You are simply wrong. Who told you the definition of marriage? It's not at all what you claim. Prove you are right.
Actually, I'll make it easy for you. Many of the prominent figures in the bible had more than one wife. Polygamists. Not at all the "one man, one woman" claim. There are legal plural marriages today, in many nations. Historically, the Romans and Egyptians had legal same sex marriages. Polygamy, too. Often marriages between multiple men and women.
We weren't talking about blue laws Denny. Here's what you said: How many of those blue law states ban alcohol? Go Blazers
OK, I said "your religious friends think blah blah" As far as I know he doesn't have any "religious" friends. So what exactly do you think I was talking about? Other than what I already explained to you. You need it in greater detail? The point is, "where do you stop pandering to religious people getting bent out of shape over good policy?" Pretty much any policy enacted on behalf of religion is a violation of the 1st amendment. Do you know anyone who's gay? Seriously. If you do, why on earth do you want to deny them happiness, when it's truly no skin off your nose.
I thought you were talking about how religious people want to ban alcohol. Okay, if you want to make another lame attempt to back up your nonsense, go ahead. So, is it "pandering to religious people" when the majority of the voters want blue laws, and vote them in? Like Thou Shalt Not Kill? Nice straw man Denny. Where did I say I want to deny gay people a damned thing? And yeah, I know, and have known, lots of gay people. What's your point? Go Blazers
I asked you a question about your gay friends that you dodged. Why on earth do you want to deny them happiness when it's truly no skin off your nose? If you're married, is your marriage going to be null and void if two fellas marry 500 miles from you? The constitution is designed to protect the minority from a tyrannical majority. And the 1st amendment says government will establish no religion. It makes no difference, at all, what the majority of people want IF it is to enact things on a religious basis. Slave owners eventually had to get over the end of slavery. Bigots had to get over blacks serving in the military. Bigots had to get over interracial marriages. Bigots had to get over gays serving in the military. Now they're going to have to get over gay couples having the same right as other couples. And that's what I mean by they can go pound sand. Get over it. Thou shalt not kill, unless you're George Zimmerman. Or a soldier. Or the executioner. etc.
I didn't dodge shit. I never said that gay people should be denied anything. Why would you make up that I want to deny gay people happiness? I don't. Quit trying to draw me into your little pissing contest with Maxie. Are blue laws enacted 'on a religious basis'? Seems like they probably make a difference where they're voted in. What does that have to do with you saying that religious people want to ban alcohol? I'll get over it just fine. But, until you ban me, I'll feel free to call you out when you base your arguments on bullshit. NOT GUILTY! Get over it. Do you think that all homicide laws are a violation of the 1st amendment, since they stem from religious policy? You've convinced me that you're new shtick is to get more hits during the dog days, as others of noted in other threads. Good luck with that. Go Blazers
What does your focus on a question I asked have to do with slippery slopes and enacting civil unions? You can unbunch your panties. I think you went way out to left field looking for something you didn't find.
So sad to see. Denny doesn't even realize that he's making my point for me. I want to take the morality issue out of government, by making civil unions for all and making marriage for religious institutions. If you want the legal benefits/implications of joining your life with another or others, then your government has no right to discriminate, so civil unions for all. If you wish to have the spiritual aspect of marriage, you go to your church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and see if they'll marry you. Everyone gets equal treatment from those entities that are not allowed to discriminate. Right now, there is a moral aspect being conflated into something that is for legal rights only. I don't want to see people discriminated against, be they gay people who simply wish to have the same rights under the law as straight people, or those people who have a religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman.
It doesn't have anything to do with slippery slopes or enacting civil unions. It has to do with you making up inflammatory bullshit to try to make your point. Maybe you could show that you didn't make it up, or just shut up about it? What I did find is that you absolutely made up the nonsense that I've posted multiple times. I've also found that you're not man enough to admit that you made it up. I noticed you dodged my question about whether the homicide laws violate the 1st amendment. Feel free to wear your panties any way you want to. :MARIS61: Go Blazers
I already said I asked hypothetical questions. Asking questions is how we determine the truth, be it a court of law or scientific method or education. I think you don't understand this or rhetoric or the Socratic method. I also think it's hypocritical to say I made something up when it was well founded in history and fact. The hypocrisy is where you post bullshit like "thou shalt not kill" as if it were our law and put in place by religious zealots. It's bullshit because its "thou can kill if you're Zimmerman." Regardless of where you come down on the case or the law, he admitted killing and he walked. Therefore, "thou shalt not kill" is bullshit. I gave you other examples, including soldiers "thou shall kill!" On the battlefield. To boot, our laws are in 100% direct opposition to "thou shall have no other God before me." But it's ok for you to bullshit. I see.
