Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".

Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.

I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.

I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?

I think that anyone announcing that they hope police get killed are sick degenerate bastards.

 

[Syriusly]

Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.

I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.

I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?

Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal. And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.



And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.

More idiocy from Keyes

 

[Conservative65]

Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.

I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.

I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?

Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal. And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.



And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.

That's why Liberals will say a certain term in itself is racist yet justify how the race claiming it's a racist term using it isn't racist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

LOTS of people have argued that it was okay. What rock have you been hiding under?

If they were rioting that are, at the very least, implying it's OK.

Or caught up in the moment. I've done plenty of shit that I later realized was wrong.

The difference is you realized it was wrong. They continue to do it.

Such is the nature of relativism... it rejects the objectivity essential to truth, thus what is 'right'... therefore there is no means to know what is not-right.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you saying if you determine a law is wrong it's OK for you to disobey it? If you disobey a law you think is wrong, are you saying that you shouldn't be punished under that law BEFORE it's changed?

I'm saying that in some instances of state overreach and bad law, civil disobedience is justified.

In some instances, armed confrontation is.

The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.

Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.

Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.

What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.

It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

 

[Conservative65]

Much like Ferguson, MO. Many of those protestors considered burning and looting justified. I've never figured out how burning and stealing from a business that had nothing to do with why you were protesting was OK.

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.

I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.

I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?

Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal. And that is due to Left-think resting in Relativism...

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.



And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

And that is why the common Liberal is so often found calling for the injustice to which you referred.

That's the Liberal mindset with things like Affirmative Action. They claim using race to refuse to hire someone is wrong yet are perfectly OK with using race when it comes to determining someone should get a job. If using race, the common factor in both cases, is wrong, it's wrong either way.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, that's the biggie with jury nullification, you are putting your fate in a jury's hands. If they don't decide the law is wrong you are about fucked because you basically admit your guilt when trying to get a jury to nullify. After all an argument of" I didn't do it, but in case you don't believe me nullify the law" isn't going to go very far.

Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.

IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.

The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.

Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".

We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.

And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.

And you want what? A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?

LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.

Clearly I chose the wrong person.

 

[Conservative65]

Yep- I am a big proponent of the right to peaceful civil disobedience- but I don't want to hear any whining from those who get arrested for it. IF you want to try to force change in the law by civil disobedience you need to be prepared for the consequences.

IF you are lucky enough to get jury nullification thats great. But the goal of civil disobedience is to change the law- not escape the consequences.

The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.

Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".

We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.

And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.

And you want what? A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?

LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.

Clearly I chose the wrong person.

Clearly, you think people should do things your way, otherwise, you consider it wrong, uncivil, etc. Clearly, you're a Liberal.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The problem with that is who decides when the law is wrong? I agree with you that the law can be wrong- and civil disobedience is an option- if you are willing to face the legal consequences of the civil disobedience.

Legally though- the correct way to deal with a bad law is to either change it legislatively or change it through the courts- which is of course what is being done with the bad laws forbidding same gender marriage.

Armed confrontation though all too often results in tragedies like John Brown's raid.

What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.

It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know of anyone who would argue that rioting is okay. What the protesters did after the Ferguson ruling was wrong.

Oh I there are MANY on this board who were okay with it, some of them like Asclepias actually had the nerve to say it, but others denied it , even though there every post indicated they were fine with it.

I'd go as far as to say that I understood their anger and motivation. But then I could wrap my head around OJ's anger and motivation in killing his wife.

You still don't do it. Its still wrong when you do.

I mean we have several posters on this board who have openly declared that they hope police get killed.That would indicate agreeing with the violence, would it not?

Maybe, depending on the context of the statement. I'd disagree in just about every context.

So, if in a thread about the protesters someone writes " I hope a cop gets killed" you would disagree that they support the violence in those protests?

In that context, I'd say you were probably right in your interpretation that they supported the riots.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...

What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.

It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

What you are is a fraud. A progressive who pretends to be an American. But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant. And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism? Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it? And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is pretty dam' cool.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

...

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

What you are is a fraud. A progressive who pretends to be an America. But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant. And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism? Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it? And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is pretty dam' cool.

What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.

 

[Skylar]

Oh there's nothing more hateful and violent than the common Liberal.

ISIS is plenty conservative. And plenty hateful. And plenty violent. Most of the folks you call liberal don't riot or violently try to impose their religious values through the gun or hijacked airplane. Rendering your statement a rather poor reflection of reality.

But you did just give us a lovely little window into your mind.

Relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned moral absolutes.

It is through this deviation in reason that relativism axiomatically rejects the objectivity which is essential to truth.

The obvious problem being that your society, history, culture and personal context flavor what you consider to be truth and morality. Take the founders. In their context, culture and history...they interpreted the Bible as mandating execution for sodomy. So they killed anyone they found practicing it.

Today, most modern American Christians live with a very different context, culture and history. So they interpret around those sections of the Bible they don't like. And neither execute gays for sodomy nor advocate their execution by others.

Same exact religious text, two entirely different conceptions of 'morality', truth and the word of God. Based on subjective interpretation. And that's in the same culture, same nation, same language, same religion separated by a meager span of only a couple of centuries. Expand the time frame, the region, the language, the culture, the religion, or the text.....and the interpretations of 'the will of god' become wildly unstable and disparate.

