>Again: the NRA is a religion and does not represent the desires of the majority of its adherents.
I agree - they dont really represent our interests very well. They are far too moderate and willing to compromise.
We need to eradiacate all gun laws of any kind form the books, and restore the 2A to its original intention, and the NRA
just isnt pushing hard enough. This is why we have additional groups such as GOA and the VCDL, because the NRA
is too goddamn liberal.
At the moment we are just seeing what is happening when a formally almost monopolistic marketplace is opened up: The former monopolist loses market share and the competition gains market share. But this does not mean the former monopolist is going to disappear, it will just shrink a lot. And while Christianity has decreasing market share in the US and Western Europe, in other place with a former monopoly of state mandated Atheism, Christianity and other religions are gaining market share. E.g.: In China and Russia.
I don't see why you should deny someone a legal right based on some accident of biology, whether chromosome or pigment
So mentally ill persons should have access to guns, because it is just some accident of biology that caused their mental illness?
Oh, that argument. So really, even heterosexual couples should have to prove their fertility before marriage. No marriage for post-menopausal women. Would you also annul heterosexual marriages if they fail to produce children within some allocated timeframe?
Would be fine with me. But you are missing an important concept here. It is perfectly normal that laws are made for the average case. It can usually be accepted that a few persons get an unfair advantage or disadvantage from a law that they do not really deserve, what matters is if most people addressed by the law will be treated fairly.
If you say marriage is only for couple who will procreate then you are treating most people fair if you ban gay marriage. You will provide an unfair advantage to unfertile or unwilling heterosexual couples and an unfair disadvantage to homosexual couples who will procreate using donor sperm or a surrogate mother. But you will still treat most people fair as long as most heterosexual couples actually procreate and most homosexual couples do not.
. Under the U.S. Constitution, states must grant equal protection of law to all citizens.
Yes.
That implies making civil marriage available to same-sex couples.
No. The first question is: Is it a discrimination of a citizen or of a couple? Even with gay marriage banned, all citizen still keep the same right to marry a opposite sex spouse.
But the more important thing is: equal protection does not apply when there is rational reason for the discrimination, e.g.: banning some mentally ill people from gun ownership has a rational reason and thus can not be considered a violation of the equal protection of law of mentally ill citizens.
This is a non-discriminatory practice, despite the fact that a lot of gun violence is committed by mentally healthy citizens and a lot of mentally ill citizens would not commit gun violence, even if they would be allowed to own a gun.
Most opponents of gay marriage argue that differences in procreation are the rational reason why same-sex relationships can be treated differently than opposite-sex relationships. And it is certainly true that the likelyhood of procreation differs a lot between these two groups.
When a person can't do something because of the shape of their genitals or the pretense or absence of a Y chromosome, ipso facto that's not equal treatment.
Or just biology. I'm pretty sure I can never get pregnant. I think it might be related to the shape of my genitals. I should sue the state.
You can, but others can voice their objection, like OKCupid does here. Freedom of speech is for all, and does not mean freedom from criticism.
And other can voice their objection on the objection. And in this case there are several good reasons to object to OKCupid's objection even if you completely disagree with Eich:
1. Pragmatism: Living together in a democracy requires people to work together even if they have strong disagreements in their religious or political beliefs. For this reason objections should primarily be aimed directly at the belief itself and not at the persons holding them. This enables working together even with disagreements.
2. Fairness: Even if you disagree with someone you should still not misrepresent his stance. OKCupid claims gay relationships would illegal if Mr. Eich got his way on gay marriage. But Gay relationships would still be legal, even when gay marriage are banned. So you can not claim Eich wants gay relationships to be illegal, just because he supported California's Prop 8.
3. Proportionality: Brendan Eich donated $1000 for Prop 8. A rather small sum of money for a high profile engineer such as Eich. This clearly not the most important topic for Eich. He is not a major spokesperson against gay marriage, he is best known for his Javascript work and not for his opposition to gay marriage. The response should have a reasonable proportion to the thing that is being criticized. Brendan Eich's $1000 are now 100x more visible than the $1,000,000 by Alan Ashton.
CIG's proven track record and original IP add to EA’s momentum and accelerate our drive towards a multi-billion dollar digital business. With EA’s global reach and publishing network through Origin, Star Citizen is getting the bump it needs to compete with other FPS Space Sim Semi-Sandbox Role Playing Action Games out there in the market.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.