“I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people”

[Kdall]

Yes you do. That's why you're an atheist (no, you're not fooling anyone).

Also, if I were an atheist (and I assume you think that atheists are fearful of God, which couldn't be more untrue as they don't believe in His existence at all) and I was confronting you in theological issues, according to your ideology I'd be doing the exact opposite of running.

Further proving your idiocy

 

[musterion]

You don't confront me on theological issues. You're not up to it. Because you're stupid, and you're not fooling anyone.

 

[moparguy]

If you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry,

Homosexuals can't marry. Never could. Never can.

The word has a meaning. Said meaning doesn't change.

one man + one woman for life + monogamy, being an example of Christ's relationship to his church.

The justifications offered for changing the definition have all been false and will continue to be so.

The American Constitution separates church and state.

No it doesn't.

All that it states is that the congress can't make a national church.

It doesn't even disallow, say, the president from being a church pastor, or even from reading the bible to show why it says certain political things are morally right.

What God wants, or more properly what you think He wants, doesn't matter. If it's based in religion (ANY religion), it doesn't apply

Hate, given feet.

There is no justification for your claim here. It's nothing more than "I don't like what you're saying. Shut up. You are a second class citizen, you shouldn't be allowed to practice your beliefs in public."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lru1Qxc1l8

​

 

[Kdall]

Homosexuals can't marry. Never could. Never can.

The word has a meaning. Said meaning doesn't change.

one man + one woman for life + monogamy, being an example of Christ's relationship to his church.

The justifications offered for changing the definition have all been false and will continue to be so.



No it doesn't.

All that it states is that the congress can't make a national church.

It doesn't even disallow, say, the president from being a church pastor, or even from reading the bible to show why it says certain political things are morally right.



Hate, given feet.

There is no justification for your claim here. It's nothing more than "I don't like what you're saying. Shut up. You are a second class citizen, you shouldn't be allowed to practice your beliefs in public."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lru1Qxc1l8

Are they false? Marriage gives those involved the right to each others' insurance policies, expenses, and tax breaks from the state. The importance of the word isn't religious anymore. Sorry that inconveniences your bigoted mind

Fun fact: when explaining the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson explicitly used the words, "separation of church and state."

You look really smart right now

 

[musterion]

Are they false? Marriage gives those involved the right to each others' insurance policies, expenses, and tax breaks from the state.

They could have, in many locations, all of those things, only without the (according to you) meaningless label of "marriage." They refused, insisting and demanding it be called "marriage," which you say is meaningless. The reason is obvious - it is very meaningful, and that meaning must be destroyed and replaced.

Fun fact: when explaining the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson explicitly used the words, "separation of church and state."

Yet they're not included in the 1st.

This is why I said you are stupid. Because you are.

 

[Kdall]

They could have, in many locations, all of those things, only without the (according to you) meaningless label of "marriage." They refused. The reason is obvious.

What are you talking about? Without being united in a civil union (aka marriage), they do not have access to those rights. That's unconstitutional. You don't like it, go somewhere where it's how you do like it. Iran, perhaps?

 

[Kdall]

They could have, in many locations, all of those things, only without the (according to you) meaningless label of "marriage." They refused, insisting and demanding it be called "marriage," which you say is meaningless. The reason is obvious - it is very meaningful, and that meaning must be destroyed and replaced.
Yet they're not included in the 1st.

This is why I said you are stupid. Because you are.

No no my little retard friend, numerous court cases have ruled that rights are enumerated by certain amendments without being explicitly stated. However, in this case, the explicit meaning was given by one of its authors. If you don't believe me, why don't you go ask a law professor about why religiously based laws aren't allowed, mmkay?

 

[musterion]

Without being united in a civil union (aka marriage)

You just get stupider all the time.

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union?

A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. States that have domestic partnership or civil union laws include Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois.

Hm...

Marriage gives those involved the right to each others' insurance policies, expenses, and tax breaks from the state.

Time you quit.

 

[moparguy]

Are they false?

Yes. They're false. Irrational justifications give no reason for anyone to believe anything is justified.

Marriage gives those involved the right to each others' insurance policies, expenses, and tax breaks from the state. The importance of the word isn't religious anymore.

What do you even mean by the word "marriage" ...?

Sorry that inconveniences your bigoted mind

And your evidence that my mind is irrationally hateful is ...

I mean, beyond the mere fact that I disagreed with you?