Which is anything but 'objective'. Being instead deeply and personally subjective.

And with truth being essential to trust and, both of those being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

But whose truth? The founders considered it truth that gays must be executed for sodomy. Modern Christians don't accept that as truth, making up new interpretations that allow them to ignore whatever they don't like. Just as the founders did when they refused to execute those who commit adultrery....despite the same section of the same Bible they used as their justification for executing gays mandating the same punishment for adulterers. While the Puritans before them did execute for adultery, interpreting the Bible differently yet again.

Religion is extremely contextual and hopelessly prone to culture, history, society and personal context. Even the basis of most religions; faith, is the belief in something that isn't supported by objective evidence and exists within the subjective perceive of it. Making it deeply personal and subjective.

Rendering your 'relativism v. objectivity' dichotomy irrelevant. As both are of the processes you describe are subjective.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What makes the laws forbidding same sex marriage wrong? It sounds to me as if you think they are wrong because you disagree.

It's easy to see why those supporting same sex perversion use the courts. They know they can't get it done legislatively but can find one sympathizer to the cause.

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

...

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

What you are is a fraud. A progressive who pretends to be an American. But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant. And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism? Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it? And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is pretty dam' cool.

What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.

So you're saying that you're a US Citizen? Anyone here see anyone contest that?

Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.

This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'. Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.

As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:

"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Let me guess, you think those women who used the courts to sue for the right not to be slapped around by their husbands were perverted to?

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

...

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

What you are is a fraud. A progressive who pretends to be an American. But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant. And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism? Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it? And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is pretty dam' cool.

What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.

So you're saying that you're a US Citizen? Anyone here see anyone contest that?

Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.

This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'. Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.

As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:

"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"​

Being a moderator on this board makes one no less stupid. For God's sakes Bodecea was a moderator on this board.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No... and we know this because there is absolutely no evidence of such, anywhere in the record. What you have advanced there is an argument which you created... logicians of old referred to such as straw reasoning, and such arguments as 'straw men'. With the premise being that the opposition could not argue the points of the man at issue, thus they created a straw man to oppose. One which possesses the traits against which they are more 'comfortable' opposing.

Its a function of delusion, which serves function of deviating from sound reasoning. Therefore the purveyors of straw reasoning are those who, for whatever reason, choose to recognize that which does not really exist, as reality.

Now, if it helps at all, that is why you find yourself in a losing battle trying to compete with me, when the bulk of the content of your public professions, would otherwise provide that there would be very little on which the two of us would disagree.

Now I wonder, why would someone would struggle so hard against someone with whom the bulk of their professions would otherwise have them agreeing?

Any ideas why that would be the case?

I'll put it to you plainly

I don't base whether I "like" someone or not, on whether we agree or not. You sir , are an asshole, and dishonest, and were previously known as Pubes.

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

...

We do have some areas where we are in agreement.

We have several. I told you, I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a common sensitive.

What you are is a fraud. A progressive who pretends to be an American. But hey, such is the nature of evil... now isn't it?

As that is how evil progresses, it pretends or deceives through fraudulent means, to be something it is not, as a means to influence the willfully ignorant. And how remarkable that these are precisely the fundamental elements of socialism? Why its as if it all fits a natural puzzle, doesn't it? And there you are, exposed for what you are, trapped by your own defining attributes.

Now I gotta say, that is pretty dam' cool.

What a buffoon. Sir BOTH of my parents are US citizens, and I was born Inside the continental US, I AM a US citizen, your stupid belief that not agreeing with YOUR politics means I'm not notwithstanding.

So you're saying that you're a US Citizen? Anyone here see anyone contest that?

Here's the thing... An American is one who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to the principles that define America.

This is a standard which far exceeds the lowly standard for mere 'citizenship'. Which is typified by the happenstance wherein one finds that the birth-canal they slid down was situated within the border of the United States... not exactly a foundation for any significant point of pride there.

As no less an authority than a moderator of this very board recently made known:

"THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!"​

Being a moderator on this board makes one no less stupid.

No? Well now, that is something... .

 

[Syriusly]

The problem is those practicing civil disobedience think the punishment should go away because they chose to protest a law they thought was wrong.

Well, and the fact that these days, the disobedience is rarely ever "civil".

We hear much more about the cases that are not civil.

And for the record- I am absolutely against violent disobedience which I don't consider to be civil.

And you want what? A medal for graciously acceding to the bare minimum of civilized, decent human thought?

LOL- I wanted to participate in a conversation with a civil human being.

Clearly I chose the wrong person.

Clearly, you think people should do things your way, otherwise, you consider it wrong, uncivil, etc. Clearly, you're a Liberal.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Which is a different problem from your partisan blindness.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

 

[Syriusly]

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make Him a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration Watch and Find Out Video John Hawkins Right Wing News

A whole thread is devoted to that. Feel free to join in the discussion there.

 

[Steinlight]

Of course not, but neither should the State. Homosexuality serves no societal purpose and shouldn't be promoted through the State by providing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

My wife and I got married because we a) loved each other and b) because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives- legally, publicly, completely. Our marriage serves a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

And if we were two people of the same gender, that same purpose would be achieved.

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined