A question for you

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Keep in mind you are the one who implied same sex marriage was an idea behind the founding of this nation.

Your comment was the last in the subject of same sex marriage starting with a poster asking a politician, "Do you support same sex marriage?"

Then another poster said, "That is a wonderful question",

You then piped in with, "It shows support for the ideas behind the founding of this nation"

You already made you position.  You are simply being asked to prove it.

(Perhaps you need to learn to express what you actually mean)

You took what you read and made up your own reason for it. That is fine, but when I say that isn't what I meant, perhaps you might have read what it meant wrong.

To borrow from Steen of the old extinct Argus forum .. "you are a lying scumbag".
You said what you said .. and only back peddled to say, "I was referring to equality before the law". when you got caught.

The point is not what you meant, it is what you said.  

If you are unable to express yourself so others may understand you then perhaps you need to have an adult with you.

I got the point he/she was making, but understand how it could be mistaken. How about everyone agrees to disagree?

Skeptical wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Keep in mind you are the one who implied same sex marriage was an idea behind the founding of this nation.

Your comment was the last in the subject of same sex marriage starting with a poster asking a politician, "Do you support same sex marriage?"

Then another poster said, "That is a wonderful question",

You then piped in with, "It shows support for the ideas behind the founding of this nation"

You already made you position.  You are simply being asked to prove it.

(Perhaps you need to learn to express what you actually mean)

You took what you read and made up your own reason for it. That is fine, but when I say that isn't what I meant, perhaps you might have read what it meant wrong.

To borrow from Steen of the old extinct Argus forum .. "you are a lying scumbag".
You said what you said .. and only back peddled to say, "I was referring to equality before the law". when you got caught.

The point is not what you meant, it is what you said.  

If you are unable to express yourself so others may understand you then perhaps you need to have an adult with you.

I got the point he/she was making, but understand how it could be mistaken. How about everyone agrees to disagree?

Must be convenient same sex people have a language of their own so they understand each other.

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Keep in mind you are the one who implied same sex marriage was an idea behind the founding of this nation.

Your comment was the last in the subject of same sex marriage starting with a poster asking a politician, "Do you support same sex marriage?"

Then another poster said, "That is a wonderful question",

You then piped in with, "It shows support for the ideas behind the founding of this nation"

You already made you position.  You are simply being asked to prove it.

(Perhaps you need to learn to express what you actually mean)

You took what you read and made up your own reason for it. That is fine, but when I say that isn't what I meant, perhaps you might have read what it meant wrong.

To borrow from Steen of the old extinct Argus forum .. "you are a lying scumbag".
You said what you said .. and only back peddled to say, "I was referring to equality before the law". when you got caught.

The point is not what you meant, it is what you said.  

If you are unable to express yourself so others may understand you then perhaps you need to have an adult with you.

I got the point he/she was making, but understand how it could be mistaken. How about everyone agrees to disagree?

Must be convenient same sex people have a language of their own so they understand each other.

Whoa, buddy. Why such hostility on Ash Wendesday of all days? It was just a simple misunderstanding between the two of you.  

Skeptical wrote:
To borrow from Steen of the old extinct Argus forum .. "you are a lying scumbag".
You said what you said .. and only back peddled to say, "I was referring to equality before the law". when you got caught.

The point is not what you meant, it is what you said.  

If you are unable to express yourself so others may understand you then perhaps you need to have an adult with you.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote: Haha.

I can express myself just fine, I don't mind that you wanted to read into what I said, so not sure why the hostility all of a sudden.

Not a big deal though, now you know what I was referring to and why that would be a good question.

Do you have any thoughts on what would be a good question? This discussion could be interesting.

Skeptical wrote:
Didn't have to "READ" anything into anything, you wrote what you wrote and it is a matter of record earlier in this thread.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on what would be a good question? This discussion could be interesting.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
WOW, same sex marriage was one of the ideas behind the founding of this nation !

When will you post the documentation (and authors of such documentation) supporting same sex marriage as one of the ideas behind the founding of this nation during the time leading to the the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I was referring to equality before the law.

We've made a few mistakes with that in the past, Slaves, Irish, Japanese, but we always strive to make it right.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Equality before the law from a classic Liberal view is one of equality of opportunity not of outcome. Classical Liberalism favors individual rights over Contemporary Liberalism's emphasis on group rights i.e. gay rights. That is the true meaning of the Framers intent.

If you were truly for "equality before the law" then you would reject US vs Windsor's holding that gay marriage was subject to the same spousal inheritance benefits as heterosexual couples. A true advocate of equality before the law would claim that all people, married or single, should be able to leave their estate to whomever without the penalty of inheritance taxation.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
As to the issue of slavery and the internment of the Japanese both of these policies were promulgated by the Democratic party and ironically in the case of the Japanese, the policy was hatched by the Great Liberal God, FDR.

The Irish was mostly a case of anti-Catholicism, an attitude that existed long before this country was even thought of. Blame it on the British.

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

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.

BladeRunner 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.

But what about the gay atheists who don't practice any religion?

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

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner 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.

But what about the gay atheists who don't practice any religion?

What about them?

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??

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.

Skeptical 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.

What Bill of Rights Amendment supports same sex atheists who marry partner at a courthouse/justice of the peace?

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.

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.

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?

BladeRunner wrote:     hmmm

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

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.

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.

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?

Have another drink, you might feel better.

Skeptical wrote:
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??

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
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??

I'm pretty sure I already provided you with the evidence you requested.

It isn't my fault that you want to revise what the words say to match your own particular argument.