Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 07:38:13 AM    He doesn't know it, but we're on to him.   He is doing his damnest to try to get someone claim we are the raciest ones.  Yet, looking over his comments it is pretty easy to spot the raciest. (I bet he knows by now marriage is a religious contract between a man and a woman.)
 Zen, show where the Government is required to discriminate. Have you ever read this, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?????

Zen, go back and read the court cases that deal with what you are proposing. They have set down precedent on what is legal and what is not. Solar did a great job outlining why you are so wrong in what you are proposing in order for a society to function. 

One thing has to be addressed: Conservatives don't discriminate over color of skin, but we would remove somebody over content of character. That's what the "right to refuse service" stands for. Not to discriminate on any skin color. Need shoes and shirts, along with a shower. Add some manners and an inside voice for good measures.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 09:21:50 AMRedefine marriage?  I'm advocating for giving religion absolute freedom to determine who can get married in their flavor of Christianity.  Lutherans can do it however they want.  Methodists can do it however they want. I'm advocating for individual churches to be able to determine who can get married in their church, if they desire.  Some churches are already doing gay marriages.  I absolutely support their right to do that.

Why do you have an issue with that?

No, You Want Govt To Dictate What Religion Can Do! Man, you are really bad at this debate thing.

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2022, 09:41:00 AMNo, You Want Govt To Dictate What Religion Can Do! Man, you are really bad at this debate thing.

How?  By saying churches can set any requirements they want?  By saying the government should have absolutely no ability to force them to marry anyone they don't want?  Churches can create marriage certificates, just like they created a certificate for me when I completed the Lutheran requirements to take communion.

I'm advocating for literally any Christian purity test they want to administer. 

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 09:47:15 AMHow?  By saying churches can set any requirements they want?  By saying the government should have absolutely no ability to force them to marry anyone they don't want?  Churches can create marriage certificates, just like they created a certificate for me when I completed the Lutheran requirements to take communion.

I'm advocating for literally any Christian purity test they want to administer. 

Stop lying, that has never been your argument! Let's put the goal post back, OK?

You're high, they already have a so called "Purity test". Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all!
Heaven has one as well, but guess who doesn't?  HELL! They let everyone in, and I'm sure you are welcome!

But be warned, they hate liberals!

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2022, 09:52:57 AMStop lying, that has never been your argument! Let's put the goal post back, OK?

You're high, they already have a so called "Purity test". Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all!
Heaven has one as well, but guess who doesn't?  HELL! They let everyone in, and I'm sure you are welcome!

But be warned, they hate liberals!

Here's what I said on post #58:

Here's the issue, and I mentioned it early on, I believe. Christians, when they made up 95 or more of the country, wanted to force THEIR religion on everyone by having state governments legislate the legal joining of two people as the term "marriage". That's why we have to get a marriage license from the state to have our relationships legally recognized.  Marriage should have been the ceremony that is performed by a pastor, bishop, etc in a church or wherever. The act of legally registering that with the state didn't have to be called marriage/marriage license but, again, Christians ran the country and they chose to intersect religion and government, right?

Now, states have two choices a) get government completely out of the marriage business for all Americans or offer "marriage" licenses to nobody and leave "marriage" to churches and their ceremonies. That way individual churches CAN decide who gets to be married, which is what they want to do.

Separate but Equal is not a legal solution.

Here's what I said on post #60

That is exactly what I'm proposing - get government completely out of "marriage", that way churches can "marry" whoever they want. The government cannot do this "separate but equal" stuff that religious people want.

Here's what I said on post #69:

I'm going to try to clarify because there seems to be confusion. There are two things I am referring to here. One is a marriage ceremony which takes place involving a pastor, for example.  There is absolutely no need for government in order to perform those ceremonies. Gays have been doing church ceremonies for years before gay marriage became legal. Polygamists have also been doing church marriage ceremonies for decades. If a group of Christians existed on a deserted island, where there was literally no government, they could perform marriage ceremonies all day everyday, however they wished.

The other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 08:54:34 AMSorry, that is not what you have been advocating. No where has anybody said people can not live their lives. You are advocating for religion to change the way marriage is defined, you are advocating for any type of discrimination. As a Christian I see many forms of sin, homosexuality is just one of them. I also see everyone who walks this earth is guilty of sin. Am I in favor of outlawing all of life? Of course not, but I also do not see the need to promote it, such as changing the laws and definition of marriage in order to allow two men to marry. Zen, this has been explained to you time and time again. Like T Hunt said, all you are doing is rephrasing the same bull crap in a different way in the hopes you will get a different response.   

Let me also point out that he is trying to create a STRAWMAN Fallacy by trying to cast our argument and position as being something it is not. Trying to say that we are on the anti freedom side. He is putting words in our mouths.

And then the fact that the lie he is telling about our position is actually descriptive of HIS position (his is antifreedom, not ours) that makes his lie a form of PROJECTION, where he is projecting his own position onto ours.

Lies come in many shapes and sizes and its important to educate everyone on the lefts sneaky tactics and semantic word games.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 10:06:16 AMHere's what I said on post #58:

Here's the issue, and I mentioned it early on, I believe. Christians, when they made up 95 or more of the country, wanted to force THEIR religion on everyone by having state governments legislate the legal joining of two people as the term "marriage". That's why we have to get a marriage license from the state to have our relationships legally recognized.  Marriage should have been the ceremony that is performed by a pastor, bishop, etc in a church or wherever. The act of legally registering that with the state didn't have to be called marriage/marriage license but, again, Christians ran the country and they chose to intersect religion and government, right?

Now, states have two choices a) get government completely out of the marriage business for all Americans or offer "marriage" licenses to nobody and leave "marriage" to churches and their ceremonies. That way individual churches CAN decide who gets to be married, which is what they want to do.

Separate but Equal is not a legal solution.

Here's what I said on post #60

That is exactly what I'm proposing - get government completely out of "marriage", that way churches can "marry" whoever they want. The government cannot do this "separate but equal" stuff that religious people want.

Here's what I said on post #69:

I'm going to try to clarify because there seems to be confusion. There are two things I am referring to here. One is a marriage ceremony which takes place involving a pastor, for example.  There is absolutely no need for government in order to perform those ceremonies. Gays have been doing church ceremonies for years before gay marriage became legal. Polygamists have also been doing church marriage ceremonies for decades. If a group of Christians existed on a deserted island, where there was literally no government, they could perform marriage ceremonies all day everyday, however they wished.

The other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

You seem to be under the illusion that I care what a commie has to say?
I don't care what you "Feel", because the point still stands, we have a First Amendment that shits all over your "Feelings"!

Get over yourself, no one cares what you have to say, all we care about is proving you're an anti American Liberal Commie!

Get it? We have a huge audience, and that's who we write for, those who want to understand why the left is so Hell bent on destroying this Great Nation.

Thanks for helping us educate the masses.

 

[/i]

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 10:06:16 AM

Here is what you said "freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want."

It is from there that we had to point out to you over and over again that it is from the Hebrew Old Testament/ Christian Bible that the definition of marriage was set forth by God. From there, until recently, marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman, it had always been a religious ceremony. To be clear, it is not the Christians who forced the change of the definition to include anyone but those who wish for more government control.

QuoteHere's what I said on post #58:

Here's the issue, and I mentioned it early on, I believe. Christians, when they made up 95 or more of the country, wanted to force THEIR religion on everyone by having state governments legislate the legal joining of two people as the term "marriage". That's why we have to get a marriage license from the state to have our relationships legally recognized.

For starters, when you control 95% or more, as you say, you are no longer "forcing" your opinion, it is damn near unanimous.  Two, please get it this time, IT WAS NOT THE CHRISTIANS WHO WANTED TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. The big push, or a better way to say it, a small minority wanted to "force their beliefs" on everyone else by forcing everyone to accept their version of marriage. In other words, men could marry men and call it marriage. Did you really think the church would sit still for this? From this point on, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, OF FEEL. It is getting real old you are acting like we do not understand you. We knew what you were from the start.

QuoteThe other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

What other "marriage" You are just making crap up. And no it is not "just like" registering your car with the state, there is no union there. When I sign papers with a bank, there is no union there either. You are posting crap. Doubt me???? What is the historical definition of marriage? should be easy, I have given it to you several times.

QuoteWhat I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

Fantastic, your solution is to have EVERYBODY just make up their own definition for marriage. Why not as Solar asked you earlier, and we can all make up our own definition for murder, theft, etc. Hey can I claim I have a PHD since I checked the mail this morning? Why not if you're alright with everyone just making up "what they want to believe" ? I don't even want to know your thought on math, but I hate to tell you this, but 2+2=4. nothing else. Guess what marriage is, it is a religious union by God to join a man and a woman. PERIOD.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 09:21:50 AMRedefine marriage?  I'm advocating for giving religion absolute freedom to determine who can get married in their flavor of Christianity.  Lutherans can do it however they want.  Methodists can do it however they want. I'm advocating for individual churches to be able to determine who can get married in their church, if they desire.  Some churches are already doing gay marriages.  I absolutely support their right to do that.

Why do you have an issue with that?

Another strawman lie. We never said anything like that and you know it. We are talking about govt. What churches do doesnt carry legal weight. If they want a gay ceremony no one is saying there shld be a law against that. We want the system as is. You are in fact the one who wants new laws for govt create a new institution out of thin air. You need to stop lying like this.

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 10:47:38 AM[/i]
For starters, when you control 95% or more, as you say, you are no longer "forcing" your opinion, it is damn near unanimous.  Two, please get it this time, IT WAS NOT THE CHRISTIANS WHO WANTED TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. The big push, or a better way to say it, a small minority wanted to "force their beliefs" on everyone else by forcing everyone to accept their version of marriage. In other words, men could marry men and call it marriage. Did you really think the church would sit still for this? From this point on, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK, OF FEEL. It is getting real old you are acting like we do not understand you. We knew what you were from the start.


What other "marriage" You are just making crap up. And no it is not "just like" registering your car with the state, there is no union there. When I sign papers with a bank, there is no union there either. You are posting crap. Doubt me???? What is the historical definition of marriage? should be easy, I have given it to you several times.




Fantastic, your solution is to have EVERYBODY just make up their own definition for marriage. Why not as Solar asked you earlier, and we can all make up our own definition for murder, theft, etc. Hey can I claim I have a PHD since I checked the mail this morning? Why not if you're alright with everyone just making up "what they want to believe" ? I don't even want to know your thought on math, but I hate to tell you this, but 2+2=4. nothing else. Guess what marriage is, it is a religious union by God to join a man and a woman. PERIOD.

Bingo!
Rights Granted To Us By God! Not govt, but God himself.
That must be a real ass burner for these atheists.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 09:47:15 AMHow?  By saying churches can set any requirements they want?  By saying the government should have absolutely no ability to force them to marry anyone they don't want?  Churches can create marriage certificates, just like they created a certificate for me when I completed the Lutheran requirements to take communion.

I'm advocating for literally any Christian purity test they want to administer. 

Can you at least admit that our Rights come from God and not Govt? Hard to call yourself an American if you cant at least admit that....

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 10:06:16 AMHere's what I said on post #58:

Here's the issue, and I mentioned it early on, I believe. Christians, when they made up 95 or more of the country, wanted to force THEIR religion on everyone by having state governments legislate the legal joining of two people as the term "marriage". That's why we have to get a marriage license from the state to have our relationships legally recognized.  Marriage should have been the ceremony that is performed by a pastor, bishop, etc in a church or wherever. The act of legally registering that with the state didn't have to be called marriage/marriage license but, again, Christians ran the country and they chose to intersect religion and government, right?

Now, states have two choices a) get government completely out of the marriage business for all Americans or offer "marriage" licenses to nobody and leave "marriage" to churches and their ceremonies. That way individual churches CAN decide who gets to be married, which is what they want to do.

Separate but Equal is not a legal solution.

Here's what I said on post #60

That is exactly what I'm proposing - get government completely out of "marriage", that way churches can "marry" whoever they want. The government cannot do this "separate but equal" stuff that religious people want.

Here's what I said on post #69:

I'm going to try to clarify because there seems to be confusion. There are two things I am referring to here. One is a marriage ceremony which takes place involving a pastor, for example.  There is absolutely no need for government in order to perform those ceremonies. Gays have been doing church ceremonies for years before gay marriage became legal. Polygamists have also been doing church marriage ceremonies for decades. If a group of Christians existed on a deserted island, where there was literally no government, they could perform marriage ceremonies all day everyday, however they wished.

The other "marriage"  is the recognition, by the states, of the legal bond between two people. There is nothing anymore religious about this legal bond than there is when you register your car with the state or agree to specific conditions when you sign your mortgage papers with a bank. It's just a legal agreement with specific conditions.

What I am saying is that the state needs to get out of the "marriage"  business for everyone or no one. Churches should be allowed to do marriages exactly as they please and the state should have a process of registering the legal bond between two people that does not involve the word marriage. If the state is using the term "marriage"  to recognize that bond, they cannot discriminate and only offer it to some people.

Ok ok, why dont you explain this in more detail. How exactly do you propose we get govt out of marriage?
The state govt since federal doesnt deal with it.
Are you saying the govt just doesnt record families at all, just individuals and biological heritage?
How exactly would you implement your vision here?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 12, 2022, 11:08:19 AMOk ok, why dont you explain this in more detail. How exactly do you propose we get govt out of marriage?
The state govt since federal doesnt deal with it.
Are you saying the govt just doesnt record families at all, just individuals and biological heritage?
How exactly would you implement your vision here?

Easy.  Stop calling it "marriage".  Marriage is, as Christians, Muslims, etc continue to say, a religious term.  It's based on, for Christians, the beliefs derived from Bible teachings.  Marriage ceremonies, marriage licenses and marriage requirements should be left to religion and not the government.  Once the couple has finished their religious marriage ceremony, they can notify the state that they want to be seen as "a couple" legally through whatever secular process that may be.  There's no religious aspect for two people to be on a car title together or own property together. It's strictly a secular transaction.  That's how everything "government" should be IF religious people want to keep marriage for only the religious.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 11:34:01 AMEasy.  Stop calling it "marriage".  Marriage is, as Christians, Muslims, etc continue to say, a religious term.  It's based on, for Christians, the beliefs derived from Bible teachings.  Marriage ceremonies, marriage licenses and marriage requirements should be left to religion and not the government.  Once the couple has finished their religious marriage ceremony, they can notify the state that they want to be seen as "a couple" legally through whatever secular process that may be.  There's no religious aspect for two people to be on a car title together or own property together. It's strictly a secular transaction.  That's how everything "government" should be IF religious people want to keep marriage for only the religious.

I have to ask, how old are you?
What world are you living in? Do you really think you can go and tell all the men who are married to men, all the women who are married to women, they can no longer call it marriage? Do you think you will get politicians to propose such a law?

Let's see if he can connect the dots...