|
|
| Posted: 03 Mar 2009 18:36 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So if you had your choice between Obama, McCain, and Ron Paul would you have voted for Ron Paul?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Mar 2009 18:37 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
or wait did he run as an independent?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Mar 2009 18:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
So if I understand him he wants to take the power of the courts to create laws away as the Constitution has it. I'm all for that. The courts shouldn't be creating laws. They are just supposed to interpret and enforce existing laws.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 03 Mar 2009 21:29 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
He wants the Constitution returned to it's former glory, which is quite a bit more involved than the courts 'making laws'.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 04 Mar 2009 02:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Well that's the way I took that last video. And I do personally think it is a major humongous deal that judges think they can legislate from the bench. Not constitutional at all. They think they can over rule the will of the people and thus make voting much less valuable.
Power to the people and to the states.
Wow that sounds kind of radical doesn't it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 04 Mar 2009 13:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
If you're talking about the Supreme Court, the only case I remember them really creating legislation on were the rulings that led to George W Bush getting elected over Gore with the Florida hanging chad nonsense and resultant recount. Refresh my memory-how have they specifically legislated instead of interpreted the law, in what cases?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 04 Mar 2009 17:47 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
They do it all the time. The latest example of the courts legislating possibly could be what's going on in California where the courts could potentially over rule the gay marriage ban unconstitutional even though the people voted to add it to the state constitution.
I know where you stand on that pak, but no matter what your opinion on gay marriage you have to see that the courts overrulling the will of the people is wrong. That means that a few judges just a few mind you can over rule the majority on anything if they so decide. The opinion of a judge is not supposed to go over the will of the people in a fair vote. Otherwise what's the point in voting?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 04 Mar 2009 23:41 Last Edited By: pakratmak |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
the courts could potentially over rule the gay marriage ban unconstitutional
That would be interpreting what the Constitution says in the matter, not whipping up legislation.
Quote:
I know where you stand on that pak
I'm getting the notion by your post you might be a bit fuzzy on that. The vid I shared with you guys about the whole subject of gay marriage actually did convince me to rethink the whole thing. I agreed with him 100%. Marriages should be strictly religious agreements and ceremonies with no bearing in any legal sense to require any state to recognize it for anything really except as a courtesy. As far as legal matters go, EVERYONE and anyone can get a civil union contract. That's two straights, two gays, roommates, business partners, a book club, a bowling team, or any number in any formation that all parties agree to. Now you don't need gay marriage to be even voted on.
Quote:
you have to see that the courts overrulling the will of the people is wrong.
The 'will of the people' is not what laws are based on and not what the Constitution was based on and not what courts take into account in making any legal decision(except when the judge wants to save his own skin by not doing something so unpopular it risks their life or position). Please don't confuse what's in the best interest of the people or the commonwealth with the will of the people either.
Quote:
Otherwise what's the point in voting?
It gives the voter the twin illusions of thinking they have a choice and make a difference.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 05 Mar 2009 19:34 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
The people voted on a constitutional amendment thus making it Constitutional by their vote. The judges shouldn't have more power than the people. The people should have the right to decide what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't.
Quote:
As far as legal matters go, EVERYONE and anyone can get a civil union contract. Sure so why do gays think they need to grab the title marriage?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 05 Mar 2009 20:34 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
The people voted on a constitutional amendment
State constitution, not the US Constitution. If you leave it up to the states, how does that work in this case? They get married in one place but it doesn't count in another?
Quote:
Sure so why do gays think they need to grab the title marriage?
Because they're being discriminated against by present standards.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 06 Mar 2009 15:45 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
See here we go again. They are not being discriminated against. I heard this goober from San Francisco on CNN. I think he was the mayor or something. He was going on about taking their rights away.
The thing is the courts have to go also by precedence. What has happened in courts in the past give an indication of what the founders wanted. Marriage has been here a long time, and just because some new group of people wants to change the definition doesn't mean we all should stop what we are doing and get right on that.
They can do what they need to do legally without attacking the meaning of marriage.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 06 Mar 2009 21:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
They are not being discriminated against.
Yes they are.
Quote:
What has happened in courts in the past give an indication of what the founders wanted.
What the founders wanted was a system that changed as times changed-they knew they didn't know the future and the document is arranged with that in mind.
Quote:
They can do what they need to do legally without attacking the meaning of marriage.
