Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[Skylar]

Not true, Marky. Learn Islam...

Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.

Marky

No, Marky obviously has not. The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

Of course you're right. I mean, its why

Really?

So if your faith tells you to stone an adulterer to death- and you are not allowed by law to do so- then you aren't free to practice your religion and that First Amendment mean nothing?

Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?

YES.

If it causes harm to others.

Now, can we move on?

Mark

You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.

The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.

But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.

No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.

Mark

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

So all civil law is insubordinate to Islam......as long as it doesn't explicitly hurt anyone.

If your religion forbids you from paying taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

Are you drunk?

Or do you really have no fucking idea what the word you use mean?

 

[Skylar]

Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?

Mark

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Well, you can't tell the difference?

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we don't use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

 

[80zephyr]

Marky has. That is why Marky made the statement.

Marky

No, Marky obviously has not. The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

Of course you're right. I mean, its why

Why is it that when the question of religion comes up that people insist on using stupid examples. Should religion be regulated?

YES.

If it causes harm to others.

Now, can we move on?

Mark

You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.

The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.

But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.

No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.

Mark

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

No, Marky obviously has not. The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

Of course you're right. I mean, its why

You don't get it- it is not religion that is regulated- it is the behavior of human beings.

The Bible can say that adulterers should be stoned to death- and the First Amendment says that you still have the right to read the Bible- and even believe what it says.

But your behavior is regulated by law- you can't stone someone to death and claim that is your right under the First Amendment.

No more than if you are a business in Oregon and you want to deny service to a mixed race or a gay couple.

Christians have to follow the law like everyone else.

If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.

Mark

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?

 

[80zephyr]

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Well, you can't tell the difference?

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Of course you're right. I mean, its why
If the law is in direct conflict of religion, then it is illegal as per the Constitution. Its like saying you have the right to own firearms, and yet by law, no one can own them.

Mark

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?

I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.

Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?

Mark

 

[Skylar]

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Well, you can't tell the difference?

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Which one of those two gay men are going to sit the little baby girl (was she born out of one of their anuses?) down when she's a preteen and discuss with her all the nuances of menstruation? .

Wow- you are describing the exact situation of every single dad out there. I guess every daughter being raised by a single dad is being abused by your 'logic'

And exactly what biology book is teaching you that babies come out of anuses?

Or anyone who has ever adopted a girl. Remember, Sil's made up the 'nuances of her unique genetic line' argument.

By sil's own standards......adoptive parents can never marry.

What truly makes a good parent is knowing the nuanced menstruation cycle history of the women in the adopted child's previous family.

I talk to my mother on the phone every day, and I do not know the history of her menstruation cycle. I guess I better call her. lol

Your mother at least provided you with the hope of knowing these cycles. lol.

We need more poll options:

I was raised by a mother and father but they never discussed the period cycles of Nanny Mary.

The only reason my daughter knows about my history is because of that one road rage incident.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage has never been about children...

Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?

Mark

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

 

[Skylar]

Fascinating.......there's our christian sharia believer, right there.

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?

I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.

You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.

We call that a 'backpedal'.

Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?

Mark

Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

 

[80zephyr]

Well, you can't tell the difference?

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Isn't it amazing that, since its not about children, that this has never come up before?

Mark

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If by practicing your religion you hurt no one, then yes, you can bet your ass it is unconstitutional.

Mark

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?

I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.

You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.

We call that a 'backpedal'.

Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?

Mark

Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

I am not accustomed to writing a book when making a point. Anyone who seriously believes that a person who calls for freedom of religion would also include murder, might not be worth the time debating.

Hmm. Would it harm society if I didn't pay my taxes?

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your grasp of history is zero, Marky: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

 

[Skylar]

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never.

You did, however, say that definitions do not change. Exactly as I said you did (bold added for emphasis);

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

And as the dictionary and the changing legal definitions of the US code demonstrate elegantly, definitions do change.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why when would I ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words....and instead believe you? Or ignore the law on the meanig of the law? Or the Supreme Courts on the meaning of the constitution?

Remember, you can't even accurately cite *yourself*. Why then would any rational person accept you as an infallible arbiter of, well....anything?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never.

You did, however, say that definitions do not change. Exactly as I said you did (bold added for emphasis);

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

And as the dictionary and the changing legal definitions of the US code demonstrate elegantly, definitions do change.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why when would I ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words....and instead believe you? Or ignore the law on the meanig of the law? Or the Supreme Courts on the meaning of the constitution?

Remember, you can't even accurately cite *yourself*. Why then would any rational person accept you as an infallible arbiter of, well....anything?

Poor Marky can't see to figure out what he's saying about anything. Maybe he needs a time-out?

 

[80zephyr]

We are talking modern times here, Cosmo. The world also has an extensive history(even more so than homosexuality) of pederasty and pedophilia.


You're not suggesting...

Mark

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Ah...moving the goal posts. Of course if you are hurting no one, you are free to practice your religion....who has said otherwise?

I never moved the goalposts. I simply responded to the "crazies" that harm can be controlled legally. Who has said otherwise? Anyone ho says the baker has to bake a cake.

Mark

You've certainly added enormous caveats that weren't in your argument before.

And you never did answer my questions: Is all of US law subordinate and subservient to Islam......unless someone is explicitly hurt?

And if your religion mandates that you don't pay taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay taxes?

I've added caveats as the debate unfolded, just like everyone else here. I would not have responded to the "harm" argument unless it was raised.

You started with any restriction to the practice of religion being a violation of the constition....and have winnowed that down to a litany of exceptions, caveats and excuses for why you didn't actually mean 'any'.

We call that a 'backpedal'.

Based on my belief, you should be able to answer those questions yourself. If I don't pay taxes, will it cause harm?

Mark

Why don't you tell me what you believe about paying taxes if you don't believe you should have to rather than asking me to guess.

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have to.

I am not accustomed to writing a book when making a point. Anyone who seriously believes that a person who calls for freedom of religion would also include murder, might not be worth the time debating.

Hmm. Would it harm society if I didn't pay my taxes?

Mark

And yet rather than answering my question, you're on post number 2 giving me excuses why you won't.

You're stalling. If your argument had merit, you could answer clearly and openly:

If your religion forbids you from paying taxes, does that mean you don't have to pay them?

Third times a charm?