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

[musterion]

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

YOU are the one who says we need someone to read it to us, meaning we need someone to TELL us what are rights are, and are not.

And homosexuals have no rights before God as homosexuals, except to judgment lest they repent. Same as thieves, murderers, idolators, etc.

 

[moparguy]

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

*starts looking back up the thread*

Your last question makes no sense. Perhaps reword it.

I was asking you to discuss the justification for your definition of the word "marriage."

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

I suspect I wouldn't. Because they would be wrong.

 

[Kdall]

YOU are the one who says we need someone to read it to us, meaning we need someone to TELL us what are rights are, and are not.

And homosexuals have no rights before God as homosexuals, except to judgment lest they repent. Same as thieves, murderers, idolators, etc.

Um yes. If you can't interpret a law correctly, and how it's been interpreted for as long as you've been alive, then you need someone else to help you out.

If you think that someone reading and explaining something to you is infringing on your rights, but denying someone marriage isn't, then God help you. He needs to

 

[musterion]

Um yes. If you can't interpret a law correctly, and how it's been interpreted for as long as you've been alive, then you need someone else to help you out.

I have the Constitutional right to own the firearms of my choice, for hunting, for self-defense, or simply to collect. True or false?

 

[Kdall]

I was asking you to discuss the justification for your definition of the word "marriage."

Justification? I take my definition from how it's defined by law. What other justification would you need?

I suspect I wouldn't. Because they would be wrong.

Haha yes. Because you know more about law than those who immerse themselves in it daily, right? What a joke

 

[Kdall]

I have the Constitutional right to own the firearms of my choice, for hunting, for self-defense, or simply to collect. True or false?

YES. I'm a hunter, myself


You clearly didn't catch the sarcasm in my second amendment post.

 

[moparguy]

What are you talking about? Without being united in a civil union (aka marriage), they do not have access to those rights.

I presume you were referring to this.

So, you define marriage as "civil union" ...?

To make a guess at expansion, further meaning that that the state gives certain legal rights in law to those in said union?

Are you saying, than, that the individuals in government, individually, or collectively, have the proper right to define marriage?

If so, than is it wrong for "the government" to define marriage as only that between a man and his puppy? ... Or any other union you would reject?

Are there unions you would reject if so defined by the government as a union?

Why should we accept that those in government have the right to define what marriage is?

 

[musterion]

Follow up question.

Homosexuals were accorded, by God, rights on par with those of normal people with regard to marriage and all it entails, during the very period of history from which the authors of our Constitution drew their references to our Creator. True or false?

 

[Kdall]

I presume you were referring to this.

So, you define marriage as "civil union" ...?

To make a guess at expansion, that meaning that that the state gives certain legal rights in law to those in said union?

Are you saying, than, that the individuals in government, individually, or collectively, have the proper right to define marriage?

If so, than is it wrong for "the government" to define marriage as only that between a man and his puppy? ... Or any other union you would reject?

Are there unions you would reject if so defined by the government as a union?

As musterion correctly pointed out, it's a specific type of civil union. One with more benefits than others.

Yes, government has the right to define marriage. If they don't, then religious nuts will, and that's unconstitutional.

Yes, it'd be wrong for the govt to allow marriage between a man and a puppy, just as it is not allowed for someone to marry their sister. The difference there is that those unions have negative effects, those being animal abuse and genetically impaired incest babies respectively. Gay marriage has no negative consequences

 

[Kdall]

Follow up question.

Homosexuals were accorded, by God, rights on par with those of normal people with regard to marriage and all it entails, during the very period of history from which the authors of our Constitution drew their references to our Creator. True or false?

'Creator' does not mean 'God.' It means 'whatever god you believe in, if indeed you do.' This country was not founded on Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment principles.

Therefore, false.

 

[moparguy]

Haha yes. Because you know more about law than those who immerse themselves in it daily, right? What a joke

Simple question.

Do you even KNOW if I'm not, say, a supreme court justice?

You don't.

All you have to work with is the stuff you read in my posts. Slinging positions back and forth gets nobody anywhere. There are reasons why you believe what you believe. Ditto myself. So, we can either pass on discussing if those reasons are good and necessary, or we can agree to skip it and discuss other things.

 

[musterion]

Yes, government has the right to define marriage. If they don't, then religious nuts will

One man, one woman, for life has been the historic norm; all else has deviated from it but nothing has deviated as far as what you're advocating. We're on the side of history here, not you. You're aberrant and a pervert.