Here we go again indeed. If you are keeping it a secular institution it should apply to a secular definition. If on the other hand you want a strictly religious ceremony, by all means, take it right back and go with civil union contracts for everyone in legal matters.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 16:24 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Your problem is you want to ignore the entire history of the United States legal precedence and view the problem only through the lenses of today's sensibilities.
To discriminate against someone usually infers taking away an existing basic right. You tell me when, besides in today's screwed up world, where gay marriage has ever been considered a basic right.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Mar 2009 20:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
The discrimination is not affording one group the same protection under the law as another group. Your problem is you don't mind it because of personal issues with that one group.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Mar 2009 01:04 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I don't consider them a protected group. You think they were born that way. I say they chose that way. Unless you can prove that they absolutely have no choice in life then you can't convince me. As they said in Spider-man 3, people always have a choice.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Mar 2009 12:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Rought translation of what you just said; it doesn't matter what i tell you about them being gay, you'll believe what you want as the interpretation of Paul's gospel tells you. Not really a problem.
Let's be clear about what we're discussing here-you can't give one set of people in this country certain liberties and freedoms and rights and protection under the law while witholding it from someone else, just because you don't like them. That's it, That's all of it. Has nothing to do with your religious views or values or personal grudges or whatever-it's strictly about discrimination.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 10 Mar 2009 14:56 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Dude, you want to create new liberties that don't currently exist. A man has never had the right to marry another man. Never. You are trying to create a right.
Any man has the right to marry a woman that wants to marry him. So everyone has that same right. No discrimination.
Why the need to warp reality to fit into the mood of the day? Do you think liberal minded people today are that much more brilliant than any generation before it? It's arrogance for those in this generation to think they know better than all the generations before. Let's face it. It's the ultimate sign of arrogance to think one knows better than God.
But here we are. The generation that knows it all. They forget the past, forget any precedence set before. Let's just keep changing everything to suit our every whim it seems. I got news for you pal, there are reasons why the previous generations did what they did, or didn't do what they didn't do. Better to take the time to figure it out before we screw up this big bad old world anymore than it already is. Learn from the past. Hearken to the wisdom of previous generations.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 10 Mar 2009 20:35 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
you want to create new liberties that don't currently exist
Marriage exists and there's people you want to limit that for by saying they can marry one person but not another. This is absolutely the same as when the laws were on the books saying white and black people couldn't marry each other. Discrimination-end of story.
The Bill-O impression isn't getting a response so maybe you'll think of not doing it anymore.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2009 15:41 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
White people marrying black people isn't the same as gay marriage. You know black people don't like it when liberals always use them for comparisons on gay rights.
Let's put it to you this way. There are rules to the game of life. Just like a basketball game has rules. Doesn't matter if my opponent is taller, shorter, fatter, skinnier, or stronger than me. I have the same rules as they do. The goal is the same height, a fowl is a fowl etc. I can't just walk onto the court and demand a shorter goal, or to change the definition of what scoring a basket means.
The game is what is. If I want different rules I'd have to create a new game. So if they want something like marriage then make up their own game. Just don't come onto our court and start trying to change the rules.
The definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman. For years anything else was the subject of comedians. Do you realize any other generation would think gay marriage is some kind of nutty joke? You take gay marriage so seriously and really it's ridiculous. It's like saying we need marriage between a man and his dog, or a man and his stove, or a man and his car.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2009 20:48 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
White people marrying black people isn't the same as gay marriage.
How is that prejudice any different from this one?
Quote:
So if they want something like marriage then make up their own game. Just don't come onto our court and start trying to change the rules.
Since when does marriage only belong to you? If you're talking about the religious aspect of it, you gave that up by having it recognized by the state. Do you even know the rules you're playing by?
Quote:
The definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman.
Actually, no it hasn't.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 11 Mar 2009 21:52 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Actually, no it hasn't. It's never been between a man and a man. Sure you've had those guys that had more than one wife, but not anything nuts.
I think your problem is the liberal modernistic type of people you hang out with bud. Is there anything in your world that can just accept any common normality of life or must everything be questioned?
How do you come up with this stuff? Goes to show you what happens to someone's logic once they take out God. You can't accept anything that has been a part of society for the last few thousand years without thinking it's messed up. Why, because it has something to do with religion? Well a lot of things have their origins in religion. Do you know most hospitals and schools were first started by Christians and Churches when America was young. You want to close them too along with marriage?
There is nothing wrong with sticking with tradition. We don't have to change the very basic foundations of society to try and please everybody with a wild hair.
This whole country was founded on Christians principles whether you believe it or not. Maybe we should close the whole country and start over again.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2009 01:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
It's never been between a man and a man.
Listen, you said the definition has always been 'man and woman'-when i say 'no it hasn't', respond to that instead of moving on to stating something else if you're going to quote it.
Quote:
I think your problem is...
I don't have a problem.
Quote:
Is there anything in your world that can just accept any common normality of life or must everything be questioned?
I don't think marriage is 'normal' to begin with, not that this has ANYTHING to do with the subject. We were talking about discrimination yes?
Quote:
Goes to show you what happens to someone's logic once they take out God.
There's nothing wrong with MY logic and since you've gone this far, I can point out what happens to someone's logic when they force God into it-it strays off topic and defies itself apparently.
Quote:
You want to close them too along with marriage?
There's your logic with God included-on the eighth day he specialized in strawmen? I never suggested shutting down marriage, which is a misrepresentation of my position to begin with, the hospitals and schools are something you pulled out of your butt.
Quote:
We don't have to change the very basic foundations of society to try and please everybody with a wild hair.
Nor do we have to stick to traditions that are not our own. Keep your traditions, I insist. While you're at it, keep them to yourself as well?
Quote:
This whole country was founded on Christians principles whether you believe it or not.
No, we were not. Beliefs have nothing to do with it and revisionist history doesn't either.
Quote:
Maybe we should close the whole country and start over again.
Let's start small with staying on topic here and see where it goes.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2009 15:21 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I don't think marriage is 'normal' to begin with So that explains it all right there. Normal by my definition is anything that has been around you know like forever and been accepted as the norm. I can just imagine what the Waltons or Little House on the Prairie would have looked like if you were the writer. Heaven forbid you ever got your hands on Leave it to Beaver.
Quote:
I never suggested shutting down marriage You certainly give the impression that if your buds can't have it their way then marriage as an legal institution should be banned.
Quote:
While you're at it, keep them to yourself as well? I'm trying to but somebody keeps trying to rock the boat.
Quote:
revisionist history doesn't either. So stop trying to rewrite it.
I'd like to know when in your life you first came to these conclusions. Is this because you personally don't see marriage as valuable in your own life?
See I see it as something very special between a man and a woman. I've made a promise to my wife to love her and protect her. There was a time in this country when divorce wasn't easy. I'm thinking we need to get back to that way of thinking. Make marriage hard to get out of. People need to take it seriously again. Take their word seriously.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2009 19:33 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Normal by my definition is anything that has been around you know like forever and been accepted as the norm.
Like the Constitution and equal protection under the law?
Quote:
I can just imagine what the Waltons or Little House on the Prairie would have looked like if you were the writer. Heaven forbid you ever got your hands on Leave it to Beaver.
Snuff films-all of them.
Quote:
You certainly give the impression that if your buds can't have it their way then marriage as an legal institution should be banned.
No. The impression you should be getting is what I've been saying-take back your holy institution for yourselves and not have it recognized by the state, which there is no reason for in the first place or nobody should be limited because of genders involved.
Quote:
So stop trying to rewrite it.
Likewise. I would consider The Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the beginnings of our country-neither one has mention of God or Jesus or Christianity in them. We are not a 'Christian nation'.
Quote:
I'd like to know when in your life you first came to these conclusions. Is this because you personally don't see marriage as valuable in your own life?
Which conclusions in particular?
Quote:
See I see it as something very special between a man and a woman.
Then you won't be marrying a man-got it.
Quote:
I've made a promise to my wife to love her and protect her.
I'm certin others feel the same and would like the same special ability to do so. Again, do you have a reason that is not based on your faith to deny them this?
Quote:
There was a time in this country when divorce wasn't easy. I'm thinking we need to get back to that way of thinking. Make marriage hard to get out of. People need to take it seriously again. Take their word seriously.
You're 'campaigning' again.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2009 21:05 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Like the Constitution and equal protection under the law? Gay marriage was like nowhere even in the same hemisphere of the founding father's thoughts when they put together the Constitution. I mean not even in the same universe.
