Conservative Political Forum

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-03-22/colorado-baker-sued-for-refusing-gender-transition-cake

QuoteA Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is on trial in a lawsuit brought by a transgender lawyer.

She said she called Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to place the order after hearing about the court's announcement because she wanted to find out if he really meant it.

When her lawyer Paula Greisen asked whether the call was a "setup," she said it was not.

Alpha-bet people are bullies. Had no use for a cake, so calls a baker known to not make those kinds of cakes, and sues for it.

This is the definition of a setup. And the leftist government is in on it.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 21, 2022, 07:39:56 AMhttps://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-03-22/colorado-baker-sued-for-refusing-gender-transition-cake

Alpha-bet people are bullies. Had no use for a cake, so calls a baker known to not make those kinds of cakes, and sues for it.

This is the definition of a setup. And the leftist government is in on it.

This is stupid. If he won over the same sex issue he should also win on the trans issue, which is more radical than the homo issue.

Quote from: T Hunt on November 21, 2022, 01:30:39 PMThis is stupid. If he won over the same sex issue he should also win on the trans issue, which is more radical than the homo issue.

The radical left will use lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit to punish him for sticking to his beliefs. Does not matter if they will lose every one of them. They will not be happy until everyone is rolling in the mud with them.

These situations are tough, at least for me.  The libertarian part of my brain says "It's your business. You don't have to serve anyone you don't want to."  While the  practical part of me says "Grow up and do your job. It's a cake. You know how to make cake - it's eggs, flour, sugar etc, just do it and stop being a baby."

Why is this news in the first place?

Forcing people to do something against there belief is getting old.
People getting excited when some commie freak comes in their shop and demands bull shit, and the proceeds to "wrestle with the hog in the Mud", is just as bad as the commie freak.

Make them the worst piece of shit ever, then sue them, when they refuse to pay.
This whole cake baking shit is getting ridiculous!

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 05:33:06 AMThese situations are tough, at least for me.  The libertarian part of my brain says "It's your business. You don't have to serve anyone you don't want to."  While the  practical part of me says "Grow up and do your job. It's a cake. You know how to make cake - it's eggs, flour, sugar etc, just do it and stop being a baby."

If it was just selling a cake, no problem as he made cakes and they were out for purchase. He never refused to sell them a cake. Here is where the SCOTUS had a problem, they asked him to decorate the cake in a way that he did not believe in. Here is an example you might understand, I doubt if you will answer back, but you might understand. Lets say you walk into a cake shop, owned by a black family, you are dressed in a white hood and pointed little white cap. You ask the black family to bake you a huge cake with KKK written on it and the picture of a burning cross decorating it. The SCOTUS has said YOU CAN NOT FORSE SOMEONE TO PROVIDE A PERSONAL SERVICE. Now the SCOTUS has said you have a right to buy one of the cakes there in the shop, but YOU HAVE NOT RIGHT TO FORSE ANYOINE TO DO ANYTHING. Now, Zen, you have a very hard time understanding what is reality, I'm guessing from too much CNN, but even you should be able to understand what is going on here. Now, would you tell the black family to stop acting like a baby?

Quote from: Possum on December 09, 2022, 05:50:45 AMIf it was just selling a cake, no problem as he made cakes and they were out for purchase. He never refused to sell them a cake. Here is where the SCOTUS had a problem, they asked him to decorate the cake in a way that he did not believe in. Here is an example you might understand, I doubt if you will answer back, but you might understand. Lets say you walk into a cake shop, owned by a black family, you are dressed in a white hood and pointed little white cap. You ask the black family to bake you a huge cake with KKK written on it and the picture of a burning cross decorating it. The SCOTUS has said YOU CAN NOT FORSE SOMEONE TO PROVIDE A PERSONAL SERVICE. Now the SCOTUS has said you have a right to buy one of the cakes there in the shop, but YOU HAVE NOT RIGHT TO FORSE ANYOINE TO DO ANYTHING. Now, Zen, you have a very hard time understanding what is reality, I'm guessing from too much CNN, but even you should be able to understand what is going on here. Now, would you tell the black family to stop acting like a baby?

Why?  Because "do your job".  If you make cakes and have the ability to design the cake as requested, then why not do it?  Leave your feelings and politics at home and do your job.  If I'm a chef, I may find a well-done steak to be blasphemous. Does that mean I don't make a steak well-done if a customer requests it?  Of course not.  My job is my job and I do it to the best of my ability.

This is a work day.  Not "bring your problems to work" day.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 06:14:12 AMWhy?  Because "do your job".  If you make cakes and have the ability to design the cake as requested, then why not do it?  Leave your feelings and politics at home and do your job.  If I'm a chef, I may find a well-done steak to be blasphemous. Does that mean I don't make a steak well-done if a customer requests it?  Of course not.  My job is my job and I do it to the best of my ability.

This is a work day.  Not "bring your problems to work" day.  :rolleyes:

Funny you would try and use a chef and steak.
When I was a kid, probably 1962, my dads friend took us all to a really nice restaurant.

There was an older guy and a lady sitting a table away, guy ordered a steak, waitress brings their order and he asks for ketchup, she say's the chef does not like ketchup, customer gets mad.

She tells the chef, he comes out and asked if there was a problem with the steak, the guy says, I don't know until I put ketchup on it.
Long story short, the chef kicks them out and tells them never come back!

This was a perfect lesson for me as a kid, it had all kinds of lessons in it.

Point being, he kicked the guy out for insulting him in his own establishment, a steak house noted for its steaks.

See if you can find the lesson in there.

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2022, 06:25:20 AMFunny you would try and use a chef and steak.
When I was a kid, probably 1962, my dads friend took us all to a really nice restaurant.

There was an older guy and a lady sitting a table away, guy ordered a steak, waitress brings their order and he asks for ketchup, she say's the chef does not like ketchup, customer gets mad.

She tells the chef, he comes out and asked if there was a problem with the steak, the guy says, I don't know until I put ketchup on it.
Long story short, the chef kicks them out and tells them never come back!

This was a perfect lesson for me as a kid, it had all kinds of lessons in it.

Point being, he kicked the guy out for insulting him in his own establishment, a steak house noted for its steaks.

See if you can find the lesson in there.

It's absolutely his right to kick anyone out of his restaurant, for any reason. 

As a business owner and alleged professional, it's also childish.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 06:35:11 AMIt's absolutely his right to kick anyone out of his restaurant, for any reason. 

As a business owner and alleged professional, it's also childish.

But did you find a lessonhere?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 05:33:06 AMThese situations are tough, at least for me.  The libertarian part of my brain says "It's your business. You don't have to serve anyone you don't want to."  While the  practical part of me says "Grow up and do your job. It's a cake. You know how to make cake - it's eggs, flour, sugar etc, just do it and stop being a baby."

But how is the fight against atheism being a baby?
Atheism is a very dangerous ideology which has caused the deaths of millions in the 20th century alone.
There is a reason the christian deist founders made this a christian nation.

Or what about the fight against normalizing mental illness? Tranny being trannies hurt themselves more than anyone, despite being a danger to all around them. By refusing to bake the cake the baker is demonstrating love.

Sounds like this baker knew the stakes of the slippery slope that the left is always trying to slide down.
I mean in reality you could say to the tranny, "go somewhere else and stop being a baby by throwing a temper tantrum that not everyone obeys."

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 06:14:12 AMWhy?  Because "do your job".  If you make cakes and have the ability to design the cake as requested, then why not do it?  Leave your feelings and politics at home and do your job.  If I'm a chef, I may find a well-done steak to be blasphemous. Does that mean I don't make a steak well-done if a customer requests it?  Of course not.  My job is my job and I do it to the best of my ability.

This is a work day.  Not "bring your problems to work" day.  :rolleyes:

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: So you would support the baker being forced to bake a special cake with ALL NIGGERS MUST DIE written on it. Or a HITLER WAS RIGHT cake. So according to you morality is an at home problem.  :lol:

Might wanna tell that to all those ESG social credit score companies the left is always defending.

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2022, 06:25:20 AMFunny you would try and use a chef and steak.
When I was a kid, probably 1962, my dads friend took us all to a really nice restaurant.

There was an older guy and a lady sitting a table away, guy ordered a steak, waitress brings their order and he asks for ketchup, she say's the chef does not like ketchup, customer gets mad.

She tells the chef, he comes out and asked if there was a problem with the steak, the guy says, I don't know until I put ketchup on it.
Long story short, the chef kicks them out and tells them never come back!

This was a perfect lesson for me as a kid, it had all kinds of lessons in it.

Point being, he kicked the guy out for insulting him in his own establishment, a steak house noted for its steaks.

See if you can find the lesson in there.

I would never eat a steak without katchup  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  steak lover hate me, I know. So I would prbly not go back to that place but if that guy loves steak and think katchup ruins it he has the right to run that kind of place and ill bet he does a good business to cuz most people are not like me regarding steaks and I recognize that.

A business owner is supposed to have alot more freedom to do things his own way then they have today in modern america. As far as im concerned you should let businesses be racist too if they want to be, that way everyone will know who the racists are. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 09:20:59 AM:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: So you would support the baker being forced to bake a special cake with ALL NIGGERS MUST DIE written on it. Or a HITLER WAS RIGHT cake. So according to you morality is an at home problem.  :lol:

Might wanna tell that to all those ESG social credit score companies the left is always defending.

Nope, I don't want anyone forced to do anything.  I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.  However, I think personal beliefs, politics etc should be kept out of business.  Part of being an adult in the business world, is being able to deal with difficult situations and difficult people professionally.  Again, there's no magical ingredients in a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  There is literally NOTHING preventing a Christian baker from making the cake except feelings.  Hence the "grow up".

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 06:35:11 AMIt's absolutely his right to kick anyone out of his restaurant, for any reason. 

As a business owner and alleged professional, it's also childish.

Whats childish about that? If I was you I would say thats just your opinion but even opinions need to be backed up with facts, so what about that is childish?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 09:26:51 AMNope, I don't want anyone forced to do anything.  I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

Ok cool, so its not childish then.

QuoteHowever, I think personal beliefs, politics etc should be kept out of business.

Wait what? You just said they should be allowed. So which is it? Are they allowed to do it or are they being childish?

I mean if its their right to do it then how can it be childish to excersise that right? You arent being intellectually consistent here....

QuotePart of being an adult in the business world, is being able to deal with difficult situations and difficult people professionally.

Right, like trump does. You professionally deal with dangers to the nation like this baker did.

QuoteAgain, there's no magical ingredients in a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  There is literally NOTHING preventing a Christian baker from making the cake except feelings.

Feelings? When did feelings come into this? We are talking about morality. Did you think objective morality is just feelings?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I guess you being against racism, homophobia and misogamy are just feelings too? Not grounded in reality at all according to you?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 09:33:28 AMOk cool, so its not childish then.

Supporting someone's right to do something isn't the same as supporting what they are doing.

QuoteWait what? You just said they should be allowed. So which is it? Are they allowed to do it or are they being childish?

Supporting someone's right to do something, doesn't mean it's not childish. 

QuoteI mean if its their right to do it then how can it be childish to excersise that right? You arent being intellectually consistent here....

Supporting someone's right to do something is not the same as supporting the action itself.

QuoteRight, like trump does. You professionally deal with dangers to the nation like this baker did.

Yes, two guys entering into a legally binding contract is a danger to the nation.  What's next?  Two guys wanting to have their name on a car registration?  Two guys wanting to go into business together?  Apocalypse now!  lol....

QuoteFeelings? When did feelings come into this? We are talking about morality. Did you think objective morality is just feelings?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I guess you being against racism, homophobia and misogamy are just feelings too? Not grounded in reality at all according to you?

Your morality isn't someone else's morality.  I promise, if a straight, christian baker makes a cake for two dudes, he's not going to start blowing men in the alley behind his store.  He'll be ok.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 09:38:54 AMYes, two guys entering into a legally binding contract is a danger to the nation. 

Right, look at how much damage gay marriage has already done to the nation. Thats why it will soon go the way of abortion. Glad you could be grown up about it.

QuoteWhat's next?  Two guys wanting to have their name on a car registration?  Two guys wanting to go into business together?  Apocalypse now!  lol....

Well none of that is a mental disorder like being gay is and neither of those examples hurt you and me like two gays getting married does. So failed metaphor....

QuoteYour morality isn't someone else's morality. 

Actually morality is objective just like reality is, but libs hate that fact  :lol: .
There is a right and there is a wrong.
When a nation abandons that and embraces atheism then it always leads to mass deaths like in the case of stalin or mao. Thats why our founding fathers wisely made us a christian nation, something we will forever be.

QuoteI promise, if a straight, christian baker makes a cake for two dudes, he's not going to start blowing men in the alley behind his store.  He'll be ok.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  nice strawman attempt but fail.

https://ussanews.com/2022/12/07/restaurant-kicks-out-christian-group-you-cant-eat-here-because-youre-pro-life/

QuoteRestaurant Kicks Out Christian Group: You Cannot Eat Here Because You're Pro-Life

A Virginia restaurant told the Family Foundation that it was no longer welcome to dine at the establishment because of the organization's views on abortion and traditional marriage.

The Daily Signal spoke with Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb on Monday morning outside the Supreme Court as the justices heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case examining "whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment."

Cobb shared that about an hour and a half before the Family Foundation party was scheduled to take place in a private dining room at Metzger Bar and Butchery located in Richmond, Virginia, the restaurant announced that was "unwilling to serve" the organization.

Lefties are always on about "do as we say. not as we do".

To the lefties on this forum: will you call out this hypocrisy?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 09:52:38 AMRight, look at how much damage gay marriage has already done to the nation. Thats why it will soon go the way of abortion. Glad you could be grown up about it.

More likely quite the opposite.

QuoteWell none of that is a mental disorder like being gay is and neither of those examples hurt you and me like two gays getting married does. So failed metaphor....

The government can't discriminate.  Your opinion of their behavior is irrelevant.  Marriage, as it relates to the state, isn't about gods, holy books, eternal damnation, etc.  It's a legally binding contract.  That's it.

QuoteActually morality is objective just like reality is, but libs hate that fact  :lol: .
There is a right and there is a wrong.

Right and it used to be viewed as "right" to own slaves.

QuoteWhen a nation abandons that and embraces atheism then it always leads to mass deaths like in the case of stalin or mao. Thats why our founding fathers wisely made us a christian nation, something we will forever be.
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  nice strawman attempt but fail.

Yes, two guys entering into a contract will lead to much death. Apocalypse now! 

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 09:25:44 AMI would never eat a steak without katchup  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  steak lover hate me, I know. So I would prbly not go back to that place but if that guy loves steak and think katchup ruins it he has the right to run that kind of place and ill bet he does a good business to cuz most people are not like me regarding steaks and I recognize that.

A business owner is supposed to have alot more freedom to do things his own way then they have today in modern america. As far as im concerned you should let businesses be racist too if they want to be, that way everyone will know who the racists are. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I have to call out your use of the word "racist", especially in this day and age. We judge by content of character, the other side judges by color of skin.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 09:52:38 AMRight, look at how much damage gay marriage has already done to the nation. Thats why it will soon go the way of abortion. Glad you could be grown up about it.
Well none of that is a mental disorder like being gay is and neither of those examples hurt you and me like two gays getting married does. So failed metaphor....
Actually morality is objective just like reality is, but libs hate that fact  :lol: .
There is a right and there is a wrong.
When a nation abandons that and embraces atheism then it always leads to mass deaths like in the case of stalin or mao. Thats why our founding fathers wisely made us a christian nation, something we will forever be.
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  nice strawman attempt but fail.

It's more the fault of the LGBT lobby, then the individual gays. Not every gay person attends pride events, or wants everything to be gay or trans or rainbow in their lives.

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2022, 06:25:20 AMFunny you would try and use a chef and steak.
When I was a kid, probably 1962, my dads friend took us all to a really nice restaurant.

There was an older guy and a lady sitting a table away, guy ordered a steak, waitress brings their order and he asks for ketchup, she say's the chef does not like ketchup, customer gets mad.

She tells the chef, he comes out and asked if there was a problem with the steak, the guy says, I don't know until I put ketchup on it.
Long story short, the chef kicks them out and tells them never come back!

This was a perfect lesson for me as a kid, it had all kinds of lessons in it.

Point being, he kicked the guy out for insulting him in his own establishment, a steak house noted for its steaks.

See if you can find the lesson in there.

I suspect we see different lessons from your story.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 10:26:53 AMI suspect we see different lessons from your story.

One, the chef was insulted because his steaks are renowned for their perfectly spiced/aged meat.

Two, he let his emotion get the better of him.

Three, the guy should have taken a bite first and then make his decision.

Four, both missed a perfect opportunity, one to experience something new and retain a new customer.