Well said and exactly correct. But I will point out, it takes a redefinition of the word marriage to have it apply to same sex partners. It will take another redefinition and another change in law to have the word marriage to also include a joining of a pervert and his daughter. And then again to include the goat.
Keep squirming Denny. Once again, here is what you said: Care to point out the "hypothetical question" in that statement? I'll go out on a limb and say that I think you don't have a clue as to what I do and don't understand. But I do know bullshit when I see it. You weren't talking about history or fact Denny, but keep up the good (silly) fight. Hits must be worth more than credibility. Seems to me like that particular 'religious policy' was in place for quite a while before any laws were written for the United States. But, feel free to just keep up the bullcrap. Don't answer anything I ask you. Keep changing the subject instead of admitting you made that shit up. Did Big Al give you a free lifetime membership to National Action Network? Yeah, you know better than the jury. Judgment by Denny, fuck the laws of the land. The fact is, yes, you can kill someone in self defense. NOT GUILTY. Get the hell over it. (Or, just keep up the whining. It is kind of entertaining, in a pathetic way.) :MARIS61: IN ZEUS WE TRUST! Again, Denny, what does that have to do with you saying that Maxie's religious friends think drinking should be banned? That's the subject, as much as you would like to keep steering the conversation away from your bullshit. You seem to be having trouble staying focused. Thanks for your permission. Good that you lead by example. Where did I make something up? I've pointed out where you did, and you can't defend it. Other than your straw man arguments, (where you make up things I haven't said), where have I been lying, as you have? Go Blazers
Are you really trying to say that no religious people want to ban drinking? Because some most obviously do. What is your point exactly? Denny is winning every point, but you're just an ignorant oldfool, so you don't even notice. There's no point discussing things with people like you. (and most religious people for that matter)
It's pretty obvious that some religious people want to ban drinking. Trying to make Denny prove that over and over is just fucking ridiculous. Unless you think no religious people want to band drinking, or other things, there's absolutely no point to what you're saying.
Just wow. The guy doesn't get rhetoric then gets all unhinged when it is explained to him multiple times, and now by two people. I could have said "they want to ban contraception" for which there is plenty of present day support. It doesn't matter though, because the question is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Simply let a bunch of religious fascists make law for everyone else? For maxiep: As of July 2013, eleven state governments (those of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware), along with the District of Columbia, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, and the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel allow same-sex marriage; the states of Rhode Island, and Minnesota will join on August 1, 2013, bringing the total to 30% of the U.S. population. Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not allowed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court ruling,[26] tribal council rulings,[27] and upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum in three of these states.[28][29] Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, and Wisconsin have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. See the part in red maxiep? That's why king solomon's ruling doesn't work in practice.
I not only saw the red part, but the other parts as well. You seem to be cool with varying rights for people in different states when it comes to joining their lives together legally. I'm not. I want full and equal rights under the law for all people. If they choose to have that union confirmed by a religious institution and they can find one to do it for them, then they're free to do that as well.
The red part says your proposal ends up being "varying subsets of the rights" of marriage. Not equal anything. It's back of the bus. It's separate drinking fountains. That's not too much hyperbole, either. It really is a civil rights issue. Actually, I think the whole thing comes to a head when someone married in California moves to Nevada. Even though the "varying subsets of the rights" is already a violation of the 14th. Article IV Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. (Nevada must recognize marriages made in California) Section 2 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. I'll let law.cornell.edu explain this one: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art4frag9_user.html#art4_sec2 ... the clause is a guaranty to the citizens of each State of the natural and fundamental rights inherent in the citizenship of persons in a free society, the privileges and immunities of free citizens, which no State could deny to citizens of other States, without regard to the manner in which it treated its own citizens.
