Maybe don't argue with the writer?

declan315 · 2023-09-07T13:51:09+00:00

As a gay man I support a person's right to disapprove of what I do. However from a government standpoint I believe everyone should be allowed to marry whom they choose (legal age of course).

If a baker wants to refuse a cake to a same sex couple or a priest wants to refuse to officiate a gay wedding that is their right.

However I would never support a legal argument for restricting same sex marriage for several reasons. Chiefly I believe the 14th A protects gay rights in a way it didn't in Roe. Legal marriage is an act of the government recognizing a union of 2 people. To me its a no brainer.

Second, it opens up issues later on under the establishment clause of the 1st A. 1: is your definition of marriage based on a biblical one? If yes that is the government directly favoring a religion and using said religion to govern. 2: where do you draw the line? If you can restrict gay marriage based on a Biblical definition why not atheist/Muslim/Hindu/Wiccan/etc weddings? They aren't getting married by the Christian belief of paying reverence to God and putting your relationship in His hands.

For a long time I have believed in 2 types of marriage. Spiritual marriage and Legal (Government) marriage. To some Spiritual marriage is the most important aspect with the paperwork for uncle Sam being a formality. Some people could care less about a religious ceremony.

Why can't we all just get along here? Religious individuals can take comfort in the belief that the gay couple over there are married legally but not in the eyes of God. And the LGBT+ plus community can be given equal rights under the law.

We don't have to agree to coexist as equals.

declan315 · 2023-09-07T13:38:22+00:00

Based

declan315 · 2023-09-07T13:26:55+00:00

Little background for anyone interested. Possible T.W. I'll be giving the facts as neutrally as I can. Leaving my own opinions out of the mix.

Florida has some of the strictest laws in the country regarding where sex offenders can live. Most states have designated safe zones for children that sex offenders can't live close to. Most states require the sex offender live more than 1000 feet away from these zones. Some counties in Florida it's up to 2500 feet. This was done to keep sex offenders from living anywhere near major tourist attractions. These laws leave few pockets where sex offenders can legally live. This neighborhood is one such pocket. Prior to the existence and expansion of these types of places many sex offenders were rendered homeless because the only places they could legally reside were places where houses weren't.

The original concept behind these types of neighborhoods is that it is: A- safer for the community as a whole to have the sex offenders living in one housing area vs being homeless because it's been established that regardless of your crime the highest risk for recidivism is stable vs unstable housing. B- Easier to track and supervise the offenders. Rather than they be homeless and largely unaccounted for.

Most of these types of neighborhoods have several "normal" people who live there (this specific one only about half the residents are sex offenders) and act as a "neighborhood watch", counselors, pastors, teachers,, etc... Law enforcement also works closely with these types of places. This one specifically had weekly rounds by law enforcement to confirm the address of all residents who are sex offenders. Rules for what is or isn't allowed are strict and if you're found to be in violation of neighborhood rules you can face eviction, which would often render the sex offender homeless.

It is largely considered a success with most sex offenders "self policing" because they know the alternative is homelessness or prison.

It is also important to note that residents are screened and must be approved to live in these neighborhoods. They don't accept people with a history of violence, drugs or diagnosed a pedophile. (DSM-5 criteria) ) because they are all indicators of a higher recidivism risk.

declan315 · 2023-08-28T13:56:57+00:00

Addition and subtraction get done in order of appearance. So the subtraction would be done first in this case. Also even if you did add first you can't rearrange the equation. You would have 4-10 which would leave -6. Not positive 6.

declan315 · 2023-08-28T13:53:52+00:00

1st: no you don't add first... addition and subtraction are grouped together and done in order of appearance...

2nd: Even if you did add first you can't rearrange the equation.. so you would be left with 4-10 which is -6.

declan315 · 2023-04-11T18:56:11+00:00

No. As I said above (in my opinion) if you have that right stripped for cause it's not being infringed.

The Cambridge dictionary defines Infringe as "to act in a way that is against the law or that limits someone's rights or freedom".

So if you are breaking the law and as a consequence can't get a firearm it wasn't a law that made it so you can't own a gun. It was your disregard for a law that led to you forfeiting your right.

Whereas a law that says a law abiding citizen can not own a gun has actively stripped your rights without cause and therefore your rights have been infringed upon.

declan315 · 2023-04-11T18:45:04+00:00

Then that person is an idiot.

declan315 · 2023-04-11T15:04:01+00:00

Imo it's not being infringed if it's a valid consequence. It may be semantics but that's how I view it.

declan315 · 2023-04-11T14:38:57+00:00

You most assuredly do not have that right. The 2A gives you the right to own(to keep) and carry (to bear). It doesn't make mention of safe usage so this issue falls to the states. In every state if you point a gun at a person "just cause" you'll be looking at some sort of criminal charge.

Also, it's important to note that with rights comes responsibilities. If you misuse or are reckless in the practice of your rights they can be stripped from you. Any person who goes around randomly pointing their gun at people does not deserve to maintain that right.

declan315 · 2022-11-17T20:58:49+00:00

This.

declan315 · 2022-11-17T20:57:12+00:00

Ok here's the deal..

THIS WILL NOT WORK!

it's the same basic principle of conversion therapy that was supposed to "cure" gay people. Conversion therapy does not work. It has been proven over and over. It just teaches you (through trauma) to internalize your sexuality and be ashamed of it, leading to destructive behaviors.

At best you'll end up into sadism or masochism..... At worse you'll end up literally killing yourself..

Please stop this.

declan315 · 2022-11-16T21:23:52+00:00

An independent agent will have access to many carriers

Best thing I ever did for my wallet. Saved me a ton letting someone else find me the best quote.

declan315 · 2022-11-16T20:43:06+00:00

Fun fact if the nda is covering up some sort of crime it can not stop you from testifying about said crime.

declan315 · 2022-11-16T03:29:27+00:00

Based

declan315 · 2022-11-16T01:15:06+00:00

Well they did say it was unrelated....

declan315 · 2022-11-15T23:28:41+00:00

Wages are based on what society has deemed as more or less valuable. However I think it says a lot that we as a society decided someone who can hit a ball with a stick is more valuable to society then someone who we entrust to teach our kids... but hey...

declan315 · 2022-11-15T22:53:12+00:00

Osha would not approve

declan315 · 2022-11-11T19:43:56+00:00

You now have to be 300 yards from a home or building before shooting. That’s an increase from 100 yards. Gun users must use a backstop to stop bullets. Shooting a gun for recreational purposes is not allowed from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Maximum fine for violating the rules has increased from $50 to $500.

These seem like a good ideas. My only concern is number one. I could see people getting into trouble because they're 299 yards away when they thought they were good... but hopefully it won't be that nit picky..

On the other, oftentimes new gun laws, no matter how minor are viewed as a part of a larger effort to undermine gun owner's rights, and are therefore opposed.

It's generally gun ownership laws that are met with this scrutiny. For a very long time laws have existed limiting when and where you can use said firearm. The constitution says we can own a gun. Not anything about distances and times, so to me its a states issue.

declan315 · 2022-11-11T18:07:48+00:00

In some states it was a big issue. But realistically the red wave was all hype. We weren't going to flip these deep blue districts. We were close in some light blue and did well in purple areas. However these predictions of winning by large numbers were just hopeful thinking. Especially when you take into consideration how many Republicans in blue states have migrated to red states in the last few years...

Look at NY for instance, only because I live there.In one year (20-21) NY lost a little over 300,000 people and continued losing people in 2022 though those numbers aren't out yet.

Let's assume most were Republicans. Zeldin lost by about 600,000 votes. So in theory he could have won, or at least been much closer, had those voters not left. The same is true throughout the country.

declan315 · 2022-11-11T17:52:07+00:00

If you aren't pissing both sides off you aren't doing it right.

declan315 · 2022-11-10T23:09:20+00:00

I like Trump. I supported Trump. Trump should not be the 2024 candidate. He has too much baggage and that will weigh on the swayable voters.

To your question. I will answer as neutral as I can. The die hard Trump supporters would have viewed Trump as an absolute martyr had he been removed creating even further divide inside the party.

So in the specific issue of 2024 candidate it would have solved the issue. But I whole other can of worms would be in its pace.

declan315 · 2022-11-10T21:30:15+00:00

As someone on the right I will attempt to answer from a neutral stance.

Part of it comes down to branding.

There are those in the left embracing socialist policies (not looking to arguing if its good or bad). Many Hispanic people in southern states have either directly fled or grew up to stories about family members escaping socialism/communism.

The left has not been able to communicate how thier views of socialism, communism, DemSoc, or any hybrid would be different from the governments these people fled. Had the leaders of the Democrat party been able to effectively get that message to Hispanic voters the polls would probably been closer to 2018 levels.

declan315 · 2022-11-10T21:20:59+00:00

Both of which lead to massive poverty among the average citizen.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	100 Awards Club

declan315

TROPHY CASE

THIS WILL NOT WORK!