Fun fact: when explaining the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson explicitly used the words, "separation of church and state."

Of course Jefferson used the phrase, and he used it to mean what I said it means.

To be exact about it's meaning: the federal government can't establish a church. The federal government also cannot regulate a church. It also cannot regulate men's consciences.

The founders, IMO, punted on what is and what is not a valid church, because they were, for the most part, theistic rationalists.

The first amendment was never intended as and does not legally or morally justify the idea of quashing unpopular religious thought out of the public square.

 

[Kdall]

You just get stupider all the time.

Hm...

Time you quit.

Are you this stupid? I said "from the state."

 

[Kdall]

Yes. They're false. Irrational justifications give no reason for anyone to believe anything is justified.



What do you even mean by the word "marriage" ...?




And your evidence that my mind is irrationally hateful is ...

I mean, beyond the mere fact that I disagreed with you?



Of course Jefferson used the phrase, and he used it to mean what I said it means.

To be exact about it's meaning: the federal government can't establish a church. The federal government also cannot regulate a church. It also cannot regulate men's consciences.

The founders, IMO, punted on what is and what is not a valid church, because they were, for the most part, theistic rationalists.

The first amendment was never intended as and does not legally or morally justify the idea of quashing unpopular religious thought out of the public square.

Look, I'll tell you what I told musterion. If you don't trust me on what "separation of church and state" means, go talk to a law professor, or judge, or attorney. They'll provide you with an answer

 

[musterion]

You equated marriage with CU, fool.

 

[musterion]

Look, I'll tell you what I told musterion. If you don't trust me on what "separation of church and state" means, go talk to a law professor, or judge, or attorney. They'll provide you with an answer

Why? We can read the original for ourselves.

 

[Kdall]

Why? We can read the original for ourselves.

Because, based on your interpretive skills, you might think that the second amendment means, "the right to display bear arms on your wall."

 

[Kdall]

You equated marriage with CU, fool.

You got me there, somewhat. A marriage is the most desirable form of civil union. It is still by definition a civil union, and that's how it was meant. Can't say I'm overly surprised given your inability to read the Constitution

 

[moparguy]

Look, I'll tell you what I told musterion. If you don't trust me on what "separation of church and state" means, go talk to a law professor, or judge, or attorney. They'll provide you with an answer

No, I don't trust what you on the first amendment. I know what it means. I've studied the original sources. It doesn't mean the government is allowed to regulate religion and thus keep it out of the public square. I will not agree with you on this because what you've posted about it is wrong. So are many judges, lawyers, and others. It requires no PHD or courtroom/legislative experience to read the english language and figure out what it means.

Even if it DID mean what you claim it does - and it doesn't - that STILL would not make it justified. That would just make it morally wrong, and therefore evil, as it would be a law enforcing moral evil.

----

So, you're not going to tell what you mean by marriage?

You're not going to discuss what justifies any given definition of said, whatever you mean by the word?

 

[musterion]

Because, based on your interpretive skills, you might think that the second amendment means, "the right to display bear arms on your wall."

My Creator-given rights as listed in that document shall not be infringed. Why are you on the side of those who try to do so?

 

[Kdall]

No, I don't trust what you on the first amendment. I know what it means. I've studied the original sources. It doesn't mean the government is allowed to regulate religion and thus keep it out of the public square. I will not agree with you on this because what you've posted about it is wrong. So are many judges, lawyers, and others. It requires no PHD or courtroom/legislative experience to read the english language and figure out what it means.

Even if it DID mean what you claim it does - and it doesn't - that STILL would not make it justified. That would just make it morally wrong, and therefore evil, as it would be a law enforcing moral evil.

----

So, you're not going to tell what you mean by marriage?

You're not going to discuss what justifies any given definition of said, whatever you mean by the word?

My definition of marriage is exactly what musterion posted just a few minutes ago, which is the legal definition.

Your last question makes no sense. Perhaps reword it.

As I said, if you don't trust me, go ask someone who deals with law on a daily basis. You won't like what you hear

 

[musterion]

So, you're not going to tell what you mean by marriage?

That's what I'm waiting to hear but he seems to be avoiding it.

 

[Kdall]

My Creator-given rights as listed in that document shall not be infringed. Why are you on the side of those who try to do so?

What? I'm saying that gays have the same Creator-given rights that heterosexuals do. YOU are the one trying to strip people of their civil liberties