But the main point is Govt has zero business inserting itself into personal matters just to make a point, just like the chef, govt is acting from an emotional stand point, and interfering unconstitutionally.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 10:02:48 AMMore likely quite the opposite.

Thats what they said about abortion  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

QuoteThe government can't discriminate.

Right. But calling out mental illness has never been considered discrimination.

QuoteYour opinion of their behavior is irrelevant.

Right, but the science of homosexuality being a mental illness is not irrelevant. Thats the part you dont want to admit. :biggrin:

QuoteMarriage, as it relates to the state, isn't about gods, holy books, eternal damnation, etc.  It's a legally binding contract.  That's it.

Wrong again. We are called a christian nation for a reason. Because we use the wisdom found in religion to inform us on the best ways to deal with people. Remember, athiesm has killed millions so we will never use that as the basis for our laws.

QuoteRight and it used to be viewed as "right" to own slaves.

No, it was always wrong for slavery to be legal, the founders told us as much. If it had been right then morality would not be objective but it is, right and wrong have always been the same for all of human history.

QuoteYes, two guys entering into a contract will lead to much death. Apocalypse now!

Right, just like war often involves contracts, calling something a contract in no way reduces its impact.

Yes, just look at how homo marriage has already harmed the family and lead to many deaths that way. Just look at how the loss of the family has lead to a rise in crime and drug abuse and sexual deviation, and mostly its leftists who are the victims. As well as minorities.

The loss of the family is the number one reason minorities are still as poor as they are.

Homosexuality along with feminism have killed and ruined the lives of far more people than any disease or war. Just look at how much our society is falling apart right now compared to how great it used to be.

Thats why it will soon go the way of abortion :biggrin: . Supporting the normalization of mental disorders was always a losing prospect for the left. 

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 09, 2022, 10:03:38 AMI have to call out your use of the word "racist", especially in this day and age. We judge by content of character, the other side judges by color of skin.

Ya you are right. I was just trying to put it into words a liberal would understand. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 09, 2022, 10:08:52 AMIt's more the fault of the LGBT lobby, then the individual gays. Not every gay person attends pride events, or wants everything to be gay or trans or rainbow in their lives.

Oh ya thats very true and there are even some gay MAGA like milo, or scott presler or the #walkaway guy.
No one is saying it should be illegal to be gay, this is america. But we dont want to normalize mental illness or stop people from being able to call out the dangers of gay, both to the individual doing it and the nation as a whole.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 10:54:03 AMThats what they said about abortion  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Right. But calling out mental illness has never been considered discrimination.
 
Right, but the science of homosexuality being a mental illness is not irrelevant. Thats the part you dont want to admit. :biggrin:
Wrong again. We are called a christian nation for a reason. Because we use the wisdom found in religion to inform us on the best ways to deal with people. Remember, athiesm has killed millions so we will never use that as the basis for our laws.

No, it was always wrong for slavery to be legal, the founders told us as much. If it had been right then morality would not be objective but it is, right and wrong have always been the same for all of human history.


Right, just like war often involves contracts, calling something a contract in no way reduces its impact.

Yes, just look at how homo marriage has already harmed the family and lead to many deaths that way. Just look at how the loss of the family has lead to a rise in crime and drug abuse and sexual deviation, and mostly its leftists who are the victims. As well as minorities.

The loss of the family is the number one reason minorities are still as poor as they are.

Homosexuality along with feminism have killed and ruined the lives of far more people than any disease or war. Just look at how much our society is falling apart right now compared to how great it used to be.

Thats why it will soon go the way of abortion :biggrin: . Supporting the normalization of mental disorders was always a losing prospect for the left. 

"Right. But calling out mental illness has never been considered discrimination."

No, the act of denying equal rights to people IS discrimination. Should the government be allowed to deny two men the ability to have both names on a car title? Should the state be able to deny two women access to a permit to buuild a pool?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 11:07:34 AM"Right. But calling out mental illness has never been considered discrimination."

No, the act of denying equal rights to people IS discrimination.

But since when have we ever given full equal rights to the dangerously insane? the worst have to be locked up in homes.

Alternativly, is it a right to destroy marriage or the family? Is it a right to marry who you want? Is there a legal right to have sex? Where are those in the constitution? No the homosexual agenda doesnt have a legal leg to stand on.

QuoteShould the government be allowed to deny two men the ability to have both names on a car title? Should the state be able to deny two women access to a permit to buuild a pool?

Are either of those mental disorders, as shown by science? Do either of those destroy the family?

You keep tying and failing to create a strawman to lean on....

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 11:16:03 AMBut since when have we ever given full equal rights to the dangerously insane?

Here we go. Now a woman finding another woman sexually attractive is dangerously insane? Lol!!!

Quotethe worst have to be locked up in homes.

Yes.

QuoteAlternativly, is it a right to destroy marriage or the family?

Well  I was married and had a family BEFORE gay marriage was made legal at state or federal level. I'm still married and still have a family AFTER, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you could use some mental health evaluation!

QuoteIs it a right to marry who you want?

Is it a right? I don't know but,  again, as long as the state is in the marriage business it absolutely is illegal for them to discriminate.

QuoteIs there a legal right to have sex?

That sounds creepy, so I'd say no. The government should also not be able to tell consenting adults that they can't have sex, right?

QuoteWhere are those in the constitution? No the homosexual agenda doesnt have a legal leg to stand on.

The homosexual agenda, in this conversation, is to not be discriminated against by the state. It's odd that you'd be ok with that, btw

QuoteAre either of those mental disorders, as shown by science? Do either of those destroy the family?

Nice try. Again, when the state wants to get completely out of the marriage business, I'll have no issue. To imagine that it's ok for the state to say "These two consenting adults CAN be recognized by the state, but THESE two consenting adults can't." is about as discriminatory as you can get.

QuoteYou keep tying and failing to create a strawman to lean on....

My "straw man": I want all consenting adults to have their relationship recognized by the state because it's wrong, and illegal  for the state to discriminate.

This situation along with the conservative group in VA being denied service takes me back to around 1960.

Lester Maddox owned the Pickrick Restaurant in the ATL that was not integrated. The SCOTUS ruled the business was involved in interstate commerce and could not discriminate. The bottom line is if a business is open to the public it can not choose its customers.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 11:44:23 AMHere we go. Now a woman finding another woman sexually attractive is dangerously insane? Lol!!!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: you think its safe! LOL WOW! and without evidence too

Sorry dear, but the science is in, the very act of homosexuality is dangerous, thats why AIDS was always a gay thing  :biggrin:

But I love how you think the science doesnt matter here only your feelings :lol:

QuoteWell  I was married and had a family BEFORE gay marriage was made legal at state or federal level. I'm still married and still have a family AFTER, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you could use some mental health evaluation!

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: imagine thinking one family represents the national collapse of marriage  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
Sorry dear, but marriage is way down thus proving my point. Do try again tho.

QuoteIs it a right? I don't know but,  again, as long as the state is in the marriage business it absolutely is illegal for them to discriminate.

Ok so you admit its not a right, cool. So there is no problem saying the marriage is what it always has been, one man and one woman.

Remember, its not discrimination to take action against mental disorders. :biggrin:
There is no law protecting the mentally ill from being treated as mentally ill.
There is no right to be mentally ill.

QuoteThat sounds creepy, so I'd say no. The government should also not be able to tell consenting adults that they can't have sex, right?

No one ever said they did, this is about gay marriage not having the mental disorder in the first place. It would be very stupid to try to make having a mental illness in the first place illegal.

However its not illegal to force those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others to seek treatment, we do it all the time with rapists or kleptomaniacs.

QuoteThe homosexual agenda, in this conversation, is to not be discriminated against by the state. It's odd that you'd be ok with that, btw

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: imgaine thinking a having mental illness was protected  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Im sorry but there is no law protecting the mental illness of homosexuality from being treated as such. Nothing says the mentally ill and normals have to be treated exactly the same under the law. Perhaps you could show us a law that says mental disorders cannot be treated as such.....go ahead....

QuoteNice try. Again, when the state wants to get completely out of the marriage business, I'll have no issue. To imagine that it's ok for the state to say "These two consenting adults CAN be recognized by the state, but THESE two consenting adults can't." is about as discriminatory as you can get.

But what does the state being involved in marriage have to do with anything? The state has always treated the mentally ill differently, there is nothing in the constitution that says otherwise.

Besides the science says gays harm themselves, and kids raised by gays have as many problems as children raised by single parents, not two parents.

Im sorry but if you cant prove that being gay is harmless to themselves or children you will never get the legal victories you need. That is why the left is losing so badly on this issue.

QuoteMy "straw man": I want all consenting adults to have their relationship recognized by the state because it's wrong, and illegal  for the state to discriminate.

But how is treating mental illness as mental illness discrimination? Is is discrimination to force a kleptomaniac into treatment? No its not, never has been. Thank God we live in a free christian nation.

Sorry but the law is clear, you cant discriminate on sex but it says nothing about treating people with mental disorders differently than normals. Its hilarious that you think the law does that. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Like you actually want to live in a nation where freaks get to be treated as normal LOL thank God you guys are losing so badly and normal people are prevailing. :thumbsup:   

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 09, 2022, 12:27:26 PMThis situation along with the conservative group in VA being denied service takes me back to around 1960.

Lester Maddox owned the Pickrick Restaurant in the ATL that was not integrated. The SCOTUS ruled the business was involved in interstate commerce and could not discriminate. The bottom line is if a business is open to the public it can not choose its customers.

See thats not constitutional. There is nothing in the constitution about businesses not being free to do what they want.

Besides if there are racist businesses they shld be allowed to be such so everyone can see and avoid them. The market will handle all this, no need for the govt to do it.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 11:44:23 AMHere we go. Now a woman finding another woman sexually attractive is dangerously insane?[\b] Lol!!!



Yes.

Well  I was married and had a family BEFORE gay marriage was made legal at state or federal level. I'm still married and still have a family AFTER, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you could use some mental health evaluation!

Is it a right? I don't know but,  again, as long as the state is in the marriage business it absolutely is illegal for them to discriminate.

 That sounds creepy, so I'd say no. The government should also not be able to tell consenting adults that they can't have sex, right?

 The homosexual agenda, in this conversation, is to not be discriminated against by the state. It's odd that you'd be ok with that, btw

Nice try. Again, when the state wants to get completely out of the marriage business, I'll have no issue. To imagine that it's ok for the state to say "These two consenting adults CAN be recognized by the state, but THESE two consenting adults can't." is about as discriminatory as you can get.


My "straw man": I want all consenting adults I

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 11:44:23 AMHere we go. Now a woman finding another woman sexually attractive is dangerously insane? Lol!!!



Yes.

Well  I was married and had a family BEFORE gay marriage was made legal at state or federal level. I'm still married and still have a family AFTER, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe you could use some mental health evaluation!

Is it a right? I don't know but,  again, as long as the state is in the marriage business it absolutely is illegal for them to discriminate.

 That sounds creepy, so I'd say no. The government should also not be able to tell consenting adults that they can't have sex, right?

 The homosexual agenda, in this conversation, is to not be discriminated against by the state. It's odd that you'd be ok with that, btw

Nice try. Again, when the state wants to get completely out of the marriage business, I'll have no issue. To imagine that it's ok for the state to say "These two consenting adults CAN be recognized by the state, but THESE two consenting adults can't." is about as discriminatory as you can get.


My "straw man": I want all consenting adults to have their relationship recognized by the state because it's wrong, and illegal  for the state to discriminate.

to have their relationship recognized by the state because it's wrong, and illegal  for the state to discriminate.

When those two women are radical feminists who push their leftist ideology onto any kid (students they teach, children they adopted, content they create, etc.) then they are dangerous because they are insane.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 09, 2022, 12:50:43 PMto have their relationship recognized by the state because it's wrong, and illegal  for the state to discriminate.


When those two women are radical feminists who push their leftist ideology onto any kid (students they teach, children they adopted, content they create, etc.) then they are dangerous because they are insane.

He fails to recognize how leftism is an ideology of insanity.



https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2020/06/27/leftism-and-mental-illness/

https://notthebee.com/article/pew-study-indicates-leftism-is-literally-a-mental-illness-

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/march-study-points-to-pervasive-mental-illness-among-white-american-liberals/

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 12:27:44 PM:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: you think its safe! LOL WOW! and without evidence too

Sorry dear, but the science is in, the very act of homosexuality is dangerous, thats why AIDS was always a gay thing  :biggrin:

But I love how you think the science doesnt matter here only your feelings :lol:
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol: imagine thinking one family represents the national collapse of marriage  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
Sorry dear, but marriage is way down thus proving my point. Do try again tho.
Ok so you admit its not a right, cool. So there is no problem saying the marriage is what it always has been, one man and one woman.

Remember, its not discrimination to take action against mental disorders. :biggrin:
There is no law protecting the mentally ill from being treated as mentally ill.
There is no right to be mentally ill.
No one ever said they did, this is about gay marriage not having the mental disorder in the first place. It would be very stupid to try to make having a mental illness in the first place illegal.

However its not illegal to force those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others to seek treatment, we do it all the time with rapists or kleptomaniacs.
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol: imgaine thinking a having mental illness was protected  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Im sorry but there is no law protecting the mental illness of homosexuality from being treated as such. Nothing says the mentally ill and normals have to be treated exactly the same under the law. Perhaps you could show us a law that says mental disorders cannot be treated as such.....go ahead....
But what does the state being involved in marriage have to do with anything? The state has always treated the mentally ill differently, there is nothing in the constitution that says otherwise.

Besides the science says gays harm themselves, and kids raised by gays have as many problems as children raised by single parents, not two parents.

Im sorry but if you cant prove that being gay is harmless to themselves or children you will never get the legal victories you need. That is why the left is losing so badly on this issue.


But how is treating mental illness as mental illness discrimination? Is is discrimination to force a kleptomaniac into treatment? No its not, never has been. Thank God we live in a free christian nation.

Sorry but the law is clear, you cant discriminate on sex but it says nothing about treating people with mental disorders differently than normals. Its hilarious that you think the law does that. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Like you actually want to live in a nation where freaks get to be treated as normal LOL thank God you guys are losing so badly and normal people are prevailing. :thumbsup:   

Summarizing your position, we are going to  allow the government to deny marriage to anyone who can transmit or receive a sexually transmitted disease, anyone that has a mental disorder, which would include PTSD, anxiety disorder and depression, to name a few.

It's safe to say that your cheese has officially slid off your cracker.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 01:06:10 PMSummarizing your position, we are going to  allow the government to deny marriage to anyone who can transmit or receive a sexually transmitted disease, anyone that has a mental disorder, which would include PTSD, anxiety disorder and depression, to name a few.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: Why would we deny them getting married to someone of the opposite sex?
No one is trying to deny gays the right to get married....to the opposite sex just like everyone else.
Gay marriage isnt really marriage since you need both genders to call it a marriage in the first place.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that marriage is just two people living together and having sex.  :lol: 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: by your logic I could me and my college roommate living together was a marriage.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

See you are trying to use govt to create something that isnt real and then to try to force everyone to accept the delusion. Thats one reason why its so dangerous.

QuoteIt's safe to say that your cheese has officially slid off your cracker.

There it is! When libs dont have facts they use ad hominems.  :lol:

(https://i.postimg.cc/MZ5RSY9B/324a70867aa5e62a46d2cbc94e398ebbed6ba65156e84cf2f7fdc0f45253346e-1.jpg)

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 06:14:12 AMWhy?  Because "do your job".  If you make cakes and have the ability to design the cake as requested, then why not do it?  Leave your feelings and politics at home and do your job.  If I'm a chef, I may find a well-done steak to be blasphemous. Does that mean I don't make a steak well-done if a customer requests it?  Of course not.  My job is my job and I do it to the best of my ability.

This is a work day.  Not "bring your problems to work" day.  :rolleyes:

You missed the main part, this has nothing about your feelings, the SCOTUS has ruled. You lost.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 01:24:45 PM:lol:  :lol:  :lol: Why would we deny them getting married to someone of the opposite sex?
No one is trying to deny gays the right to get married....to the opposite sex just like everyone else.
Gay marriage isnt really marriage since you need both genders to call it a marriage in the first place.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that marriage is just two people living together and having sex.  :lol: 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: by your logic I could me and my college roommate living together was a marriage.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

See you are trying to use govt to create something that isnt real and then to try to force everyone to accept the delusion. Thats one reason why its so dangerous.
There it is! When libs dont have facts they use ad hominems.  :lol:

(https://i.postimg.cc/MZ5RSY9B/324a70867aa5e62a46d2cbc94e398ebbed6ba65156e84cf2f7fdc0f45253346e-1.jpg)

Your criteria, not mine, was STDs and people with mental disorders not being allowed to get married. 

