 5 I suspect this thread will be on the real topic. But we are getting close.
Everyone has a right to life.
Well, that is unless you are outside the USA, then the government can kill you without due process.
Does the government have the authority to restrict certain rights?
Harms my pocketbook when they get AIDS and end up in the hospital, since we all have to have health insurance now. I have to pay for others poor choices. That harms me.
(I'm not for or against homosexuality, I'm just throwing out the ridiculous notion that its harmless. Everything can harm someone somehow.)
It's usually better to get to your main point succinctly otherwise you just look like you're befuddled and rambling.
But I can't make whiskey in my basement, so why do people have a right to life?
AIDS affected gays first here but it is by no means a 'gay' disease.
Gay consumers and designers are a big part of the economy. Gay tax dollars support your roads, schools, water supply.... I believe gays help you more than they hurt you.
I just wanted to let you all know im gay. So that means your rights to eat banana's has been revoked. Sorry.
If other rights can be restricted and regulated, why should homo-sexuality get a free pass?
How do you suggest we restrict and regulate homosexuality?
Waiting on the right comment.
Waiting on the right comment.
Technically, the government does not have to protect your right to life.
At the moment you seem to be vacillating between flailing madly and treading water. Either way it looks like you're out of your depth and drowning.
So you agree that because I can't make whiskey in my basement the government can restrict my right to life.