Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[PratchettFan]

So, to answer honestly, what you are saying is there is a conflict of rights between people who want to get married and people who provide services to weddings.

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

 

[PostmodernProph]

so the objection isn't that someone is gay....the objection is to the chosen behavior in the form of a wedding ceremony......(and actually having a limp is not a behavior, it may be the natural consequence of having a prosthesis).....

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

no....society defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman......that is why gays had to take to the courts to get the definition changed.......

No, it doesn't. Society defines it as a legal contract. That is why society put it under the control of the state, established by state law and controlled by the courts. You may define it any way you like, but you are not society.

actually society of five years ago before gay activists began hammering at the definition did in fact define marriage as the relationship between men and women.....now you may deny that if you wish....it make you look foolish but I have never been opposed to that........you are right, I am not society.....society is society and always has been......and we both know that society has always understood marriage to be between men and women......

 

[PostmodernProph]

no....what I am saying is that it isn't legitimate to say gay marriage doesn't impact any one else when it obviously impacts other people.......

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

well we have come a long way so far....we have progressed from you pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on others to you not only admitting that approving gay marriage does that, but going on record that you don't give a fuck that we don't like it........thank you for your honesty......its refreshing........

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. Let us say there is a significant impact. So what?

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

well we have come a long way so far....we have progressed from you pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on others to you not only admitting that approving gay marriage does that, but going on record that you don't give a fuck that we don't like it........thank you for your honesty......its refreshing........

Oh, I wasn't pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on another. That was definitely wrong and I am glad it is changing. But it is true I don't give a fuck if the people who were doing the imposing don't like that they won't be able to do it any more. Now if only the people who were doing the imposing stop pretending they are being imposed upon for not being allowed to continue to impose, then we might have some progress.

 

[PratchettFan]

Marriage is the natural consequence of sexual attraction.

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

no....society defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman......that is why gays had to take to the courts to get the definition changed.......

No, it doesn't. Society defines it as a legal contract. That is why society put it under the control of the state, established by state law and controlled by the courts. You may define it any way you like, but you are not society.

actually society of five years ago before gay activists began hammering at the definition did in fact define marriage as the relationship between men and women.....now you may deny that if you wish....it make you look foolish but I have never been opposed to that........you are right, I am not society.....society is society and always has been......and we both know that society has always understood marriage to be between men and women......

No. The law defined it as such. A lot of laws still do. If society defined it as anything but a legal contract, what the law did or did not define would not matter. This is why changing the law is all it takes to change the situation.

The Catholic church has a whole process for annulment. If a Catholic gets divorced and that is not sanctioned by the church, he is still considered married. If he gets married again, that marriage is not recognized. You could say the Catholic society does not recognize the marriage. But the law does and he is entitled to every benefit of marriage any other married person is entitled to. This is because our society defines marriage in terms of the law.

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else. Individuals may see it as something more, other organizations may as well. But for our society, it is about the law and it goes no further than that.

 

[PostmodernProph]

obviously then we no longer have to listen to some idiot whine that it had no impact on anyone except the gay couple.......

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

well we have come a long way so far....we have progressed from you pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on others to you not only admitting that approving gay marriage does that, but going on record that you don't give a fuck that we don't like it........thank you for your honesty......its refreshing........

Oh, I wasn't pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on another. That was definitely wrong and I am glad it is changing. But it is true I don't give a fuck if the people who were doing the imposing don't like that they won't be able to do it any more. Now if only the people who were doing the imposing stop pretending they are being imposed upon for not being allowed to continue to impose, then we might have some progress.

sorry but you just lost the argument.....you can't simultaneously say that we are pretending we are being imposed on and say that you don't give a fuck, because now its your turn to have your beliefs imposed on someone else........

 

[PostmodernProph]

not between a man and a man.......if that were a natural consequence society wouldn't have defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman........

Society defines marriage as a legal contract. A legal contract is a natural consequence?

Homosexuality is natural. If marriage is a natural consequence of sexual attraction for heterosexuals, it is for homosexuals.

no....society defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman......that is why gays had to take to the courts to get the definition changed.......

No, it doesn't. Society defines it as a legal contract. That is why society put it under the control of the state, established by state law and controlled by the courts. You may define it any way you like, but you are not society.

actually society of five years ago before gay activists began hammering at the definition did in fact define marriage as the relationship between men and women.....now you may deny that if you wish....it make you look foolish but I have never been opposed to that........you are right, I am not society.....society is society and always has been......and we both know that society has always understood marriage to be between men and women......

No. The law defined it as such. .

so what....are you going to pretend that law just magically sprang up DESPITE what society believed?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

 

[danielpalos]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

 

[PratchettFan]

You don't have to listen now. The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society. Allowing it does not. It might, at most, impact a very small group of individuals who might have to make a choice on a purely personal level. But that is not due to the marriage but rather PA laws already in place. If you have a problem with PA laws, then address the PA laws.

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

well we have come a long way so far....we have progressed from you pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on others to you not only admitting that approving gay marriage does that, but going on record that you don't give a fuck that we don't like it........thank you for your honesty......its refreshing........

Oh, I wasn't pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on another. That was definitely wrong and I am glad it is changing. But it is true I don't give a fuck if the people who were doing the imposing don't like that they won't be able to do it any more. Now if only the people who were doing the imposing stop pretending they are being imposed upon for not being allowed to continue to impose, then we might have some progress.

sorry but you just lost the argument.....you can't simultaneously say that we are pretending we are being imposed on and say that you don't give a fuck, because now its your turn to have your beliefs imposed on someone else........

I'm not in an argument. I am in a discussion and expressing my point of view. That view is if a bully is beating on someone, if that person hits back the bully can't claim they were assaulted. Or at least they can't expect me to take their claim seriously. You are free to have your own point of view. I don't require your agreement with mine.

 

[PratchettFan]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

 

[PratchettFan]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

I'm not afraid to discuss it, I just don't give it any credence. It used to be an African American was property, under the law. The law changed. The law on SSM is changing. The point is that it is law that defined it, not society. If the law defines it differently, then it is different.

 

[danielpalos]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

There must be, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction an expressly declared, legal fact.

 

[PratchettFan]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

There is no such thing as a natural right.

There must be, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction an expressly declared, legal fact.

A state constitution can declare the power of elves, but that does not create elves. If the law says you do not have a right, you do not have it no matter how natural you might claim it to be. Your rights exist only because the law says they do and only to the extent the law says they do.

 

[danielpalos]

My version is better than your paraphrase.

 

[PratchettFan]

My version is better than your paraphrase.

I'm sure you prefer it.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

Uh huh. You have natural rights because the law says you do. If you buy into that, then I'm glad you are easily made happy.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

Uh huh. You have natural rights because the law says you do. If you buy into that, then I'm glad you are easily made happy.

Our Bill of Rights exists.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

Uh huh. You have natural rights because the law says you do. If you buy into that, then I'm glad you are easily made happy.

Our Bill of Rights exists.

Yes. It is called the law. It isn't "natural".