Here's what we should expect, as far as equality as it pertains to marriage is concerned, if you and Solar ran the country:

You can't get married if you've gone through menopause

You can't get married if you've had a vasectomy

You can't get married if you simply don't want to have kids

You can't get married if you can transmit or aquire an STD

You can't get married if you're a military veteran with PTSD

You can't get married if you have really bad social anxiety

You can't get married if you have a need to obsessively wash your hands

America!!!  :bigl

(https://media.giphy.com/media/26ueYUlPAmUkTBAM8/giphy.gif)

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 02:14:11 PMYour criteria, not mine, was STDs and people with mental disorders not being allowed to get married. 

Here's what we should expect, as far as equality as it pertains to marriage is concerned, if you and Solar ran the country:

You can't get married if you've gone through menopause

You can't get married if you've had a vasectomy

You can't get married if you simply don't want to have kids

You can't get married if you can transmit or aquire an STD

You can't get married if you're a military veteran with PTSD

You can't get married if you have really bad social anxiety

You can't get married if you have a need to obsessively wash your hands

(https://media.giphy.com/media/26ueYUlPAmUkTBAM8/giphy.gif)

Feelings, wo wo wo feelings, wo wo wo feelings


Now show everyone where they said that, or retract.

Quote from: Possum on December 09, 2022, 02:17:02 PMFeelings, wo wo wo feelings, wo wo wo feelings


Now show everyone where they said that, or retract.

Yah, no. It's right there. Solar called out Procreation as a requirement and T Hunt called out mental health as a requirement and, oddly,  STDs or a lack thereof.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 02:19:15 PMYah, no. It's right there. Solar called out Procreation as a requirement and T Hunt called out mental health as a requirement and, oddly,  STDs or a lack thereof.

I don't see it. Show where they said that.

Quote from: Possum on December 09, 2022, 02:17:02 PMFeelings, wo wo wo feelings, wo wo wo feelings


Now show everyone where they said that, or retract.

My mistake.  The procreation was in another thread about the same topic:

https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/2020-election-audit/just-as-expected/msg499519/#msg499519

T Hunt's comment is  # 28 on the previous page and 31 on this page.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 02:19:15 PMYah, no. It's right there. Solar called out Procreation as a requirement and T Hunt called out mental health as a requirement and, oddly,  STDs or a lack thereof.

I also clearly stated, this is a First Amendment issue and the Govt has no right to dictate any part concerning a religious ceremony!

Do you hate our Constitution and Bill of Rights so much, that you're willing to let govt trample our them?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 02:14:11 PMYour criteria, not mine, was STDs and people with mental disorders not being allowed to get married. 

No it wasnt. That was just one reason. Gay marriage not being allowed is done so for ALOT of reasons. There are ALOT of bad things about it, not just that its a mental disorder.

QuoteHere's what we should expect, as far as equality as it pertains to marriage is concerned, if you and Solar ran the country:

You can't get married if you've gone through menopause

You can't get married if you've had a vasectomy

You can't get married if you simply don't want to have kids

You can't get married if you can transmit or aquire an STD

You can't get married if you're a military veteran with PTSD

You can't get married if you have really bad social anxiety

You can't get married if you have a need to obsessively wash your hands

When did we say any of that? You keep acting like there is one standard that we are using to say it shouldnt be allowed. Lets look at the long long list of why gay marriage is bad, shall we?

1) Being homosexual is a scientifically proven mental illness. The DCMI proves this.

2) Homosexuality is very dangerous to the homo himself. AIDs and other STDs proves this. This is also why we discourage sex outside of marriage.

3) Practicing homosexuality makes the mental illness worse and can cause others to arise. This is true of any mental disorder and the mental side effects of free sex is another reason we discourage sex outside of marriage of any kind.

4) Homosexuality is dangerous to kids. It is a proven fact that the nuclear family is superior to all other forms with anything less causing alot of mental issues for the kids in the long run and is to be avoided. Science has shown that two gay parents has the same effect on child rearing as one parent. This is also why we discourage single parent families.

5) Historically gay marriage has always been shunned and for good reason. So the onus is on the left to prove what good reason we have to change tradition.

6) Sexual deviancy is a well known tactic of communists and we know that the left pushes it as a way to attack the family unit. This is all historically documented so we dont buy into ideas that our enemy is using to harm us.

7) Allowing homosexual marriage degrades normal marriage to the status of simply being a contract for sex. Thus all marriages are harmed by the existence of gay marriage.

8) Gays tend to be suicidal, just like trans. Suicidal people tend to be a danger to themselves and others.

9) Lastly there is no reason to stay gay. There are plenty of successful treatment options and plenty of success stories from former gays, so why stay gay and unhappy/unhealthy when you can get fixed to be normal again? There is no reason to have this problem in the first place.

10) Gays as a group are far too connected to pedophilia. If someone is suffering from the mental illness of gay then they likely will fall to pedophilia soon too, its a slippery slope. We have proof of this by how much the dems are defending groomers these days.

11) Im sure there is something else im forgetting, there is just so much reason why we will never allow gay marriage to become normal in America. And now that the right is gaining power any little bill passed now by an impotent congress will be swiftly reversed. Nothing can save the LGBT agenda.


So as you can see only a fool would support gay marriage and there is nothing in our constitution to support it, and there is no law saying we cant treat mental illness as such. Also you can see that using these standards we are safe from accidentally throwing things like all mental illness or anyone who is infertile into the group. Just the homos and other sexual deviants like trannies fall into this specific category of mental illness.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 02:19:15 PMYah, no. It's right there. Solar called out Procreation as a requirement and T Hunt called out mental health as a requirement and, oddly,  STDs or a lack thereof.

We called them out as ONE requirement among many. You are the one who acted childishly by trying to address them in a vaccuum while ignoring all the other reasons gay marriage isnt allowed. Literally no one said gay marriage should be illegal on the SOLE BASIS of fertility or mental health. But when you combine all the reasons then it is clear that only an enemy of this country and who wanted alot of people to suffer would want gay marriage to be legal.

Youve been caught lying by using a strawman of mine and solars arguments while ignoring the actual arguments themselves.

I don't believe in not serving people for whatever reason. I am a capitalist and I wanna make as much money as I safely can make (don't want to burn myself out). However, history has shown us how lefties are with this issue. They started by not serving blacks, and in this modern age, they are trying to not serve whites/overserve blacks. They have a history of this, they are all bullies. That's why they applause Christians bring denied service, but scream when someone doesn't make a wedding cake for them it is hypocrisy. And don't forget, they didn't make a Confederate cake under the same reasons, but blindly made an Isis cake.

I have come to the conclusion that no Democrat deserves any cake. Cake is for celebratory reasons, and Democrats always ruin life as we know it.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 02:48:02 PMWe called them out as ONE requirement among many. You are the one who acted childishly by trying to address them in a vaccuum while ignoring all the other reasons gay marriage isnt allowed. Literally no one said gay marriage should be illegal on the SOLE BASIS of fertility or mental health. But when you combine all the reasons then it is clear that only an enemy of this country and who wanted alot of people to suffer would want gay marriage to be legal.

Youve been caught lying by using a strawman of mine and solars arguments while ignoring the actual arguments themselves.

Like many on the far left can rationalize getting people fired from jobs or getting careers ended for having the wrong view, you are able to rationalize denying equality to all (wo)men for reasons that I'm sure, in your mind  are perfectly reasonable.  That's not what equality and freedom are.  When we prioritize freedom and equality, we look for reasons TO expand them, not the other way around. Allowing a racist business owner to deny a black person service isn't respectable or, to many, acceptable, but it's how things should be in a nation that respects private property rights and freedom to choose who you engage with. Along the same lines, we should seek to extend equality to gays and transgender people just as we do people with ICD, PTSD, etc.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 09, 2022, 03:01:39 PMI don't believe in not serving people for whatever reason. I am a capitalist and I wanna make as much money as I safely can make (don't want to burn myself out). However, history has shown us how lefties are with this issue. They started by not serving blacks, and in this modern age, they are trying to not serve whites/overserve blacks. They have a history of this, they are all bullies. That's why they applause Christians bring denied service, but scream when someone doesn't make a wedding cake for them it is hypocrisy. And don't forget, they didn't make a Confederate cake under the same reasons, but blindly made an Isis cake.

I have come to the conclusion that no Democrat deserves any cake. Cake is for celebratory reasons, and Democrats always ruin life as we know it.

In general, basic human decency AND the desire to make money is why people generally don't act like jerks and turn away people for disgusting reasons.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 03:23:25 PMLike many on the far left can rationalize getting people fired from jobs or getting careers ended for having the wrong view, you are able to rationalize denying equality to all (wo)men for reasons that I'm sure, in your mind  are perfectly reasonable.  That's not what equality and freedom are.  When we prioritize freedom and equality, we look for reason TO expand them, not the other way around. Allowing a racist business owner to deny a black person service isn't respectable or, to many, acceptable, but it's how things should be in a nation that respects private property rights and freedom to choose who you engage with. Along the same lines, we should seek to extend equality to gays and transgender people just as we do people with ICD, PTSD, etc.

Did you ever even read what the SCOTUS had to say about this????? You keep beating the same argument against what the court has already settled. To put it bluntly, you can not discriminate and keep someone from buying a cake if are in the business of selling cakes. However, nobody can force you to design and create a special cake against your wishes. How many times do you need this to be explained to you? Nothing here about the decision has a damn thing to do with what you wish, what your feelings are, or what you perceive to be the right thing to do. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 03:23:25 PMLike many on the far left can rationalize getting people fired from jobs for having the wrong view, you are able to rationalize denying equality to all (wo)men for reasons that I'm sure, in your mind  are perfectly reasonable.

When did I deny equality to anyone? No lying here remember. Show me where I called to deny equality to people for no reason....

QuoteThat's not what equality and freedom are.  When we prioritize freedom and equality,
we look for reason TO expand them, not the other way around.

Right, and the FREEDOM option here is to not force a new form of marriage, which doest even fit the definition, onto the people. You must realize you are taking the position of more govt control while our position is the one of freedom. We are fighting for marriage freedom while you are fighting for marriage tyranny. (Tranny tyranny? :biggrin: )

QuoteAllowing a racist business owner to deny a black person service isn't respectable or, to many, acceptable, but it's how things should be in a nation that respects private property rights and freedom to choose who you engage with.

Yes that would be the most constitutional arrangement. Then the market would fix it and you wouldnt have racist business owners.

QuoteIn the same lines, we should seek to extend equality to gays and transgender people just as we do people with ICD, PTSD, etc.

You are strawmanning again. No one is trying to normalize PTSD or ICD or anything else, only gays.

Remember, mentally disabled people have always had equality. Gays have an equal right as strait people, to marry the opposite sex. Do you see how gays already have equality? You are trying to give gays special treatment and treat them better than everyone else by creating a new definition of marriage out of nothing.

Do you see that denying same sex marriage IS the position of equality, freedom and love, while forcing a brand new definition on everyone and normalizing mental disorders. is in fact the position of special treatment, tyranny, and hate.

Its always been equal, gays have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everything else. Nothing unequal about it....

Quote from: T Hunt on December 09, 2022, 03:36:59 PMWhen did I deny equality to anyone? No lying here remember. Show me where I called to deny equality to people for no reason....
Right, and the FREEDOM option here is to not force a new form of marriage, which doest even fit the definition, onto the people. You must realize you are taking the position of more govt control while our position is the one of freedom. We are fighting for marriage freedom while you are fighting for marriage tyranny. (Tranny tyranny? :biggrin: )
Yes that would be the most constitutional arrangement. Then the market would fix it and you wouldnt have racist business owners.
You are strawmanning again. No one is trying to normalize PTSD or ICD or anything else, only gays.

Remember, mentally disabled people have always had equality. Gays have an equal right as strait people, to marry the opposite sex. Do you see how gays already have equality? You are trying to give gays special treatment and treat them better than everyone else by creating a new definition of marriage out of nothing.

Do you see that denying same sex marriage IS the position of equality, freedom and love, while forcing a brand new definition on everyone and normalizing mental disorders. is in fact the position of special treatment, tyranny, and hate.

Its always been equal, gays have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everything else. Nothing unequal about it....

"Do you see that denying same sex marriage IS the position of equality, freedom and love, while forcing a brand new definition on everyone and normalizing mental disorders. is in fact the position of special treatment, tyranny, and hate.

"Its always been equal, gays have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everything else. Nothing unequal about it...."

No, freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want.

It's like telling gays "You can have sex.... How we allow you to", which was the case for years.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 04:58:58 PM"Do you see that denying same sex marriage IS the position of equality, freedom and love, while forcing a brand new definition on everyone and normalizing mental disorders. is in fact the position of special treatment, tyranny, and hate.

"Its always been equal, gays have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everything else. Nothing unequal about it...."

No, freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want.

It's like telling gays "You can have sex.... How we allow you to", which was the case for years.

No, damn you have a habit for being wrong. The definition of marriage, by every group that has ever had a history of marriage, through out the existence of mankind, has been between a man and a woman. PERIOD! Through out history, marriage has been a religious ceremony, with the rules coming from the religion, ALL RELIGIONS, not just Christians. Now we have Zen telling us religion,  should not have a say in what is the definition of marriage??? Without religion there never  would have been any marriage.

Zen, you claim men have always been allowed to marry???? In many religions that carries the death penalty. You are now just making crap up. The question to ask, why do you insist the definition of marriage should be changed to allow men to marry men? What is the benefit to society? Why should the government get involved in what has been throughout history a religious matter?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 04:58:58 PMNo, freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want

Form a legal bond with whoever they want to? They can form legal bonds with whomever they want to, its called a contract. Thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about marriage, not legal bonds.

And in your world, as long as you are defining marriage however you want why stop with 'who', why not 'what' as well? Why not allow people to marry animals, or better yet objects, like a rock. Are you pro rock marriage now too zen? 

Quotenot who Christians want.

So its ok to force the atheists definition of marriage on everyone but not christians? Christians are only using the same definition used by almost every civilization ever.

By creating gay marriage you are redefining marriage for everyone since you are forcing everyone to acknowledge it as a marriage legally.

We all have to live under the same definition of marriage because we are all part of the same legal system.

QuoteIt's like telling gays "You can have sex.... How we allow you to", which was the case for years.

You mean how biology allows them too.

Sex is just penis in vagina. Everything else is a made up version of that.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 04:58:58 PMNo, freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want.

It's like telling gays "You can have sex.... How we allow you to", which was the case for years.

Ah, I see now.
You are trying to redefine words so that you can make them mean whatever you want. You thought that in the land of the free that you were free to pretend words meant whatever you wanted them to mean. That if a person wants to define marriage as a man and dog then they are free to do that. Or if a woman wants to define murder as abortion, hey thats cool too.

Did you think that freedom meant you could just do anything? Does freedom mean anarchy in Lib-Land?
I see that attempt often by the left, to try to paint freedom as being anarchy, especially with sexual issues. You seem to be under the mistake assumption that sexual freedom some how equals sexual anarchy. Im sorry to tell you but it doesnt.

We have always been about freedom in America but never about anarchy. Being free to do what you want doesnt mean you can do whatever you want.

Tell me, in your america should people be allowed to have multiple husbands and wives? What about cousins marrying? And should we allow child marriage as well?



On top of that you seem to think that freedom OF religion somehow means freedom FROM religion. Here in america we are a secular christian nation, so you do not get to be free FROM religion, nothing guarantees that in the constitution. So we elevate religion over non religion.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 04:58:58 PM"Do you see that denying same sex marriage IS the position of equality, freedom and love, while forcing a brand new definition on everyone and normalizing mental disorders. is in fact the position of special treatment, tyranny, and hate.

"Its always been equal, gays have always been allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everything else. Nothing unequal about it...."

No, freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want.

It's like telling gays "You can have sex.... How we allow you to", which was the case for years.

Do you even understand my posts? I said gays were offered Civil Unions, same as marriage without the word marriage, but they rejected it outright.
Too damn bad, they screwed themselves, and now, you want the govt to trample the First Amendment because. Of feelings?

Now I want you to take a second and learn about the First. If you allow govt to destroy it, you can kiss all the others good bye, including your Right to the 5th and 4th, so you may want to read up on them as well.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 09, 2022, 03:01:39 PMI don't believe in not serving people for whatever reason. I am a capitalist and I wanna make as much money as I safely can make (don't want to burn myself out). However, history has shown us how lefties are with this issue. They started by not serving blacks, and in this modern age, they are trying to not serve whites/overserve blacks. They have a history of this, they are all bullies. That's why they applause Christians bring denied service, but scream when someone doesn't make a wedding cake for them it is hypocrisy. And don't forget, they didn't make a Confederate cake under the same reasons, but blindly made an Isis cake.

I have come to the conclusion that no Democrat deserves any cake. Cake is for celebratory reasons, and Democrats always ruin life as we know it.

This has always been my position. If I am in business to provide goods or services from the public I'll not refuse business. How far must one go to uphold their personal beliefs/ideals vs the profit motive?

I'm not gonna serve two guys holding hands coz your Gay....stupid from a business point. You shouldn't be in business if thats your attitude.

However thats exactly what is happening on the LEFT, they are refusing to serve people who are conservatives or display symbols of support for certain political figures Like Trump and all of us who wear a MAGA hat.

GO WOKE GO BROKE....

But no, Zen won't say anything against that , instead he wants to support the alphabet people who want to become a protected species with more rights and special privileges than straight people.

Thats what this crap is really all about anyhow

Hey Zen, by supporting the left, you also support this kind of behavior.



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjlBOnfXkAAm-v1?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2022, 07:19:43 PMDo you even understand my posts? I said gays were offered Civil Unions, same as marriage without the word marriage, but they rejected it outright.
Too damn bad, they screwed themselves, and now, you want the govt to trample the First Amendment because. Of feelings?

Now I want you to take a second and learn about the First. If you allow govt to destroy it, you can kiss all the others good bye, including your Right to the 5th and 4th, so you may want to read up on them as well.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Quote from: Solar on December 09, 2022, 07:19:43 PMDo you even understand my posts? I said gays were offered Civil Unions, same as marriage without the word marriage, but they rejected it outright.

You're saying atheists and gays can have their own designation, but it's still the same.  So, separate but equal? Where have I heard that before?

QuoteToo damn bad, they screwed themselves, and now, you want the govt to trample the First Amendment because. Of feelings?

Nope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.

QuoteNow I want you to take a second and learn about the First. If you allow govt to destroy it, you can kiss all the others good bye, including your Right to the 5th and 4th, so you may want to read up on them as well.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

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.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 06:28:49 AMYou're saying atheists and gays can have their own designation, but it's still the same.  So, separate but equal? Where have I heard that before?

Nope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.
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.

Again,, you are making crap up, stop it or start providing proof.
Genesis 2:24

QuoteBiblically speaking, God is the one who designed marriage as is recorded in Genesis chapters one and two.  Therefore, the earliest recorded instance of marriage is found in Genesis. Now, it might be possible that there are writings that mention marriage which predate the actual writing date of Genesis. But, Genesis purports to be a record of the earliest account of people since it describes the origin of our first ancient parents. Therefore, from that perspective, Genesis is the earliest recorded instance of marriage.

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

"Generally speaking, Genesis 2:24 is the basis for marriage since it speaks of a man and a woman being joined together and becoming one flesh. Of course, different cultures have different means by which this joining is officiated. But, marriage is considered a socially acceptable union between a man and a woman who publicly covenant to remain committed to and faithful to each other to the exclusion of others."


  Just for your understanding, again, marriage is a religious act to join a man and a woman. PERIOD. Why do you insist on changing the definition? Why are you pretending that a man can marry another man? THAT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT MARRIAGE IS. 

Stop pretending that it is the Christians who are trying to change the definition of marriage, it is liberals like yourself who are too damn lazy to look up the crap they are spreading. This has NOTHING to do with separate but equal, the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. PERIOD!

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 06:50:35 AMAgain,, you are making crap up, stop it or start providing proof.
Genesis 2:24
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

"Generally speaking, Genesis 2:24 is the basis for marriage since it speaks of a man and a woman being joined together and becoming one flesh. Of course, different cultures have different means by which this joining is officiated. But, marriage is considered a socially acceptable union between a man and a woman who publicly covenant to remain committed to and faithful to each other to the exclusion of others."


  Just for your understanding, again, marriage is a religious act to join a man and a woman. PERIOD. Why do you insist on changing the definition? Why are you pretending that a man can marry another man? THAT DOES NOT FIT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT MARRIAGE IS. 

Stop pretending that it is the Christians who are trying to change the definition of marriage, it is liberals like yourself who are too damn lazy to look up the crap they are spreading. This has NOTHING to do with separate but equal, the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. PERIOD!

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.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 07:03:00 AMThat 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.

Sorry, going to have to call you out, again. Here is what you posted,

Quotefreedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want.

So, you want the government out of it while not allowing Christians to abide by the definition of marriage.


You keep using the phrase "stuff that religious people want.", as if it is the Christians or rather EVERY OTHER RELIGION TOO, that wants to change the definition of marriage. WRONG! It is the leftist liberals like yourself that want/have to change the definition. You have to change it otherwise there can be no gay marriage.


 Post the proof that gays have always been allowed to marry, as you have posted as truth. Post the proof where it is the Christians who are trying to change to definition of marriage in order to stop gays from marrying. Your lying bull crap is getting to be too much.

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 08:58:04 AMSorry, going to have to call you out, again. Here is what you posted,

So, you want the government out of it while not allowing Christians to abide by the definition of marriage.


You keep using the phrase "stuff that religious people want.", as if it is the Christians or rather EVERY OTHER RELIGION TOO, that wants to change the definition of marriage. WRONG! It is the leftist liberals like yourself that want/have to change the definition. You have to change it otherwise there can be no gay marriage.


 Post the proof that gays have always been allowed to marry, as you have posted as truth. Post the proof where it is the Christians who are trying to change to definition of marriage in order to stop gays from marrying. Your lying bull crap is getting to be too much.

Proof, or retract.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 06:28:49 AMYou're saying atheists and gays can have their own designation, but it's still the same.  So, separate but equal? Where have I heard that before?

Probably in social studies, when they talked about the Constitution.
You know, "Equal Under The law".  Life is not fair, did they ever teach you that?

QuoteNope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.

And still you fail to understand, the govt has ZERO say in Religion!!
They are barred from even looking into religion in any form. That's why what Biteme proposes is unconstitutional!!!

QuoteHere'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".

You're a Goober! Marriage is a celebration that comes with its own special set of laws pertaining to inheritance etc.
It's all about family and procreation! You know, children created within wedlock, and a parents responsibility over said children. You know, things like keeping them safe from the govt, schools, pedophiles, etc.
The very thing you're supporting the govt in destroying!

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 07:03:00 AMThat 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.

GOVT IS Completely out of marriage, with the single exception of the IRS, which should never have been created in the first place!!!
Marriage license is a County registrar level issue!

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 06:28:49 AMYou're saying atheists and gays can have their own designation, but it's still the same.  So, separate but equal? Where have I heard that before?

Nope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.
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.

Ahhh so I was right! You are just an atheist who is triggered by the fact that freedom OF religion doesnt mean freedom FROM religion  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

You cant stand that we are a secular christian nation, always have been and always will be.

You can admit that atheism is a very bad and dangerous ideology, right? You can admit that athiests own all the deaths from the communism, which is founded on atheist ideology? Or do you deny these facts as well?

Ya know what's funny here?
Zen is actually learning what the Bill of Rights mean.
:bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 07:03:00 AMThat 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.

LOL except its no seperate but equal, its not seperate at all. We already proved to you that gays have always had the same marriage rights as straits, they just want MORE rights than everyone else. You are the one calling for the govt to intervene, you are the side that NEEDS the govt to enact your will.

So why do you lie and say that you are for equality?

Quote from: Solar on December 10, 2022, 09:49:35 AMYa know what's funny here?
Zen is actually learning what the Bill of Rights mean.
:bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl

He will stop on this soon enough. He knows hes losing on the facts and logic so he needs a deflection.

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 08:58:04 AMSorry, going to have to call you out, again. Here is what you posted,

So, you want the government out of it while not allowing Christians to abide by the definition of marriage.


You keep using the phrase "stuff that religious people want.", as if it is the Christians or rather EVERY OTHER RELIGION TOO, that wants to change the definition of marriage. WRONG! It is the leftist liberals like yourself that want/have to change the definition. You have to change it otherwise there can be no gay marriage.


 Post the proof that gays have always been allowed to marry, as you have posted as truth. Post the proof where it is the Christians who are trying to change to definition of marriage in order to stop gays from marrying. Your lying bull crap is getting to be too much.

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: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 09:58:50 AMI'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.

AGAIN, you are changing the definition of marriage. It was the government that allowed for gays to marry. It was the government that allowed people to marry outside the church. Now you are telling us how you feel and what you think it should be. Nobody cares what you think or feel.  Marriage is the union of a man and a women, it says so right in the bible when God created marriage. All you are doing is dancing around the goalposts and it is getting old.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 09:58:50 AMI'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.

Yet on the other hand you argue for govt interference? So you want the govt out, by using its power to change the law? :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

The idea behind a marriage and a county level certificate is record keeping, so generations to come can follow their DNA and to know more about their lineage.
Fags can do the same, they can register their union as well, but ask yourself, who in the future will care?

"Oh look, uncle jack was a fag"! No kids coming out of that train wreck. :puke  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

It ends there. But there's not one thing preventing them from recording their relationship. It's just that no one will ever give a shit.

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 10:32:30 AMAGAIN, you are changing the definition of marriage. It was the government that allowed for gays to marry. It was the government that allowed people to marry outside the church. Now you are telling us how you feel and what you think it should be. Nobody cares what you think or feel.  Marriage is the union of a man and a women, it says so right in the bible when God created marriage. All you are doing is dancing around the goalposts and it is getting old.

He came into this thinking Govt created marriage. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

See how much he is learning? :thumbsup:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 09:58:50 AMI'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: Sick Of Silence on December 10, 2022, 09:18:47 AMProof, or retract.

What do you mean? Proof of what?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 09:58:50 AMI'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.

"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."

I cannot disagree with this post. However, the left totally disregards this policy on government when the situation does not fit the leftists' agenda.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 09:58:50 AMI'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.

If the states gonna use the same word then it will of course mean the same thing.

So thats where you go wrong. Thinking the state part of marriage is supposed to be non religious. Where do you get that idea? The state only ever started recording marriages as a record of a religiously and legally binding ceremony. As in alot of places the law and religious principles overlap. Thats the not being free FROM religion part.

See the constitution leaves moral and religious questions to the states, as it should be. Did you know that the constitution actually allows for state churches? Thats right the states can legally have state run churches and some did at one point.

States very much can and should be involved with religious things. If the religions are all hating each other then each religion could have its own state. You could have a Muslim run state, on the state level. But in reality most religions get along just fine because many religious principles are rather universal. Even christian dominated states tend to live and let live on issues not harmful to the nation.

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.

If an individual state wants to do that, its free to do so. But most dont because that doesnt represent either their culture or good governance, and the feds dont even need to be part of this issue.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 10, 2022, 12:17:02 PMIf the states gonna use the same word then it will of course mean the same thing.

So thats where you go wrong. Thinking the state part of marriage is supposed to be non religious. Where do you get that idea? The state only ever started recording marriages as a record of a religiously and legally binding ceremony. As in alot of places the law and religious principles overlap. Thats the not being free FROM religion part.

See the constitution leaves moral and religious questions to the states, as it should be. Did you know that the constitution actually allows for state churches? Thats right the states can legally have state run churches and some did at one point.

States very much can and should be involved with religious things. If the religions are all hating each other then each religion could have its own state. You could have a Muslim run state, on the state level. But in reality most religions get along just fine because many religious principles are rather universal. Even christian dominated states tend to live and let live on issues not harmful to the nation.

If an individual state wants to do that, its free to do so. But most dont because that doesnt represent either their culture or good governance, and the feds dont even need to be part of this issue.

He is the result of schools not teaching American History, otherwise, he'd never have dived in headfirst into this subject.
He literally has no idea why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place. But I guarantee you, he's reading as fast as he can now. :lol:  :lol:

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 10, 2022, 12:09:25 PM"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."

I cannot disagree with this post. However, the left totally disregards this policy on government when the situation does not fit the leftists' agenda.

I'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

Quote from: Solar on December 10, 2022, 10:47:19 AMHe came into this thinking Govt created marriage. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

See how much he is learning? :thumbsup:

But look at how much we have aged teaching him.  :lol:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 12:51:52 PMI'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

Zen, this isn't hard to understand.

  The people who want the government involved in marriage are the very same ones who want religion to change the definition of marriage. The very same people who want to see religion just go away are the very same people who want the government involved in your marriage. These are the very same people who when they demand a special cake to be baked for them will call upon the government to force someone to bake it for them. These are the very same people who want the government involved in every aspect of your life, and who demand the government TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. These are the people who want the government to decide that you do not "need" a AR15. Do you get it yet? Stop acting like you do not know who these people are, I believe you are one of them.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 12:51:52 PMI'm not concerned with Left/Right.

Well theres your problem, you refuse to see the world for what it is, a fight of good vs evil.

QuoteI'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Yes its very odd that you want the govt to get involved by forcing a new definition onto everyone. Very odd indeed that you want MORE govt.

QuoteBasically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

Right, people with no principles will want to use it only for their side. But people of principle, like conservatives, are constituent and want the govt to always be small. Thats why conservatives take the position that requires LESS govt, the position of normalcy.

So odd that you would say you want less govt but then push for govt to step in on marriage....so odd....

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 02:32:58 PMZen, this isn't hard to understand.

  The people who want the government involved in marriage are the very same ones who want religion to change the definition of marriage. The very same people who want to see religion just go away are the very same people who want the government involved in your marriage. These are the very same people who when they demand a special cake to be baked for them will call upon the government to force someone to bake it for them. These are the very same people who want the government involved in every aspect of your life, and who demand the government TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE. These are the people who want the government to decide that you do not "need" a AR15. Do you get it yet? Stop acting like you do not know who these people are, I believe you are one of them.

Ya he says he wants less govt but then takes one position after another that requires big govt. Hypocrisy at its finest.

:lol: 

Quote from: Possum on December 10, 2022, 02:19:09 PMBut look at how much we have aged teaching him.  :lol:

:lol:  :lol:
Aw, but it's worth it. :biggrin:

Because he isn't the only one reading these, there are a whole lot of other people just now learning about why we have a Bill of Rights, and how important it is, not to fuck with it by starting a cascade effect of losing our country.

I think it's just starting to hit him, that the B of R was written to hinder govt, that these were actual barriers placed against govt.
Or the fact that, it was God that gave us these inalienable Rights, not the Govt.

For all those reading outside the forum, this may help.


God (Supreme Being). Above all govt!

Inalienable Rights...(Not subject to forfeiture)

GOVT. (By And For The People}

Quote from: ZenMode on December 10, 2022, 12:51:52 PMI'm not concerned with Left/Right.  I'm concerned with keeping private, private and public, public. The fact that people seem to want the government involved in the personal/private goings-on of religion is very odd.

Basically, people generally want the government involved IF they are acting in a way that aligns with their views, when the best idea is to keep government out of everything as much as we can.

At this point in time, you have to be!
One side wants to destroy the govt, including much of the GOP helping the left.
But on the Right, we have a Constitution that bars the left outright!

So either pick a side or you won't have any Rights left to bitch about!

Quote from: Solar on December 10, 2022, 04:32:26 PMAt this point in time, you have to be!
One side wants to destroy the govt, including much of the GOP helping the left.
But on the Right, we have a Constitution that bars the left outright!

So either pick a side or you won't have any Rights left to bitch about!

There's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 06:06:18 AMThere's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

there is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 06:06:18 AMThere's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Your emotions get in the way of critical thought, the ability to see consequence, to understand cause an effect, ever action, having a reaction.

This is the backbone of society, the adhering to a set of values handed down over millennial of tried and true challenges.
This is why culture adopted the Ten Commandments. You know, murder and all that shit?

Oh wait, while you're Hell bent on helping destroy religion, how about legalizing murderer? 
You should be fine with that, I mean WTF, you don't seem to have an issue with sexual deviants getting special rights, men in little girls bathrooms, schools giving out buttplugs, Right?

So let's see, since you can't seem to grasp the damage you'll inflict on a functioning society, let's do away with murder laws altogether, I mean it just isn't fair to sociopaths, we're discriminating if we place restrictions on them.
Fair is fair Lib!

Just think of how much fun we can have stalking you?

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 06:47:36 AMthere is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

Doesn't seem to make sense, does it? :biggrin:

He's playing a part, playing the tool for communist rule. They think if they can break us, we'll give in and give up.
He knows exactly what and why he advocates for sexual perversions, he knows it is the fabric that holds society together.
He's also a communist hiding behind the LIBertarian banner/party, which the Marxists took over nearly a decade ago.

Truth is, he is paid to distract us from the real damage being done by the NWO Communist movement, Musk and everyone exposing their corruption.
Hell, he may even be Chinese, considering he knows zero about our constitution and Founding Principles.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 06:06:18 AMThere's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Well, since you identify with communists, you just might understand this oine when he speaks about the US.


https://rumble.com/embed/v1xg1yy/?pub=17yzhh

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2022, 07:01:08 AMDoesn't seem to make sense, does it? :biggrin:

He's playing a part, playing the tool for communist rule. They think if they can break us, we'll give in and give up.
He knows exactly what and why he advocates for sexual perversions, he knows it is the fabric that holds society together.
He's also a communist hiding behind the LIBertarian banner/party, which the Marxists took over nearly a decade ago.

Truth is, he is paid to distract us from the real damage being done by the NWO Communist movement, Musk and everyone exposing their corruption.
Hell, he may even be Chinese, considering he knows zero about our constitution and Founding Principles.

:thumbup:  :thumbup:  He doesn't know it, but we're on to him. :thumbup:  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.

QuoteIt's absolutely his right to kick anyone out of his restaurant, for any reason.

QuoteI support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.

QuoteMarriage, as it relates to the state, isn't about gods, holy books, eternal damnation, etc. 

(I bet he knows by now marriage is a religious contract between a man and a woman.)

QuoteAllowing a racist business owner to deny a black person service isn't respectable or, to many, acceptable, but it's how things should be in a nation that respects private property rights and freedom to choose who you engage with

QuoteNope. I want the government to NOT discriminate based on religion, which they are required to do.]

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. 

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 07:38:13 AM:thumbup:  :thumbup:  He doesn't know it, but we're on to him. :thumbup:  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. 

The little commie is just now understanding he chose the wrong forum to challenge on our God Given Rights.
He tries to equate the law as somehow being racist, thing is, most intelligent people know skin color plays no part in a functioning society.
Which is why I call myself a "Culturalist", (Yes, I coined the term decades ago) someone who despises people who try and divide us over race.

Zen is worse than a racist, he's trying to circumvent our 'fellowship as a nation' by backing the communist attempt at devolving.
I got his number. My guess is he's a Chinese communist living in Canada, paid to post on Conservative websites.

It's safe to say, China is failing miserably on this front.

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2022, 07:37:25 AMWell, since you identify with communists, you just might understand this oine when he speaks about the US.


https://rumble.com/embed/v1xg1yy/?pub=17yzhh

Trying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?   :rolleyes:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 07:55:42 AMTrying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?   :rolleyes:

Your need to back a societal perversion make you a communist!

Quote from: Solar on December 12, 2022, 07:56:41 AMYour need to back a societal perversion make you a communist!

Ok.  Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 06:06:18 AMThere's nothing magical, legally speaking, about the word marriage that couldn't be covered by another term. This whole "separate but equal" approach ("you" get civil union/"we" get marriage) is something we should have moved past a long time ago. Also, how far do we take this Christian purity test stuf? Is it only Christians that get to be married, while Christian gays don't? What about straight atheists or straight Buddhists?

Get marriage out of politics and leave it to religion.

Why tho? Religion hasnt caused any problems by being in govt. There is only a very small group calling for gay marriage. Most gays dont even care about gay marriage. Having marriage be actual marriage as always defined hasnt caused any problems that need to be fixed. What benefit does gays getting married bring to the table to outweigh all the damages it does to society and the family?

I mean if its a proven fact that gays are happier not being gay but happier when healed then why are you trying to enable a bad dangerous behavior? Your freedom ends when it starts to harm others freedoms. You have the freedom to wave your arms around but not if you are hitting and assaulting people next to you. And again, freedom OF religion isnt freedom FROM religion.

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 06:47:36 AMthere is nothing magical about the definition of any word. All of them have a definition. AND there sure is nothing magical about leftist trying to change the definition to suit themselves. It was not the Christian church or any other religion that started this crap, this has been pointed out to you several times. This has been started by those who want the government to interfere in everyone's daily lives. Take the blinders off and see the truth.

Your question has been answered SEVERAL times in past posts. If you really want to know the answer, go back  and reread them. 

Exactly right! He doesnt like the answer but instead of debating it he just rewords his initial premise and repeats it again instead of advancing the conversation.  :lol:

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 07:38:13 AM:thumbup:  :thumbup:  He doesn't know it, but we're on to him. :thumbup:  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. 

Right again possum. The constitution protects religious freedoms. Nowhere does it protect sexual anarchy.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 07:55:42 AMTrying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?  :rolleyes:

You understand that the 1st amendment ALLOWS religion in govt right?

You get that the constitution itself literally denies you the specific equality you are looking for, dont you?

In fact the word equality isnt even in the constitution. :lol: 

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 07:55:42 AMTrying to keep religion out of government and believing a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer makes me a communist, now?  :rolleyes:

It damn sure does. This country was founded on keeping the government out of religion, you advocate the opposite, you want no religion in government. Afraid morals will hurt you???

This statement

Quotebelieving a business should be able to choose what services/products they offer

This is your attempt once again to twist what is being said. You have claimed you are for discrimination for any reason, that is not what a constitutional republic stands for. Remember these words, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? It is obvious you have no understanding as to their meaning. 


 

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 08:03:10 AMOk. Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Please show us where that is in the constitution...what part of the constitution trumps the freedom of religion?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 12, 2022, 08:09:56 AMExactly right! He doesnt like the answer but instead of debating it he just rewords his initial premise and repeats it again instead of advancing the conversation. :lol:

:thumbup:  :thumbup:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I can't believe how much ink we are using on this one's education.

Let's start writing in cursive and really confuse him.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 08:03:10 AMOk.  Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

Your wanting to give govt the ability to write laws effecting society IS what makes you a communist!

Quote from: ZenMode on December 12, 2022, 08:03:10 AMOk. Here's I thought that allowing people the freedom to live their private lives as they please was sort of "American". 

Do you support outlawing anal sex for all Americans, too, because your god sees it as perversion?

Sorry, 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.  

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.

Redefine 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?

Quote from: Possum on December 12, 2022, 07:38:13 AM:thumbup:  :thumbup:  He doesn't know it, but we're on to him. :thumbup:  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. :bigl

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...




(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjylHQrVQAA3rpu?format=jpg&name=medium)

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. 

But if religion give us the traditional boundaries for marriage, then in your new system how would you determine the boundaries?

QuoteThere'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.

But we dont want it only for religious people, we want it for everyone because its whats best for society. Not just best in fact, essential. So its something we want everyone to abide by. (Thru the state level, not the federal level.)

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on December 12, 2022, 09:27:03 AMOne 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.

:thumbup:  :thumbup: nailed it.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 12, 2022, 11:04:53 AMCan 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....

I'm beginning to think Solar had it right, he's not American.............Or very old............smart........honest.................

Quote from: T Hunt on December 12, 2022, 02:33:59 PMBut if religion give us the traditional boundaries for marriage, then in your new system how would you determine the boundaries?

Each church can determine their requirements. Lutherans can decide theirs. Methodists can have theirs. Mormons can decide theirs. That's how it is now. I'm just taking government completely out of the marriage/religious portion.

QuoteBut we dont want it only for religious people, we want it for everyone because its whats best for society. Not just best in fact, essential. So its something we want everyone to abide by. (Thru the state level, not the federal level.)

Now I'm confused. Marriage IS a religious term, going back thousands of years, but you want, for example, atheists and agnostics getting married?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 01:47:09 AMEach church can determine their requirements. Lutherans can decide theirs. Methodists can have theirs. Mormons can decide theirs. That's how it is now.

You seem to be limiting Faith to religion and denominations, why is that?
Can one not Faith and still believe in god in your world?

Oh wait, your world doesn't like God, it worships Satan, your leaders worship Satan, and that's why they expose themselves by pushing evil on the world.




(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fj2ut_aXEAEw3kZ?format=jpg&name=medium)

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 01:47:09 AMEach church can determine their requirements. Lutherans can decide theirs. Methodists can have theirs. Mormons can decide theirs. That's how it is now. I'm just taking government completely out of the marriage/religious portion.

So if you arent a member of a church then you cant get married? What if non religious want it? Or what about non denominational Christians like solar?

QuoteNow I'm confused. Marriage IS a religious term, going back thousands of years, but you want, for example, atheists and agnostics getting married?

Right. Exactly. Since it is a generic religious and socioeconomic concept and not specific to any one religion like Christianity it passes the freedom of religion test. 

Quote from: T Hunt on December 13, 2022, 06:51:48 AMSo if you arent a member of a church then you cant get married? What if non religious want it? Or what about non denominational Christians like solar?

Figure it out.  Many churches allow non-members to be married, they just charge more.  Every state allows non-pastors to be ordained to officiate weddings.  My brother's friend got ordained on the internet and officiated their wedding.

https://theamm.org/ordination-application

If there's enough demand for non-church members who want to do a "marriage", someone will supply the service

QuoteRight. Exactly. Since it is a generic religious and socioeconomic concept and not specific to any one religion like Christianity it passes the freedom of religion test. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 08:19:35 AMFigure it out.  Many churches allow non-members to be married, they just charge more.  Every state allows non-pastors to be ordained to officiate weddings.  My brother's friend got ordained on the internet and officiated their wedding.

https://theamm.org/ordination-application

If there's enough demand for non-church members who want to do a "marriage", someone will supply the service I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'll be damned if I can figure out why you are spending all this time playing make believe, how we can change the definition of marriage to make everyone happy. In all of these posts, did you ever learn what the definition of marriage is? I mean the actual definition not whatever it is that you are chasing. If you knew what the actual definition was, if we actually practiced what marriage really is, all of this would be irrelevant. Why would an atheist want to take a oath before God knowing they do not believe in God? Why would two men take a oath before God, knowing God would not recognize their union? Why are you looking for ways to make everything fit when from the beginning it was not made for that purpose? I know the answer, you do not recognize marriage for what it is, the union of a man and a woman BEFORE GOD.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 08:19:35 AM Figure it out.  Many churches allow non-members to be married, they just charge more.  Every state allows non-pastors to be ordained to officiate weddings.  My brother's friend got ordained on the internet and officiated their wedding.

https://theamm.org/ordination-application

If there's enough demand for non-church members who want to do a "marriage", someone will supply the service

Figure it out? Why should I figure this out? This is your idea so you explain how you want to implement it. You figure it out and tell us how you figured it. What boundaries will you set to stop people from marrying their cousins or from polygamy or bestiality?

QuoteI'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

QuoteNow I'm confused. Marriage IS a religious term, going back thousands of years, but you want, for example, atheists and agnostics getting married?

QuoteRight. Exactly. Since it is a generic religious and socioeconomic concept and not specific to any one religion like Christianity it passes the freedom of religion test.

I am agreeing with your question. Yes when atheists start a family they will have to use the religious institution of marriage.
Then Im saying that that is ok and allowed under the constitution since it passes the freedom of religion test as I explained.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 13, 2022, 10:38:04 AMFigure it out? Why should I figure this out? This is your idea so you explain how you want to implement it. You figure it out and tell us how you figured it.

I already gave several options.  Plus, there's no right to a religious ceremony (because if there was, the churches couldn't deny gay weddings, right?), so if you can't find a church to do a marriage for you because you aren't religious, then become religious or do what I did and fake it.

QuoteWhat boundaries will you set to stop people from marrying their cousins

Whatever stops that from happening now would still happen.

Quoteor from polygamy or bestiality?

I don't care if people want to be in a polygamous relationship.  Animals can't consent, obviously.

QuoteI am agreeing with your question. Yes when atheists start a family they will have to use the religious institution of marriage.
Then Im saying that that is ok and allowed under the constitution since it passes the freedom of religion test as I explained.

"I am agreeing with your question. Yes when atheists start a family they will have to use the religious institution of marriage."

Holy shit... well, that's not at all fascist.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 12:16:07 PMWhatever stops that from happening now would still happen.

Its illegal now, but it wouldnt be under what you are proposing. Thats why Im asking how you would deal with it.

QuoteI don't care if people want to be in a polygamous relationship.  Animals can't consent, obviously.

Ok so you are cool with polygamy.An animal is owned so its owner can consent for it. What in your proposed system would stop such a thing?

QuoteHoly shit... well, that's not at all fascist.

Are you saying that its not allowed by the constitution?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 13, 2022, 12:16:07 PMI already gave several options.  Plus, there's no right to a religious ceremony (because if there was, the churches couldn't deny gay weddings, right?), so if you can't find a church to do a marriage for you because you aren't religious, then become religious or do what I did and fake it.Whatever stops that from happening now would still happen.

 I don't care if people want to be in a polygamous relationship.

Did you just come out of the closet here? :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

But seriously, we have these laws for a reason. Which begs the question over age.
Women marrying toddlers, men marrying children they adopt at a young age?

Where do you draw the line?

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 04:58:38 AMDid you just come out of the closet here? :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

But seriously, we have these laws for a reason. Which begs the question over age.
Women marrying toddlers, men marrying children they adopt at a young age?

Where do you draw the line?

I used to be religious, but wasn't when I got married in a Methodist church.

We already have state laws dictating who can give consent to sex, marriage or enter into contracts. Polygamist sects of the Mormon church have been busted for pedophilia and doing religious ceremonies for underage kids in the past. Nothing would change because the state is still involved, as they always have, in the legal recognition of the union. It's just not called marriage.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 06:12:17 AMI used to be religious, but wasn't when I got married in a Methodist church.

We already have state laws dictating who can give consent to sex, marriage or enter into contracts. Polygamist sects of the Mormon church have been busted for pedophilia and doing religious ceremonies for underage kids in the past. Nothing would change because the state is still involved, as they always have, in the legal recognition of the union. It's just not called marriage.

Why are those laws OK, but this one needed federal intervention?

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 06:21:04 AMWhy are those laws OK, but this one needed federal intervention?

The law, I'm assuming, is to make it illegal for states to deiscriminate.  They should be able to say "These two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized, but these two consenting adults..well.. they can't because of God".   

Correction of above post:

The law, I'm assuming, is to make it illegal for states to discriminate.  They should not be able to say "These two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized, but these two consenting adults..well.. they can't because of God".   

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 07:19:01 AMCorrection of above post:

The law, I'm assuming, is to make it illegal for states to discriminate.  They should not be able to say "These two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized, but these two consenting adults..well.. they can't because of God". 

What is that old saying about assuming? 

QuoteThe "Respect for Marriage Act" does not force states to recognize same-sex marriage, but mandates the recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages across state lines. The federal government also has to give the same benefits, such as Social Security survivor benefits, to same-sex marriages.

Quotethey can't because of God"

If it was not for God there never would have been marriage.

 I have known slow learners, but this is a first for knowing can not learn.



https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/13/biden-signs-respect-marriage-act/

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 09:54:07 AMWhat is that old saying about assuming? 


 If it was not for God there never would have been marriage.

 I have known slow learners, but this is a first for knowing can not learn.



https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/13/biden-signs-respect-marriage-act/

Ok.  Still disallowing states from discriminating, just after the fact.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 07:04:43 AMThe law, I'm assuming, is to make it illegal for states to deiscriminate.  They should be able to say "These two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized, but these two consenting adults..well.. they can't because of God".   

Point is, where do you draw the line? Children and adults?
You're completely ignoring the fact that society dictates thousands of year of morality, which is why marriage is only between man and woman,  not woman and child, we have laws against that as well, and you're advocating we throw our society in the trash to appease a Marist plan at destroying our working society.
Why is that?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 06:12:17 AMI used to be religious, but wasn't when I got married in a Methodist church.

We already have state laws dictating who can give consent to sex, marriage or enter into contracts. Polygamist sects of the Mormon church have been busted for pedophilia and doing religious ceremonies for underage kids in the past. Nothing would change because the state is still involved, as they always have, in the legal recognition of the union. It's just not called marriage.

Right and the laws are against gay marriage. So you will have to do away with all the existing laws in order to allow gay marriage. So again what would you do to stop all of these under your system since you will have removed the restrictions in order to get gay marriage? Your system needs its own checks and balances, but how do you decide where to draw the line since you are throwing morality out? What are you replacing morality with in your system?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 07:19:01 AMCorrection of above post:

The law, I'm assuming, is to make it illegal for states to discriminate.

But thats exactly what you are doing, saying we need to discriminate against pedophiles, against cousin marriage, and against bestiality. Why are you discriminating against those things but only carving out an exception for yourself? Sounds hypocritical of you....

QuoteThey should not be able to say "These two consenting adults can have their relationship legally recognized, but these two consenting adults.. well.. they can't because of God".

But we dont. No one is saying that because of God. We are saying it due to facts, evidence, science, history and tradition. The fact that it aligns with religion is coincidental and simply shows how much religion gets right. 

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 09:54:07 AMWhat is that old saying about assuming? 


 If it was not for God there never would have been marriage.

 I have known slow learners, but this is a first for knowing can not learn.



https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/13/biden-signs-respect-marriage-act/

Ya that law isnt gonna last long  :lol: it will be quickly overturned by the next GOP congress if not shot down by the supreme court as unconstitutional before that. The constitution is very clear about moral questions being left to the states so this will be treated just like RvW.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 10:43:38 AMOk.  Still disallowing states from discriminating, just after the fact.

Like you are doing in your system by not allowing bestiality, pedophilia or cousin marriage. You have yet to give a valid reason for why you draw your arbitrary line where you do....

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 10:43:38 AMOk.  Still disallowing states from discriminating, just after the fact.

You still have not answered why you want to change the definition of marriage. For thousands of years there was no problem. People understood what marriage was.

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 02:10:31 PMYou still have not answered why you want to change the definition of marriage. For thousands of years there was no problem. People understood what marriage was.

Right, is he saying that society was wrong all those years? Is he saying that gays have been oppressed for millennia yet now suddenly we have evolved to be beyond that?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

The left has a wierd view of history, if they look at it at all.

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 02:10:31 PMYou still have not answered why you want to change the definition of marriage. For thousands of years there was no problem. People understood what marriage was.

I don't. I want to let religion define it however they want.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 02:59:40 PMI don't. I want to let religion define it however they want.

Which itself is a redefinition of it. You have yet to explain why the change tho?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 02:59:40 PMI don't. I want to let religion define it however they want.

And yet you have been given that definition many times. So, why was the definition, given from God in Genesis not good enough for you?

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 03:13:01 PMAnd yet you have been given that definition many times. So, why was the definition, given from God in Genesis not good enough for you?

Again  I don't care what churches do. If every church got together and said "We are not going to do one more gay marriage ceremony" I don't care. That is completely separate from the state legally recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 12:07:54 PMLike you are doing in your system by not allowing bestiality, pedophilia or cousin marriage. You have yet to give a valid reason for why you draw your arbitrary line where you do....

Animals can't consent to marriage or sex.

Children can't either.

There are genetic reproductive issues if cousins or closer procreate.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:16:01 PMAgain  I don't care what churches do. If every church got together and said "We are not going to do one more gay marriage ceremony" I don't care. That is completely separate from the state legally recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement.

So again, why wont you explain why the need for the state to redefine marriage by removing it?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:20:03 PMAnimals can't consent to marriage or sex.

So their owners can consent for them so moot point.

QuoteChildren can't either.

But why are you discriminating against those who cant give consent?

Quotehere are genetic reproductive issues if cousins or closer procreate.

Yes health problems, just like with gays and trans. So again, why are you CHOOSING to discriminate against cousins? Dont they have the equal rights to gays?

(https://i.postimg.cc/h4HF8BKQ/3e94d3709cb6ca5d.png)

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:16:01 PMAgain  I don't care what churches do. If every church got together and said "We are not going to do one more gay marriage ceremony" I don't care. That is completely separate from the state legally recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement.

And THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. Government is not recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement, they are using the word marriage. Have you not been paying attention? You are the one who is living in some little world that does not see the reality of what is going on. How could you, YOU CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS. So either you don't care what your government does or what institutions it tramples on, or you want to see religion go away. Take the damn blinders off and see what is going on.

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 03:31:47 PMAnd THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. Government is not recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement, they are using the word marriage. Have you not been paying attention? You are the one who is living in some little world that does not see the reality of what is going on. How could you, YOU CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS. So either you don't care what your government does or what institutions it tramples on, or you want to see religion go away. Take the damn blinders off and see what is going on.

He doesnt realize that history shows us that when you remove religion from govt you always end up with communism or fascism. Every. Single. Time.

Quote from: Possum on December 14, 2022, 03:31:47 PMAnd THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. Government is not recognizing two people agreeing to enter into a legally binding agreement, they are using the word marriage. Have you not been paying attention? You are the one who is living in some little world that does not see the reality of what is going on. How could you, YOU CAN NOT EVEN SAY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS. So either you don't care what your government does or what institutions it tramples on, or you want to see religion go away. Take the damn blinders off and see what is going on.

Which is why I have said, pretty sure my first post, that I want to get government out of marriage. That way everyone is happy.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:39:17 PMWhich is why I have said, pretty sure my first post, that I want to get government out of marriage. That way everyone is happy.

But they wont be happy from redefining marriage. In fact that will make most people mad and only a very very small amount happy.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 03:35:12 PMHe doesnt realize that history shows us that when you remove religion from govt you always end up with communism or fascism. Every. Single. Time.

And I believe he is fine with that.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 03:41:22 PMBut they wont be happy from redefining marriage. In fact that will make most people mad and only a very very small amount happy.

Well, if the government gets out or marriage, "they" will have no choice. It's already been ruled that Christians can't be forced to do transgender surgeries, so there's absolutely no reason to believe they've forced to perform religious ceremonies.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:39:17 PMWhich is why I have said, pretty sure my first post, that I want to get government out of marriage. That way everyone is happy.

And just how are you going to tell all the radicals, all the gays, all the lesbians, who have rioted and marched and burned down buildings and interrupted countless meetings that they can no longer get married LIKE THEIR GOVERNMENT HAS PROMISED THEY COULD? I asked you before, WHAT WORLD DO YOU LIVE IN?  One of make believe? One of pretend? I was raised on a farm, I still live on one, I know bull shit when I see it and b.s. is all you write. there has only been one comment you have posted that said what you believe, "freedom is allowing consenting adults to form a legal bond with whoever they want, not who Christians want." In other words, you want Christians out of the decision making. All of the rest of this nonsense you have been posting is plain and simple B.S.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:52:18 PMWell, if the government gets out or marriage, "they" will have no choice. It's already been ruled that Christians can't be forced to do transgender surgeries, so there's absolutely no reason to believe they've forced to perform religious ceremonies.

I think you misread what I wrote.
Your proposal would only make a small fringe happy while most american would be against it. Gays make up a very small percentage and not even all them want 'gay marriage', so your proposal would only be of benefit to less than 1% of society while doing damage to the other 99%.

Again I ask tho, under your proposal why do you discriminate against pedophiles and cousins, etc?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 04:48:33 PMI think you misread what I wrote.
Your proposal would only make a small fringe happy while most american would be against it. Gays make up a very small percentage and not even all them want 'gay marriage', so your proposal would only be of benefit to less than 1% of society while doing damage to the other 99%.

Again I ask tho, under your proposal why do you discriminate against pedophiles and cousins, etc?

I don't much care about feelings. Religious people would be happy because they get to have their straight wedding ceremonies, gays would be happy because they get to have their relationship legally acknowledged.

What's the issue?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 05:19:16 PMI don't much care about feelings. Religious people would be happy because they get to have their straight wedding ceremonies, gays would be happy because they get to have their relationship legally acknowledged.

What's the issue?

The issue is gays CAN ALREADY GET MARRIED IN ALL STATES. You are trying to come up with a way where they could not get married but could get a civil union or some other damn name and blame it on the Christians. Your bull sh-t is way too easy to see through. You are fooling NOBODY here! If you are not living in a Marxist country, move to one, they hate Christians as much as you do. Just be sure to duck when you start talking all this B.S., shots will be coming.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 05:19:16 PMI don't much care about feelings. Religious people would be happy because they get to have their straight wedding ceremonies, gays would be happy because they get to have their relationship legally acknowledged.

What's the issue?

Because you just redefined marriage for the Christians.

Legally acknowledged=redefining marriage for Christians. Since you took marriage out of the legal system. Thus equating civil unions and actual marriage.

We are all part of the same legal system. If the system is forced to acknowledge it, then all the Christians who are part of that same legal system are forced to acknowledge it as well, thus redefining it for the Christians, which is unconstitutional.



And you still havent explained why you are discriminating against pedophiles and cousins. Why do they not deserve equal rights to gays and trans?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:20:03 PMAnimals can't consent to marriage or sex.

Children can't either.

There are genetic reproductive issues if cousins or closer procreate.

Based on your reasoning, they should be able to.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 14, 2022, 03:39:17 PMWhich is why I have said, pretty sure my first post, that I want to get government out of marriage. That way everyone is happy.

No, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Solar, I know you love nature. Have you ever considered dumping Toy and marrying the mountains? Under Zens way you could :thumbsup:

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

Technically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

I could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

 

Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2022, 08:19:54 PMNo, you want Govt to walk all over the First Amendment, and in doing so, literally opens anyone marrying anything they want, as long as they can find a church to go along with it.
And yes, the left has one, the church of Satan!

I want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:49:09 AMTechnically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

I could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

So in this post you prove the point that the bill of Rights was Right all along.
The only thing stopping these freaks is morality and the people.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Yet in this post, you want the courts involved, so they can write law deconvolving the courts?

What Part Of Govt Being Forbidden In Even Entertaining The Idea Of Hearing A Case, DO YOU NOT GET?

Quote from: T Hunt on December 14, 2022, 10:51:30 PMSolar, I know you love nature. Have you ever considered dumping Toy and marrying the mountains? Under Zens way you could :thumbsup:

Better yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law... :biggrin:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

Sorry, that horse has already left the barn. You have been arguing for a situation that is totally irrelevant to your feelings and to what you think. Here, read this,

QuoteStates cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

Want to read that again?

QuoteStates cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

You stated what your intent was in a couple of posts, and it had noting to do with allowing the church to set the definition of marriage, quite the opposite. So cut the crap and answer Solar's and THunt's question, where do you plan on a line being drawn.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:36:09 AMBetter yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law... :biggrin:

Thanks Sweetie!  :wub:

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:28:52 AMSo in this post you prove the point that the bill of Rights was Right all along.

I don't know which aspect of the bill of rights you're saying was right all along.

QuoteThe only thing stopping these freaks is morality and the people.

That's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok, women shouldn't vote, it was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls, blacks shouldn't count as a whole person and specific sex acts should be outlawed. In Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.  The evolution of morality has been dramatic.

QuoteYet in this post, you want the courts involved, so they can write law deconvolving the courts?

What Part Of Govt Being Forbidden In Even Entertaining The Idea Of Hearing A Case, DO YOU NOT GET?

Not sure what you're saying here.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 06:25:33 AMI don't know which aspect of the bill of rights you're saying was right all along.

ALL OF IT!!!

QuoteThat's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok, women shouldn't vote, it was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls, blacks shouldn't count as a whole person and specific sex acts should be outlawed. In Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.  The evolution of morality has been dramatic.Not sure what you're saying here.

All of which was covered in the Constitution, if you had ever bothered to read it.
Now answer my question:
Where do you draw the line on your slippery slope equation?
Once you defile the First, then anything goes, there will be no moral argument for law of any sort!

Murder will be up for discussion as well. but you don't care or even consider the repercussions, because you "FEEL" you are somehow taking the moral high ground.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:49:09 AMTechnically yes, but isn't this whole scenario about limiting marriage to one man and one woman?  No legitimate church would do that kind of marriage and it wouldn't be legally recognized in any state. It would be meaningless.

The church of Satan would. Satanism would do anything. But here in America thank God Satanism doesnt have equal rights to actual religion.

QuoteI could get ordained to do weddings, today, in about 30 minutes and marry my dog to his brother and there's absolutely nothing stopping me.

But no one cares cuz its not legal. The govt isnt forcing anyone to recognize such a marriage. But that would be bestiality. Why are you discriminating against bestiality?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 04:58:26 AMI want to completely get government out of weddings, so churches can only do weddings that align with their beliefs. That's maximizing religious/1st Amendment rights.

No, thats not allowed under the 1st Amendment because legally recognizing strait civil unions as equal with gay civil unions redefines marriage for christians. Unconstitutional. Biology matters.

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 09:05:47 AMALL OF IT!!!

All of which was covered in the Constitution, if you had ever bothered to read it.
Now answer my question:
Where do you draw the line on your slippery slope equation?
Once you defile the First, then anything goes, there will be no moral argument for law of any sort!

Murder will be up for discussion as well. but you don't care or even consider the repercussions, because you "FEEL" you are somehow taking the moral high ground.

I would draw the line where it's always been drawn - consent.  The obsession with genitals, when you're talking about basically a social contract, is odd.  If two women went into business together, the state sets certain parameters for how they operate and what happens if the business dissolves. There's nothing more to a legally recognized relationship in the eyes of the state and their shouldn't be.  It's transactional.  Only to the religious is there this deeper meaning and question of morality if you don't follow your god's rules for marriage.

Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2022, 05:36:09 AMBetter yet, I'll marry all the animals in the forest and keep Toy as well.
We'll call it Zen's law... :biggrin:

Does that include that scared

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 06:25:33 AMThat's true in any society.  In some societies religion plays a larger role than in others as far as determining what's moral.  In the US, society has convinced themselves that a lot of things were ok at one point in time.  Society once believed that slavery was ok,

Wrong. American society never thought slavery was ok. The founders were open about being against it from the beginning. You are spreading misinformation. The only ones who thought it was ok were the progressive democrats, and the GOP trounced them. 

Quoteit was ok to marry and impregnate 13 year old girls,

Medically it is ok, what are you talking about? Black 12 year olds routinely have sex and get pregnant in the inner cities. Guess you just dont want them to be married for security beforehand. How mean of you.

The only reason the age was raised is due to the lack of maturity among teenagers for a few generations.

Quoteblacks shouldn't count as a whole person

Again, that was just the democrats, not most of America.

Quoteand specific sex acts should be outlawed.

Specific sex acts are STILL not allowed. Bestiality comes to mind. So are cousins. Both of which you inexplicably discriminate against....

QuoteIn Biblical times, it was once seen as ok to stone a woman to death or murder her for not being a virgin on her wedding night.

Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence. As recently as the 80s there were laws allowing a cheating husband to kill his wife and lover if found in bed together. Even afterwards husbands that do still only get like a year or two at most. So yes, society still agrees with the bible overall.

QuoteThe evolution of morality has been dramatic.

Actually there hasnt been any evolution in morality. As I just proved morality has been objective and the same since ancient biblical times. The bible always has the moral high ground.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 10:15:04 AMI would draw the line where it's always been drawn - consent.

Thats not the line. Adultery between consenting adults is still illegal. Even if minors consent they still arent allowed. Why are you discriminating against minors and adultery? 

QuoteThe obsession with genitals, when you're talking about basically a social contract, is odd.

We arent tho. We are talking about marriage and families. 

QuoteIf two women went into business together, the state sets certain parameters for how they operate and what happens if the business dissolves. There's nothing more to a legally recognized relationship in the eyes of the state and their shouldn't be.

Yes there is. You are forgetting about the FAMILY unit. Gays cannot form a family unit. You are not only redefining marriage for christians, you are also redefining the FAMILY unit.

If you allow gays and trans to get married or civil unions then you must also allow them to form families. And that is a dark dangerous hole to go down, according to history.

QuoteIt's transactional.

See, its actually sacred but you want to redefine it as transactional. 

QuoteOnly to the religious is there this deeper meaning and question of morality if you don't follow your god's rules for marriage.

So only to 99.999999999999999% of people.  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: ok

You know, if customers would have just quietly asked for pink cake with blue frosting, most people wouldn't have cared about it. They would have just thought it was a weird cake. It's just food coloring and cake is only as good as how their made.

But, no. People just want to continuously push sexuality on the public. Nobody cares if you take it in the ass. Keep your personal life to yourself. That's why it is personal.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 15, 2022, 10:20:06 AMDoes that include that scared Wrong. American society never thought slavery was ok. The founders were open about being against it from the beginning. You are spreading misinformation. The only ones who thought it was ok were the progressive democrats, and the GOP trounced them.  Medically it is ok, what are you talking about? Black 12 year olds routinely have sex and get pregnant in the inner cities. Guess you just dont want them to be married for security beforehand. How mean of you.

The only reason the age was raised is due to the lack of maturity among teenagers for a few generations. Again, that was just the democrats, not most of America. Specific sex acts are STILL not allowed. Bestiality comes to mind. So are cousins. Both of which you inexplicably discriminate against....Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence. As recently as the 80s there were laws allowing a cheating husband to kill his wife and lover if found in bed together. Even afterwards husbands that do still only get like a year or two at most. So yes, society still agrees with the bible overall. Actually there hasnt been any evolution in morality. As I just proved morality has been objective and the same since ancient biblical times. The bible always has the moral high ground.

"Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence."

Lol....

Quote from: T Hunt on December 15, 2022, 09:47:44 AMNo, thats not allowed under the 1st Amendment because legally recognizing strait civil unions as equal with gay civil unions redefines marriage for christians. Unconstitutional. Biology matters.

How? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 10:54:54 AM"Actually society still believes that adultery should be a death sentence."

Lol....

Well considering that it was only recently illegal and those who do only get a year in jail it would seem I am proven correct, unless you have some counter evidence....

