A question for you

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
That is because homosexual marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country as you proclaimed.

Since marriage is a purely religious calling, the first amendment grants the freedom to marry whomever you want.

Here is the document you are asking for:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since you feel the need to play such foolish games, I would like you to point out founding documents that give the government jurisdiction over marriage.  Maybe you could consult with Gomezz on his positive/negative right B.S.  I'll be waiting

Well Caitlyn, does this deflection/projection on your part mean you cannot point out those founding documents proving your claim same marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country??

As I pointed out, reedom of religion, which includes the from to marry whomever you want, is indeed a founding principle of our country.

Hmmmmmm

You say the First Amendment allows anyone to marry whomever they want and is unrestrictive, but the Second Amendment is restrictive?????????????

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
That is because homosexual marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country as you proclaimed.

Since marriage is a purely religious calling, the first amendment grants the freedom to marry whomever you want.

Here is the document you are asking for:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since you feel the need to play such foolish games, I would like you to point out founding documents that give the government jurisdiction over marriage.  Maybe you could consult with Gomezz on his positive/negative right B.S.  I'll be waiting

Well Caitlyn, does this deflection/projection on your part mean you cannot point out those founding documents proving your claim same marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country??

As I pointed out, reedom of religion, which includes the from to marry whomever you want, is indeed a founding principle of our country.

Hmmmmmm

You say the First Amendment allows anyone to marry whomever they want and is unrestrictive, but the Second Amendment is restrictive?????????????

Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion?

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
That is because homosexual marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country as you proclaimed.

Since marriage is a purely religious calling, the first amendment grants the freedom to marry whomever you want.

Here is the document you are asking for:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since you feel the need to play such foolish games, I would like you to point out founding documents that give the government jurisdiction over marriage.  Maybe you could consult with Gomezz on his positive/negative right B.S.  I'll be waiting

Well Caitlyn, does this deflection/projection on your part mean you cannot point out those founding documents proving your claim same marriages was one of the ideas behind the founding of this country??

As I pointed out, reedom of religion, which includes the from to marry whomever you want, is indeed a founding principle of our country.

Hmmmmmm

You say the First Amendment allows anyone to marry whomever they want and is unrestrictive, but the Second Amendment is restrictive?????????????

Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion?

The bill of rights are not totally absolute.  Individual rights can be and are restricted for the good of society.  Take the oft used 'FIRE in a theater' and restricting gun ownership to non felons.

Dr. Jones wrote:  There's no saying an athiest can't find God for the purpose of marriage, at least in the eyes of the government.  Either way, it makes no difference.

• safeguard the rights of individuals
  
• balance the competing rights of individuals
  

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:  There's no saying an athiest can't find God for the purpose of marriage, at least in the eyes of the government.  Either way, it makes no difference.

None that I know of.

The strange thing about atheists is they spend most of their life denying the existence of God and trying to convinces others of this as well as mockery and ridicule of those who do believe..

I don't think it's as much of a case of trying to convince others as it is a case of pointing out the fact that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savor, freedom of religion doesn't actually exist for you in the USA. A great case in point is in Fargo where they have the ten commandments on display. People will say that nobody is making you look, or if you don't like it you should just turn your head, or that people who believe in God have the right to have that displayed. Oooh by the way, to save us any further commotion over this we are just going to have to put a stop to any future memorials to other takes on religion. How that could be considered "freedom of religion" is beyond me.

The same could be said for homosexuals. When you are denied the same basic legal rights of your heterosexual counterparts, you are bound to make a little noise.

Through it all they may find that moment when they want to acknowledge the existence of a God or else there would be more of this in the cemeteries of the country.

"HERE LIES JOHN
ALL DRESSED UP
AND NOWHERE TO GO"

Skeptical wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:     hmmm

Interesting....Dr. Jones is now answering for Caitlyn......

Yep, doesn't even deny the identity !!!

Dr. Jones wrote: This is all really great, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the parts of my statement you so conveniently left out.

What Bill of Rights Amendment gives the courthouse/justice of the peace the right to make this religious distinction?  

What Bill of Rights Amendment gives the government the right to give two people engaged in a relationship, regardless of the nature of their relationship, a different legal status than others based on religious presidence?

Jammer wrote:I would disagree that individual rights can be restricted for the good of society.  I will agree that in certain situations individual rights might have some restrictions placed on them, but only in that they interfere with the competing rights of other individuals.

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

Skeptical wrote:

Jammer wrote:I would disagree that individual rights can be restricted for the good of society.  I will agree that in certain situations individual rights might have some restrictions placed on them, but only in that they interfere with the competing rights of other individuals.

I am going to sound off for a minute or so and use the situation of a person charged and convicted of a felony involving a deadly weapon.  As far as I am aware not too many prior felons are allowed to legally purchase a gun.

I am fairly confident some would claim his/her rights have been denied and/or rights restricted for the good of society.

I prefer to say he/she relinquished the right to buy a gun based on his/her prior actions against society and created these restrictions all by him/her self on such right.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: This is all really great, but I would be interested in your thoughts on the parts of my statement you so conveniently left out.

Both questions

What Bill of Rights Amendment gives the courthouse/justice of the peace the right to make this religious distinction?  

What Bill of Rights Amendment gives the government the right to give two people engaged in a relationship, regardless of the nature of their relationship, a different legal status than others based on religious presidence?

are deflections and make about as much sense as you claiming the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is the authority for same sex marriage..

BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"

Ain't autocorrect a bitch? It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach about deflection...