 

[Kdall]

Simple question.

Do you even KNOW if I'm not, say, a supreme court justice?

You don't.

All you have to work with is the stuff you read in my posts. Slinging positions back and forth gets nobody anywhere. There are reasons why you believe what you believe. Ditto myself. So, we can either pass on discussing if those reasons are good and necessary, or we can agree to skip it and discuss other things.

So are you one?

 

[moparguy]

As musterion correctly pointed out, it's a specific type of civil union. One with more benefits than others.

For the sake of ease, I'll just assume you mean what is normally discussed as the benefits given married couples in the past.

Yes, government has the right to define marriage. If they don't, then religious nuts will, and that's unconstitutional.

Why should anyone agree that the government has that right? What about government means it has the right of defining what marriage is?

Yes, it'd be wrong for the govt to allow marriage between a man and a puppy, just as it is not allowed for someone to marry their sister. The difference there is that those unions have negative effects, those being animal abuse and genetically impaired incest babies respectively. Gay marriage has no negative consequences

Does the government get to define what "negative effects" make one union "marriage" and another not?

If it doesn't, than you've just said that government *can't* define marriage, but only recognize it.

So are you one?

If I said yes I don't think for a second that you'd believe me. Which is side-stepping the point - you had no way of knowing if I was daily "immersed" in the law. You just assumed.

 

[Kdall]

One man, one woman, for life has been the historic norm; all else has deviated from it but nothing has deviated as far as what you're advocating. We're on the side of history here, not you.

And history changes. You know what else is advocated for throughout history? Slavery! Oh yeah, and oppression of black people! Those were pretty awesome weren't they?

You're aberrant and a pervert.

Let me guess.....you think that anyone who has sex before marriage is perverted? Grow up

 

[musterion]

'Creator' does not mean 'God.' It means 'whatever god you believe in, if indeed you do.' This country was not founded on Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment principles.

Therefore, false.

The Enlightenment as a whole had no God that could give rights, much less care to do so. Franklin was not quoting a disinterested, distant deity when he said,

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth---that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Again, why you're stupid:

To understand America's founders, we have to realize what Dr. Michael Novak of American Enterprise Institute has said. He observed that thinkers we call men of the "Enlightenment" are really of two sorts. There are those who believed in God and those who didn't.


The French Revolution was history's first secular revolution---and, incidentally, spilled rivers of blood. They chose to follow the unbelieving thinkers of the "Enlightenment" ---e.g., Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and David Hume. But our founders quoted those men of the "Enlightenment" who believed in the Lord---e.g., Montesquieu, John Locke, and Sir William Blackstone.


In his The Spirit of Laws, Baron Montesquieu wrote: "We shall see that we owe to Christianity, in government, a certain political law, and in war a certain law of nations—benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge."


I used to have a Sunday school teacher who became born again while earning his Ph.D. at Yale. He studied John Locke in depth. Locke not only wrote his Second Treatise of Civil Government, which was influential to our nation's founders; but he also wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity. As my teacher read Locke in his own words, he came to embrace Christ.


Sir William Blackstone, the great British jurist, was important to our founders and is still quoted by the Supreme Court sometimes. Blackstone wrote of "the law of nature and the law of revelation"---like "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in our Declaration of Independence.

 

[musterion]

And history changes.

Ah. So you admit your anti-historical perversity.

You know what else is advocated for throughout history? Slavery! Oh yeah, and oppression of black people! Those were pretty awesome weren't they?

False analogy and red herring. A sign of desperation and stupidity.

 

[Kdall]

For the sake of ease, I'll just assume you mean what is normally discussed as the benefits given married couples in the past.

Correct

Why should anyone agree that the government has that right? What about government makes it capable of defining what marriage is?

As I explained previously, if the government doesn't define it, then religious nuts will. And that's unconstitutional.

Does the government get to define what "negative effects" make one union "marriage" and another not?

Yes, but they must use actual studies and data to make such rulings, as they do.

If it doesn't, than you've just said that government *can't* define marriage, but only recognize it.

Well I didn't. So.....yeah

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ah. So you admit your anti-historical perversity.



False analogy and red herring. A sign of desperation and stupidity.

:thumb:

 

[musterion]

As I explained previously, if the government doesn't define it, then religious nuts will. And that's unconstitutional.

You prefer the atheists define things? They have a tendency of defining inconvenient people out of existence...Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...but of course you'd prefer it. You're one of them. And you're a sock, and you've been spotted.