QuoteHow? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

I already explained.
If the govt legally recognizes kids marrying stuffed animals then I also have to recognize that since I am part of govt as all of us are.
We all vote and are all part of the same legal system with the same legal definitions.
Changing the definition for one person changes it for everyone.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 09, 2022, 09:26:51 AMNope, I don't want anyone forced to do anything.  I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason.  However, I think personal beliefs, politics etc should be kept out of business.  Part of being an adult in the business world, is being able to deal with difficult situations and difficult people professionally.  Again, there's no magical ingredients in a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  There is literally NOTHING preventing a Christian baker from making the cake except feelings.  Hence the "grow up".

He's not "grown up" if he doesn't want to engage in gay porn, like drawing penises on a cake?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 10:54:54 AMLol.... How? If the government lost its mind and started letting kids marry stuffed animals, how would that redefine marriage for you?

It wouldn't.  They wouldn't be marriages, like two pillow-biters getting married.  Commies may call it marriage, but it's not real marriage.

They shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either.  It's just not natural.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 15, 2022, 11:11:00 AMWell considering that it was only recently illegal and those who do only get a year in jail it would seem I am proven correct, unless you have some counter evidence....
I already explained.

There are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.

QuoteIf the govt legally recognizes kids marrying stuffed animals then I also have to recognize that since I am part of govt as all of us are.
We all vote and are all part of the same legal system with the same legal definitions.
Changing the definition for one person changes it for everyone.

What does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 11:42:54 AMThere are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.  What does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

With these new "libertarians", sodomy is a hill they'll die protecting.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 11:42:54 AMThere are several states with ridiculous laws in the books. I believe some states still technically have anal sex as illegal, even though it never should have been illegal and was only ever illegal because of the Christian god.

Actually it anal sex does have some dangers associated with it. But im sure that law was due to gays.

Besides, whats unconstitutional about something being illegal because of God? We only make murder illegal due to religious influence. Atheistic countries end up allowing murders. Or what about rape? That also is only illegal due to religion.

 

QuoteWhat does that mean to say you have to "recognize" it and what would happen if you didn't recognize it?

I think you mean for Christians to recognize it. I mean that in the same way you say for the state to recognize it.

Think about the example of Kim Davis. There is a very real world example of someone being forced to recognize a different definition of marriage.

Since the government is made up mostly of Christians, the government has to define marriage as Christians do or risk violating their 1st amendment rights.

And thats just one example. If marriage was redefined by the govt it would unconstitutionally force Christians to recognize that redefinition across the legal spectrum. Say a gay couple was suing me. It would be unconstitutional to force me to recognize their civil union as part of a family unit.

So you can see why gay marriage will soon go the way of abortion. Its constitutionality was always suspect.

Quote from: taxed on December 15, 2022, 01:18:21 PMWith these new "libertarians", sodomy is a hill they'll die protecting.

or maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 15, 2022, 01:32:32 PMActually it anal sex does have some dangers associated with it. But im sure that law was due to gays.

Besides, whats unconstitutional about something being illegal because of God? We only make murder illegal due to religious influence. Atheistic countries end up allowing murders. Or what about rape? That also is only illegal due to religion.

 I think you mean for Christians to recognize it. I mean that in the same way you say for the state to recognize it.

Think about the example of Kim Davis. There is a very real world example of someone being forced to recognize a different definition of marriage.

Since the government is made up mostly of Christians, the government has to define marriage as Christians do or risk violating their 1st amendment rights.

And thats just one example. If marriage was redefined by the govt it would unconstitutionally force Christians to recognize that redefinition across the legal spectrum. Say a gay couple was suing me. It would be unconstitutional to force me to recognize their civil union as part of a family unit.

So you can see why gay marriage will soon go the way of abortion. Its constitutionality was always suspect.

The the idea that freedom of religion means that you get to define legal relationship for the entire country is as un-American as saying that freedom of speech means that you get to force everyone to only say things that don't offend you.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 02:31:22 PMor maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

Its not very libertarian of you to want to use the power of government to redefine marriage for everyone. In fact thats rather statist.

QuoteIt's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

Wrong.

Quoteor maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion
It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for it to be constitutional.

Corrected.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 15, 2022, 02:49:45 PMIts not very libertarian of you to want to use the power of government to redefine marriage for everyone. In fact thats rather statist.

Wrong.
Corrected.

You want to use the Constitution to force everyone to meet the Christian standards of marriage in order to have their relationship legally recognize. If I recall correctly, you also want to force anyone that wants to start a family to meet the requirements of Christian marriage. Your train of thought is disturbing to say the least.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 02:31:22 PMor maybe just freedom is the hill to die on.  Freedom used to be important. Now we have a decent portion of the left and a decent portion of the right who is very content to take away freedoms whenever they can justify it.

It's not enough to give churches absolute freedom to define marriage as they want. The church view of marriage has to be applied to every definition of legal relationship for them to be happy.

Who on the right is trying to take away any rights? It was not the right that wanted to change the definition of marriage, it was the left. It was not the right that wanted to take God out of the marriage, again, it was the left. Your whole damn problem is you want to blame Christians for the damn mess marriage has become. We are not the ones with any problem with the historic definition of marriage, you are, Can you get it thru your head marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman? Where in the sam hell do you get the idea that the church has any power to define marriage on ANYBODY? That horse has left the barn. Do you not get it, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Go back and reread it, your whole damn argument is obsolete. Stop crying like a little kid on how the church is unamerican and not be nice and are trying to destroy the constitution, you are damn lying! It was the damn left who started this crap in the first place, ADMIT IT! Stop looking for someone to blame, it's people like you.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 02:55:32 PMYou want to use the Constitution to force everyone to meet the Christian standards of marriage in order to have their relationship legally recognize. If I recall correctly, you also want to force anyone that wants to start a family to meet the requirements of Christian marriage. Your train of thought is disturbing to say the least.

DAMN YOU DO NOT LEARN DO YOU? The definition of marriage existed long before there was a constitution, long before there was a Europe, long before there were any countries, the definition of marriage goes back to Genesis 2:24 and is mentioned through out the bible. The standard of marriage has ALWAYS been the same until the left decided gays should also be allowed to marry. Prove me wrong!

Quote from: Possum on December 15, 2022, 03:24:56 PMWho on the right is trying to take away any rights? It was not the right that wanted to change the definition of marriage, it was the left. It was not the right that wanted to take God out of the marriage, again, it was the left. Your whole damn problem is you want to blame Christians for the damn mess marriage has become. We are not the ones with any problem with the historic definition of marriage, you are, Can you get it thru your head marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman? Where in the sam hell do you get the idea that the church has any power to define marriage on ANYBODY? That horse has left the barn. Do you not get it, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Go back and reread it, your whole damn argument is obsolete. Stop crying like a little kid on how the church is unamerican and not be nice and are trying to destroy the constitution, you are damn lying! It was the damn left who started this crap in the first place, ADMIT IT! Stop looking for someone to blame, it's people like you.

Quote from: Possum on December 15, 2022, 03:32:26 PMDAMN YOU DO NOT LEARN DO YOU? The definition of marriage existed long before there was a constitution, long before there was a Europe, long before there were any countries, the definition of marriage goes back to Genesis 2:24 and is mentioned through out the bible. The standard of marriage has ALWAYS been the same until the left decided gays should also be allowed to marry. Prove me wrong!

It's not only the Left.  There are plenty on the right who support equality for gay couples.  As recently as 200-300 years ago, the view of "voter" was only white, male land owners. That has changed also and its a good thing. America, at least for most people, has a spirit of equality for all people, though you, T Hunt, etc clearly do not. 

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 06:59:04 AMIt's not only the Left.  There are plenty on the right who support equality for gay couples.  As recently as 200-300 years ago, the view of "voter" was only white, male land owners. That has changed also and its a good thing. America, at least for most people, has a spirit of equality for all people, though you, T Hunt, etc clearly do not. 

If it wasn't for strawmen and moving the goalposts you really would have nothing to say. God gave us the definition for marriage, it was the left that felt they had a duty to over ride it. Your whole argument has been summed up in a couple of posts where you slipped by how you really think, Christians are to blame and they need to be kept quite. All the rest that you post has been B.S.

Quote from: Possum on December 16, 2022, 07:06:24 AMIf it wasn't for strawmen and moving the goalposts you really would have nothing to say. God gave us the definition for marriage, it was the left that felt they had a duty to over ride it. Your whole argument has been summed up in a couple of posts where you slipped by how you really think, Christians are to blame and they need to be kept quite. All the rest that you post has been B.S.

The government has a responsibility to equality and non-discrimination, not to doing the work of your, or any, god. 

Yes, it has been primarily Christians, on the Left and Right, who have fought to deny equality to gays. Remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act allowing states to not recognize other state's same sex marriages.  Remember Obama saying he opposed same sex marriage "as a Christian" during his 2008 campaign speech?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 15, 2022, 02:55:32 PMYou want to use the Constitution to force everyone to meet the Christian standards of marriage in order to have their relationship legally recognize. If I recall correctly, you also want to force anyone that wants to start a family to meet the requirements of Christian marriage. Your train of thought is disturbing to say the least.

But you agree that its NOT unconstitutional. Thank you. Your feelings are irrelevant. Grow up.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 06:59:04 AMIt's not only the Left.  There are plenty on the right who support equality for gay couples.  As recently as 200-300 years ago, the view of "voter" was only white, male land owners. That has changed also and its a good thing. America, at least for most people, has a spirit of equality for all people, though you, T Hunt, etc clearly do not. 

But you are forgetting that gays have the exact same right to have normal marriage and normal family as everyone else. Its already equal, its always been equal. You are the one that wants to give special treatment to one small group. Yours is the position of inequality, while ours is equal.

Quote from: Possum on December 16, 2022, 07:06:24 AMIf it wasn't for strawmen and moving the goalposts you really would have nothing to say. God gave us the definition for marriage, it was the left that felt they had a duty to over ride it. Your whole argument has been summed up in a couple of posts where you slipped by how you really think, Christians are to blame and they need to be kept quite. All the rest that you post has been B.S.

Right, when you boil this down he is just an atheist who blames all of societies ills on Christians. He doenst come from a place of logic but of emotion. He hates religion and western culture.

He doesnt recognize that atheism as an ideology has killed far people more than Christianity ever did.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 07:22:37 AMThe government has a responsibility to equality and non-discrimination, not to doing the work of your, or any, god.

Can you show me where equality and non discrimination are in the constitution? 

QuoteYes, it has been primarily Christians, on the Left and Right, who have fought to deny equality to gays.

You already have equal access to normal marriage, just like everyone. Dont lie and say gays dont have equality.

And you still havent answered, why do you discriminate against pedophiles and cousins marrying? You dont seem to want equality for them, hypocrite.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 07:45:53 AMBut you agree that its NOT unconstitutional. Thank you. Your feelings are irrelevant. Grow up.

U.S. Constitution
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 07:48:14 AMBut you are forgetting that gays have the exact same right to have normal marriage and normal family as everyone else. Its already equal, its always been equal. You are the one that wants to give special treatment to one small group. Yours is the position of inequality, while ours is equal.

"But you are forgetting that gays have the exact same right to have normal marriage and normal family as everyone else."

lol....

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 07:52:58 AMCan you show me where equality and non discrimination are in the constitution?

U.S. Constitution
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

QuoteYou already have equal access to normal marriage, just like everyone. Dont lie and say gays dont have equality.

again... lol.

QuoteAnd you still havent answered, why do you discriminate against pedophiles and cousins marrying? You dont seem to want equality for them, hypocrite.

I actually have discussed both.  Society has determined that children/minors aren't able to consent to sex, marriage (with a few exceptions) or enter into legal contracts and has, therefore, made it illegal.  There are genetic risks with cousins and closer having kids.  You have the same issue with dog breeders when the mother/father are too close.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 08:29:18 AMU.S. Constitution
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

No not someone opinion of it, I am asking where IN THE CONTITUION are the words EQUALITY or DISCRIMINATION. In the constitution anywhere???

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 08:31:22 AM"But you are forgetting that gays have the exact same right to have normal marriage and normal family as everyone else."

lol....

Ah so no counter? Cool, thanks for agreeing. Gays already have equal access to normal marriage under the law so your entire proposal is moot. Equality achieved.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 08:41:58 AMI actually have discussed both.  Society has determined that children/minors aren't able to consent to sex, marriage (with a few exceptions) or enter into legal contracts and has, therefore, made it illegal.

But why are YOU making it illegal. How are YOU separating it from being gay or trans? Why are you discriminating against them? Why arent you allowing the children to consent? Thats discrimination, even if there is a reason. Thats just what you accuse us of doing to gays hypocrite.

QuoteThere are genetic risks with cousins and closer having kids.  You have the same issue with dog breeders when the mother/father are too close.

So if the risk of physical harm is the standard then being gay and trans would also be illegal under your standard. Thank you.

I'm moving this to conspiracy since it's pretty much a distraction from important issue taking place in the world.
This subject has already been settled, the left just wants it as a distraction from all the damage they're doing to the Nation, so it's a moot point!

Time to move on...

Make that the Nuthouse, more fitting for sexual deviates.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 07:22:37 AMThe government has a responsibility to equality and non-discrimination, not to doing the work of your, or any, god. 

Yes, it has been primarily Christians, on the Left and Right, who have fought to deny equality to gays. Remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act allowing states to not recognize other state's same sex marriages.  Remember Obama saying he opposed same sex marriage "as a Christian" during his 2008 campaign speech?

Denying equality is banning gays from restaurants, from businesses, something WHICH YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES IS THE RIGHT OF THE BUSINESS OWNER, which proves you approve of denying equality. What you are trying to say is denying equality is when the definition says a man and a woman and we don't change it to allow two men. That is not denying equality. Is it denying equality when you tell a man he can not swim on the woman's swimming team? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth all while trying to blame the right and Christians for a problem the left liberals in the country created. Leaving a definition as it states is not denying equality.

Quote from: Possum on December 16, 2022, 09:34:26 AMDenying equality is banning gays from restaurants, from businesses, something WHICH YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES IS THE RIGHT OF THE BUSINESS OWNER, which proves you approve of denying equality. What you are trying to say is denying equality is when the definition says a man and a woman and we don't change it to allow two men. That is not denying equality. Is it denying equality when you tell a man he can not swim on the woman's swimming team? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth all while trying to blame the right and Christians for a problem the left liberals in the country created. Leaving a definition as it states is not denying equality.

Hes totally cool with discrimination, so long as he gets to decide who is discriminated against.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 08:47:59 AMNo not someone opinion of it, I am asking where IN THE CONTITUION are the words EQUALITY or DISCRIMINATION. In the constitution anywhere???

It's in the Constitution as 'Equal Protection'.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:18:30 AMIt's in the Constitution as 'Equal Protection'.

Where is that in the constitution? Why wont you quote the constitution directly?

Quote from: Possum on December 16, 2022, 09:34:26 AMDenying equality is banning gays from restaurants, from businesses, something WHICH YOU HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES IS THE RIGHT OF THE BUSINESS OWNER, which proves you approve of denying equality.  What you are trying to say is denying equality is when the definition says a man and a woman and we don't change it to allow two men. That is not denying equality. Is it denying equality when you tell a man he can not swim on the woman's swimming team? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth all while trying to blame the right and Christians for a problem the left liberals in the country created. Leaving a definition as it states is not denying equality.

I'm distinguishing between public (government) and private.  The government shouldn't be able to force you to let someone into your private home.  The same is true for a private business.  Government doesn't have the same luxury.  It can't deny you a driver's license because you're female or Chinese.  It can't deny you a legally recognized relationship because you're fat, Jewish or old.  It also should not be permitted to deny you marriage because you and your partner are the same sex.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 10:22:29 AMWhere is that in the constitution? Why wont you quote the constitution directly?

Because it won't matter.  You'll only move the goalposts or escalate the hyperbole.  You see exactly what you want to see.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:23:16 AMI'm distinguishing between public (government) and private. It can't deny you a legally recognized relationship because you're fat, Jewish or old.

You mean a normal marriage. Right no one is denied the right to normal marriage for any reason, except maybe those in jail. I think even vegetables on life support can get married, tho I would have to check into that to be sure.

You seem to be trying to create something from nothing and then give a very small group a special privilege no one else gets.

QuoteIt also should not be permitted to deny you marriage because you and your partner are the same sex.

They are each permitted to have a normal marriage with someone else just like everyone else is. Just like cousins are. Or siblings. Or a father and his daughter. No one is denying anything to anyone. Equality achieved.

You on the other hand seem to be discriminating against pedophiles and incest, without a moral reason to do so...

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:24:11 AMBecause it won't matter.  You'll only move the goalposts or escalate the hyperbole.  You see exactly what you want to see.

Youre projecting yourself onto me again as a means of deflection.