Quote:
ake back your holy institution for yourselves and not have it recognized by the state So let me get this straight you don't want to recognize marriage on one hand as a legal entity between men and women, but you want to recognize it as a legal entity for gays?
Quote:
Likewise. I would consider The Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the beginnings of our country-neither one has mention of God or Jesus or Christianity in them. We are not a 'Christian nation'.
From the Declaration -
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And we could go on and on with quotes from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln establishing that early America was firmly a Christian nation. Which is a good thing for you because if it wasn't you probably wouldn't have the freedom to be an atheist. If this were a muslim nation you'd be hanged for not believing in their version of god.
Quote:
Which conclusions in particular? All your radical conclusions. I mean come on you have to admit the average joe does not see things the way you do on this.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Mar 2009 23:57 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Gay marriage was like nowhere even in the same hemisphere of the founding father's thoughts when they put together the Constitution. I mean not even in the same universe.
Show me where they considered marriage at all, or that it had to be recognized by the state at all.
Quote:
So let me get this straight you don't want to recognize marriage on one hand as a legal entity between men and women, but you want to recognize it as a legal entity for gays?
It is either a religious institution or a secular one-it can't be both at the same time. If it is a religious institution it can be defined any way your particular church wants with whatever exclusions or precursors the church wants. If it's secular and recognized by the states, then there is no religious test for it at all and under a secular recognition, absolutely everyone is equal with equal entitlement and equal protection under the law with no religious exclusions or precursors or even considerations for that matter.
Quote:
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,
'Nature's God' is not a reference to YOUR god. This is a Naturalist term, not a Christian one.
Creator is not a reference to YOUR god either. It is nondenominational/nonfactional.
'divine' clearly has no particular allegience to any one faith either.
If any of those were reference specifically to Christianity, they would have mentioned Christ or your God specifically. Instead your God and whatever ideas the deists follow were what they had in mind along with any other faith someone chose to follow of their own accord, not putting any one faith or belief system above another, strictly as a response to what they had just faced in England and in the new colonies with each one have different measures of oppression based on faith.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Can't be for or against any one establishment of religion-not so much as to make a law that is based on either side. Hard to believe a country supposedly founded on one particular religion doesn't give that one group special benefit, privelege or recognition. Pretty clear as well. It wasn't about any one religion-all were considered equally and left to the individual, out of the hands of the states.
Quote:
we could go on and on with quotes from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
and quotes from Jefferson and Franklin and Paine as well that run directly contrary to what you're trying to say and point out why the wall of separation between church and state is vital to the health and benefit of our nation- we've been down that road too.
Quote:
I mean come on you have to admit the average joe does not see things the way you do on this.
That might be a great explanation for why they're only average. Aside from that, you're going to have to be a little more specific on which conclusions you're referring to and why they should be made correct or not based on popular opinion.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2009 00:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
An op-ed piece on the history of marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html
A very interesting blog entry as well on the history of marriage:
http://rationalreasons.blogspot.com/2005/05/brief-history-of-marr ...
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 13 Mar 2009 15:26 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Show me where they considered marriage at all Well, there you go again, most of them were married none were married to other men.
Quote:
It is either a religious institution or a secular one- So basically if you can't revamp it to your will then nobody should have it. Sounds a lot like liberalism when it comes to money too.
Quote:
Creator is not a reference to YOUR god either. It is nondenominational/nonfactional. Well then you shouldn't object to mentioning God in general in schools and public place then should you?
As far as the average joe comment I mean to say without trying to attack you is that your attitude toward marriage is quite frankly very radical. You have this way out radical take on it and you try to act as if it were as common and ordinary an idea as eating peanut butter.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 14 Mar 2009 13:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Well, there you go again, most of them were married none were married to other men.
Actually, this is you avoiding the question. Where is marriage menitioned or even alluded to in the Constitution? Simple question we both should already know the answer to.
Quote:
So basically if you can't revamp it to your will then nobody should have it.
No, what I said is what I meant-it is either a secular or a religious institution-pick one and keep it there.
Quote:
Well then you shouldn't object to mentioning God in general in schools and public place then should you?
Is it impossible for you to stay on topic now? That has nothing to do with what I said or what it was an answer to. No, I have no problem with mentioning God anywhere.
Quote:
your attitude toward marriage is quite frankly very radical.
As opposed to yours, obviously. Most of my thinking must be radical to you-quite frankly, that's not my problem, nor is it actually an issue here.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
|