At present there is one religion being protect much more than others ... do you know which one that is?

This statement could sure use a little policing....

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

I can't wait to hear your take on this. Go ahead and lay it on me...

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

My religion says that a man should not put his penis inside a man's anus. Not only is it unnatural, it is offensive. Allowing such individuals to "marry" is against my religion. This "right" effects my open ended right to my free religion. It makes my religion lacking therof, and thus compromised.

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Skeptical wrote:
No Dr. Jones, you haven't proved squat.

I saw the total eclipse of the sun in march of 1970 so it takes a lot to impress me.

Besides that I lived very close to Missouri while growing up and you know Missouri is known as the "show me" state.

So you will have to provide those documents specifically mentioning same sex marriage as an ideal this country was founded, not just your biased opinion and trying to pass it off a "proof".

If you fail to  provide proof of these documents then just accept you are what you have shown yourself to be up to this point, a bold face habitual prevaricator.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
No Dr. Jones, you haven't proved squat.

I saw the total eclipse of the sun in march of 1970 so it takes a lot to impress me.

Besides that I lived very close to Missouri while growing up and you know Missouri is known as the "show me" state.

So you will have to provide those documents specifically mentioning same sex marriage as an ideal this country was founded, not just your biased opinion and trying to pass it off a "proof".

If you fail to  provide proof of these documents then just accept you are what you have shown yourself to be up to this point, a bold face habitual prevaricator.

I'm not Dr Jones, good sir.

I guess that viewing of the eclipse might explain the blinders when it comes to seeing, I'm sorry your eye sight has suffered.

Preamble to the Constitution also fits nicely here.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I made the part that fits with what I was referring to, highlighted in bold and red

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

FYI, "BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"" was intended as info, nothing else.

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Evidence of autocorrect was not apparent in your post.

Care to answer which religion being protected much more than others?

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

FYI, "BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"" was intended as info, nothing else.

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Evidence of autocorrect was not apparent in your post.

Care to answer which religion being protected much more than others?

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

As I said, I have no friggin clue where you are going to try to head with this point.  I am eager to hear your thoughts.

When you are done you can point out where the constitution gives the government the right to choose who can or cannot get married.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

FYI, "BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"" was intended as info, nothing else.

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Evidence of autocorrect was not apparent in your post.

Care to answer which religion being protected much more than others?

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

As I said, I have no friggin clue where you are going to try to head with this point.  I am eager to hear your thoughts.

When you are done you can point out where the constitution gives the government the right to choose who can or cannot get married.

Doesn't it say it the same place you claim it says two men or two women can marry?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

FYI, "BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"" was intended as info, nothing else.

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Evidence of autocorrect was not apparent in your post.

Care to answer which religion being protected much more than others?

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

As I said, I have no friggin clue where you are going to try to head with this point.  I am eager to hear your thoughts.

When you are done you can point out where the constitution gives the government the right to choose who can or cannot get married.

Doesn't it say it the same place you claim it says two men or two women can marry?

The suspense is killing me here.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote: Ain't autocorrect a bitch?  It's always funny listening to the grammar police preach

I can't wait to hear your take on this.  Go ahead and lay it on me...

FYI, "BTW I do think the word you was looking for above is "precedence"" was intended as info, nothing else.

Ain't autocorrect a bitch?

Evidence of autocorrect was not apparent in your post.

Care to answer which religion being protected much more than others?

HINT: In spite of the restriction of the government favoring one religion this one has facilities in public buildings.

As I said, I have no friggin clue where you are going to try to head with this point.  I am eager to hear your thoughts.

When you are done you can point out where the constitution gives the government the right to choose who can or cannot get married.

Doesn't it say it the same place you claim it says two men or two women can marry?

The suspense is killing me here.

I reckon I will have to use the source used by another poster, who by the way, claims same sex marriage was an idea behind the founding of this country.

There is little doubt you will agree with Caitlyn's source;

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

My religion says that a man should not put his penis inside a man's anus. Not only is it unnatural, it is offensive. Allowing such individuals to "marry" is against my religion. This "right" effects my open ended right to my free religion. It makes my religion lacking therof, and thus compromised.

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

My religion says that a man should not put his penis inside a man's anus. Not only is it unnatural, it is offensive. Allowing such individuals to "marry" is against my religion. This "right" effects my open ended right to my free religion. It makes my religion lacking therof, and thus compromised.

What does your religion say about a man putting his penis in a woman's mouth? Is that natural? Should those people be allowed to marry?

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

My religion says that a man should not put his penis inside a man's anus. Not only is it unnatural, it is offensive. Allowing such individuals to "marry" is against my religion. This "right" effects my open ended right to my free religion. It makes my religion lacking therof, and thus compromised.

What does your religion say about a man putting his penis in a woman's mouth? Is that natural? Should those people be allowed to marry?

Jammer wrote:

Liberal wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
Your Second Amendment rights are open ended to the point of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.  What other rights would you say could effect a person's open ended right to free religion, aside from another's right to not have their own religion, or lack thereof compromised.

My religion says that a man should not put his penis inside a man's anus. Not only is it unnatural, it is offensive. Allowing such individuals to "marry" is against my religion. This "right" effects my open ended right to my free religion. It makes my religion lacking therof, and thus compromised.

What does your religion say about a man putting his penis in a woman's mouth? Is that natural? Should those people be allowed to marry?

That comment was completely off topic.  Just what does it take to get these liberal assholes banned for flagrant violations of forum etiquette?