But thanks for pointing out that the words EQUALITY and DISCRIMINATION are not in the constitution.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 10:30:39 AMYou mean a normal marriage. Right no one is denied the right to normal marriage for any reason, except maybe those in jail. I think even vegetables on life support can get married, tho I would have to check into that to be sure.

You seem to be trying to create something from nothing and then give a very small group a special privilege no one else gets.

Nothing is being created.  States have been legally recognizing relationships for years.... as the Christian god views them.  Luckily, there are enough Christians (my wife for example) who recognize that it's not ok to deny gays the same recognition any more than it would be ok to deny a gay a drivers license or a gay couple from buying a home together, register a car together, etc.

QuoteThey are each permitted to have a normal marriage with someone else just like everyone else is. Just like cousins are. Or siblings. Or a father and his daughter. No one is denying anything to anyone. Equality achieved.

Again, that's not how America is supposed to work.  Equal protection, like free speech, doesn't have to subscribe to the Christian opinion of normal.  We don't have to agree with what someone says, but we should all agree that their right to say it is protected.  Gays have the same right to equal protection for a legally recognized relationship by the government.

QuoteYou on the other hand seem to be discriminating against pedophiles and incest, without a moral reason to do so...

No right is absolute.

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 10:31:34 AMYoure projecting yourself onto me again as a means of deflection.

But thanks for pointing out that the words EQUALITY and DISCRIMINATION are not in the constitution.

Great.  Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

In the end, this comes down to one thing.  Christians, and probably Muslims, want to make their beliefs everyone's beliefs.  They aren't, as has already been demonstrated here, content to literally own marriage.  They want to use government to force their view of marriage on everyone.

Pretty twisted view of what it means to be American.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:42:49 AMGreat.  Where is "marriage" in the Constitution?

Its not, its in state constitutions where the federal constitution puts all moral issues.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:42:12 AMNothing is being created.  States have been legally recognizing relationships for years.... as the Christian god views them.  Luckily, there are enough Christians (my wife for example) who recognize that it's not ok to deny gays the same recognition any more than it would be ok to deny a gay a drivers license or a gay couple from buying a home together, register a car together, etc.

But we arent denying anything to gays. They can get the same kind of marriage license we all can get. They just cant force a redefinition of words and make a special privilege that only applies to them.
They already have equality so whats the problem here?

QuoteAgain, that's not how America is supposed to work.  Equal protection, like free speech, doesn't have to subscribe to the Christian opinion of normal.

You mean the traditional opinion held by all major civilizations and religions for all of human history?

QuoteWe don't have to agree with what someone says, but we should all agree that their right to say it is protected.  Gays have the same right to equal protection for a legally recognized relationship by the government.

Gays do have the same right to a legally recognized traditional marriage already. What are you asking for?

QuoteNo right is absolute.

Oh, so youre ok with discrimination then. How libertarian of you.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:23:16 AMI'm distinguishing between public (government) and private.  The government shouldn't be able to force you to let someone into your private home.  The same is true for a private business.  Government doesn't have the same luxury.  It can't deny you a driver's license because you're female or Chinese.  It can't deny you a legally recognized relationship because you're fat, Jewish or old.  It also should not be permitted to deny you marriage because you and your partner are the same sex.

You sure make a habit of being wrong. The government AND THE COURTS, have said a business owner can not discriminate due to age, color, sexual. If you are in the business of selling cakes you must sell to everyone. That is the law! However, no one can make you do anything against your beliefs. So if you are a black owner selling cakes, NO ONE can force you to make a cake with KKK on the top of it.
What you are claiming, again, is that by NOT CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, CHRISTIANS ARE DISCRIMINATING. FALSE. PERIOD. Put it this way, if you are allowed to change the definition of marriage, what else can you change about religious beliefs? Do you see yourself as entitled to rewrite the 10 commandments also? You have a habit of misquoting the constitution, do you not see that where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means that the government can not rewrite the laws of the church?

When a man is told he can not be on the woman's soccer team, that is not discrimination, that is following the rules. You do not know the difference.

 

Quote from: T Hunt on December 16, 2022, 09:56:43 AMHes totally cool with discrimination, so long as he gets to decide who is discriminated against.

That has been his whole argument. He's let it slip in a couple of posts, but basically he wants to see the laws, commandments, and the rules of the church changed to what suits him. Discrimination he has no problem with.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 16, 2022, 10:42:12 AMNo right is absolute.

Actually the ones listed in the bill of Rights are "Absolute", they are granted and guaranteed by God.
But now that T hunt brought it up and you denied it, why don't you show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

We really do want you to explain how a sexual perversion is given special privilege under our God given Rights societal contract.

Now don't take too long, we all want to see once and for all, you, prove your case, because to be honest, your little experiment in distraction is wearing out quickly.

Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2022, 05:24:34 AMActually the ones listed in the bill of Rights are "Absolute", they are granted and guaranteed by God.

And yet there are plenty of laws, necessarily so, limiting free speech.

QuoteBut now that T hunt brought it up and you denied it, why don't you show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

We really do want you to explain how a sexual perversion is given special privilege under our God given Rights societal contract.

Now don't take too long, we all want to see once and for all, you, prove your case, because to be honest, your little experiment in distraction is wearing out quickly.

It was already clarified earlier.  The constitution requires equal protection by the government. For almost entire existence of our country, interracial marriages were illegal. It takes awhile, but eventually society gets it right, as is the case with same sex marriage or, as is actually, not forcing all Americans to operate under the rules of the Christian god.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 17, 2022, 06:58:12 AMAnd yet there are plenty of laws, necessarily so, limiting free speech.  It was already clarified earlier.  The constitution requires equal protection by the government. For almost entire existence of our country, interracial marriages were illegal. It takes awhile, but eventually society gets it right, as is the case with same sex marriage or, as is actually, not forcing all Americans to operate under the rules of the Christian god.

NOPE!
There is soooo much wrong in what you just stated, and if you were to actually read the Constitution, you'd know that it is not Govts place to enforce law.
Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad, a Commie from another country trying to tell us what our Constitution doesn't say. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2022, 07:03:47 AMNOPE!
There is soooo much wrong in what you just stated, and if you were to actually read the Constitution, you'd know that it is not Govts place to enforce law.
Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad, a Commie from another country trying to tell us what our Constitution doesn't say. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Special right?  The government can't discriminate. It's been ruled on by the courts.  The government can't have separate rules for blacks and whites. Women and men. Old and young. It's to prevent what happened with Kim Davis from actually becoming standard practice. There are plenty of racist towns in the deep south that would probably love to keep blacks from voting.

I will also add this, you guys don't just want to differentiate marriage from civil union, you also want to define marriage not only for Christian churches, but all churches in the United States and use government as your enforcer.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 17, 2022, 07:41:42 AMI will also add this, you guys don't just want to differentiate marriage from civil union, you also want to define marriage not only for Christian churches, but all churches in the United States and use government as your enforcer.

You have got to be the slowest learner that has ever been on this forum. (that's not a compliment) There has been only one definition for marriage since recorded history began. This one definition lasted thousands of years, never had any government interference, never had a problem. Marriage was between a man and a woman. Period. Then the perverts came out of the closet and also wanted to be married, but they did not fit the definition, SO GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE DEFINITION. Do you get it now? Look at it this way, a boy wants to play on the girls team, the coach does not let him because he is a boy. Did the coach discriminate against the boy or just enforce the rules? Your way, the coach discriminated against the boy so you want to bend the rules to allow the boy to play on the girls team. So why even have a girls team if the rules mean nothing.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 17, 2022, 07:08:13 AMSpecial right?  The government can't discriminate. It's been ruled on by the courts.  The government can't have separate rules for blacks and whites. Women and men. Old and young. It's to prevent what happened with Kim Davis from actually becoming standard practice. There are plenty of racist towns in the deep south that would probably love to keep blacks from voting.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 17, 2022, 07:08:13 AMSpecial right?  The government can't discriminate. It's been ruled on by the courts.  The government can't have separate rules for blacks and whites. Women and men. Old and young. It's to prevent what happened with Kim Davis from actually becoming standard practice. There are plenty of racist towns in the deep south that would probably love to keep blacks from voting.

Blah blah blah... Goal post is cemented in the ground.

Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

Quote from: Solar on December 17, 2022, 03:47:17 PMBlah blah blah... Goal post is cemented in the ground.

Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

There's nothing special. The government can't discriminate.

Why do you believe that one portion of Christians, who happen to agree, get to define marriage for the entire country?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 18, 2022, 01:08:04 PMThere's nothing special. The government can't discriminate.

Why do you believe that one portion of Christians, who happen to agree, get to define marriage for the entire country?

You have got to be the slowest learner that has ever been on this forum. (that's not a compliment) There has been only one definition for marriage since recorded history began. This one definition lasted thousands of years, never had any government interference, never had a problem. Marriage was between a man and a woman. Period. Then the perverts came out of the closet and also wanted to be married, but they did not fit the definition, SO GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE DEFINITION. Do you get it now? Look at it this way, a boy wants to play on the girls team, the coach does not let him because he is a boy. Did the coach discriminate against the boy or just enforce the rules? Your way, the coach discriminated against the boy so you want to bend the rules to allow the boy to play on the girls team. So why even have a girls team if the rules mean nothing.



All kidding aside, your usefulness is coming to a rapid close. Your B.S. is piling up and we are almost out of bags. If you want a little advise, I would answer Solar's question.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 18, 2022, 01:08:04 PMThere's nothing special. The government can't discriminate.

Why do you believe that one portion of Christians, who happen to agree, get to define marriage for the entire country?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 18, 2022, 01:08:04 PMThere's nothing special. The government can't discriminate.

Why do you believe that one portion of Christians, who happen to agree, get to define marriage for the entire country?

Nope. you need to show us in the Constitution where it say special groups get to dictate their wants on the people.
I won't ask this much longer!

Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2022, 07:25:02 PMNope. you need to show us in the Constitution where it say special groups get to dictate their wants on the people.
I won't ask this much longer!

Now get off your ass and show us how this special right you claim exists, is listed in the Constitution.

"you need to show us in the Constitution where it say special groups get to dictate their wants on the people."
You mean like a portion of one religious group that wants to define marriage for every person in the country?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 18, 2022, 07:48:44 PM"you need to show us in the Constitution where it say special groups get to dictate their wants on the people."
You mean like a portion of one religious group that wants to define marriage for every person in the country?

No, the part where it states Equal Under The Law!

Not fuckin special under the law, it means Society as a whole is equal, and no one gets special treatment, no matter how long they hold their breath and stomp their feet!.

So when you find the "Special" clause that allows Govt to dictate willy nilly, you be sure and post it so you we change our Constitution.

Quote from: Solar on December 18, 2022, 08:03:33 PMNo, the part where it states Equal Under The Law!

Not fuckin special under the law, it means Society as a whole is equal, and no one gets special treatment, no matter how long they hold their breath and stomp their feet!.

So when you find the "Special" clause that allows Govt to dictate willy nilly, you be sure and post it so you we change our Constitution.

Section 1 Due Process of Law
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

Quote from: ZenMode on December 18, 2022, 09:56:37 PMSection 1 Due Process of Law
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/

:bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl

Like taking popcorn from a baby. :popcorn:

What you fail to understand, is that restricts govt from creating laws that usurp the rights of the citizenry.

Govt Cannot deprive them the right of marrying, THE OPPOSITE FUCKING SEX YOU MORON!!!

Like I said, there's a reason we don't create special laws for the mentally deprived. we're NOT a democracy of Mob rule, we're a Republic, of and Under The law. This keeps mob rule in check...

The sooner you grasp that concept, the sooner you'll realize why our bill of Rights is soooo damned important and why these protections were granted by God, and not the govt!

To be fair, if we're going to destroy the fabric of life via destroying Society, then I want to get rid of the 4Th Amendment, I want the govt to be allowed to search and seize anything the majority deems harmful to you or the public, from your home. After all, it's for the betterment of society, if you can't injure anyone, isn't it?

Quote from: Solar on December 19, 2022, 04:21:51 AM:bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl  :bigl

Like taking popcorn from a baby. :popcorn:

What you fail to understand, is that restricts govt from creating laws that usurp the rights of the citizenry.

Govt Cannot deprive them the right of marrying, THE OPPOSITE FUCKING SEX YOU MORON!!!

Like I said, there's a reason we don't create special laws for the mentally deprived. we're NOT a democracy of Mob rule, we're a Republic, of and Under The law. This keeps mob rule in check...

The sooner you grasp that concept, the sooner you'll realize why our bill of Rights is soooo damned important and why these protections were granted by God, and not the govt!

To be fair, if we're going to destroy the fabric of life via destroying Society, then I want to get rid of the 4Th Amendment, I want the govt to be allowed to search and seize anything the majority deems harmful to you or the public, from your home. After all, it's for the betterment of society, if you can't injure anyone, isn't it?

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means laws can't be applied differently. The government can't apply laws differently to Jews than Christians or whites to blacks.

Why do you believe that some Christians, a minority at this point,  get to define marriage for the all religions and all people in the entire country?

Quote from: ZenMode on December 19, 2022, 05:53:13 AM"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means laws can't be applied differently. The government can't apply laws differently to Jews than Christians or whites to blacks.

Why do you believe that some Christians, a minority at this point,  get to define marriage for the all religions and all people in the entire country?

Why don't you address what I wrote instead of running with this nonsensical circle jerk?
Are you getting paid per post for keeping this alive?

You lost the argument in the very beginning, move on, you're wasting the forums time.

Quote from: Solar on December 19, 2022, 05:57:33 AMWhy don't you address what I wrote instead of running with this nonsensical circle jerk?
Are you getting paid per post for keeping this alive?

You lost the argument in the very beginning, move on, you're wasting the forums time.

I figured this was rhetorical.

"After all, it's for the betterment of society, if you can't injure anyone, isn't it?"

I don't see how two girls having their relationship legally recognized by the state injures anyone.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 19, 2022, 05:53:13 AM"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means laws can't be applied differently. The government can't apply laws differently to Jews than Christians or whites to blacks.

Why do you believe that some Christians, a minority at this point,  get to define marriage for the all religions and all people in the entire country?

But just a few posts back you were all in favor of getting the government out of marriage and letting the church marry who they wanted? Do you have any idea of what you are arguing about?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Quote from: Possum on December 19, 2022, 06:09:58 AMBut just a few posts back you were all in favor of getting the government out of marriage and letting the church marry who they wanted? Do you have any idea of what you are arguing about?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I still am 100% in favor of that, but that idea has been shutdown because a minority of Christians believe they should be able to force their definition of marriage on everyone, and use the government as its enforcer.

Quote from: ZenMode on December 19, 2022, 06:13:13 AMI still am 100% in favor of that, but that idea has been shutdown because a minority of Christians believe they should be able to force their definition of marriage on everyone, and use the government as its enforcer.

And where is that taking place? Is there a state where two girls can not as you said "two girls having their relationship legally recognized by the state"? Are you having a debate with others on this forum, or with yourself? You keep saying the church changed the definition of marriage, I have supplied you with the church's definition sent by God that goes all they way back to the beginning of Genesis. If the church changed the definition, show what the first definition was.

[/quote]

Quote from: Possum on December 19, 2022, 06:09:58 AMBut just a few posts back you were all in favor of getting the government out of marriage and letting the church marry who they wanted? Do you have any idea of what you are arguing about?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

He's stuck in his own little circle jerk.
I think it's time to shut this nonsense down. What do You think?

Quote from: Possum on December 19, 2022, 06:25:21 AMAnd where is that taking place? Is there a state where two girls can not as you said "two girls having their relationship legally recognized by the state"? Are you having a debate with others on this forum, or with yourself? You keep saying the church changed the definition of marriage, I have supplied you with the church's definition sent by God that goes all they way back to the beginning of Genesis. If the church changed the definition, show what the first definition was.

I'm not saying it's taking place anywhere. We are discussing how we want would like it to be.

I would like to remove government from the religious institution of marriage and give it entirely to churches to define along with the power to deny, if they choose.

You, Solar and T Hunt apparently want a minority of Christians to define marriage for all Americans and force Americans to meet your criteria for marriage before being able to be legally married.

It's clear that we are not going to agree, so there's no reason to continue beating this dead horse.

Quote from: Solar on December 19, 2022, 07:23:27 AMHe's stuck in his own little circle jerk.
I think it's time to shut this nonsense down. What do You think?

I think it should be handled the same way the roadrunner handled the coyote.
                              KABLOOEY

Too bad. The forum needs different view points, but this guy argues against himself.  :lol:

Quote from: Possum on December 19, 2022, 12:32:40 PMI think it should be handled the same way the roadrunner handled the coyote.
                              KABLOOEY

Too bad. The forum needs different view points, but this guy argues against himself.  :lol:

Done!