"...Some will die in hot pursuit, and fiery auto crashes, Some will die in hot pursuit while sifting through my ashes. Some will fall in love with life, and drink it from a fountain, That is pouring like an avalanche, coming down the mountain..."
what are you talking about? you were the one calling people who did no support your theory evil. So I stated is it not evil to desire to maintain the definition of marriage but at the same time be fine if gays were granted an equivalent status under our laws? Instead of addressing the argument you have gone off on some crazy tangents. I think you still have not addressed the point I raised. 2. You stated... "Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil." Your statement is not defensible. You obviously realize that your argument was indefensible so you have attempted to change the argument to arguments about specific religious edicts. That is sophistry. No one is arguing there are some religious edicts that could not be legislated. As an American we have every right to inform our morality how we wish. An atheist has no less or more of a right to inform his morality with his or her world view than a Jew or a Christian. You know that if you understood the constitution and our history. If a legislator voted to not force an employer to provide for late term abortions because his religion tells him abortion is murder... who are you to tell him he or she can't vote that way. If a voter on a referendum were to say that marriage should be restricted to two people because among other things that is what their belief in God causes them to think... who the hell are you to say the way your was formed is ok but they can't vote theirs? What about the person who says they voted against or chose not to legislate for capital punishment because they believe God or budda would not support capital punishment.
I outlined the basis of modern con law in the U.S. supported by the applicable cases that define that law which directly contradicted each of your assertions. I added a tour of your Bible which also directly contradicted your assertions because apparently you're unfamiliar with it, but that was just a bonus for you. If that's a "crazy tangent" to you then we're living in different universes. Hint: mines not make believe!
1. constitutionally speaking you have not supported your statement. You never addressed why a religious person who wanted to vote or legislate against capital punish would not be allowed to vote their conscience if it were informed by their understanding of what God would wish. Yet an atheist could. You whole argument is convoluted stawman crap. to remind you ... this is what you wrote and it is what I objected to. "Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil. 2 Again you are bullshitting your ass off. You could not have corrected my assertions with a "tour of my bible" or whatever your specious argument means... because I never argued gay marriage was morally wrong. Nor did I argue polygamy was morally wrong. you need to stop bullshitting and come to grip with the fact that were dead ass wrong. its so funny that you are accusing others of being sanctimonious. you make up arguments you assume that you know what I believe about the bible and you are dead ass wrong the whole time. Grow up. learn...some people like gays and realize they have every right to be equal. I just preferred they have an equivalent social contract or say gayiage without having to change the definition of marriage. To say that position is evil... or even phobic is fucking immature, irrational, intolerant and stupid. Secondly, in America you have a right to inform you conscience and you morality however you wish with religions or with nothing... and we all have a right to vote for laws based on that morality provided the law is constitutional. So in short you have been dead ass wrong on the 2 main issues.
Again, very much the way Jesus would respond. I'm sure he's very proud of you. Really, you need to repeat after me. Voting isn't the same as legislating a legal law the United State! I've expressed this to you no fewer than 4 times, and you keep returning to rebutting an argument I've never made about voting your conscious followed by a hodge podge stream of consciousness. I think you're intelligent, so the fact that you continue to purposely conflate those two things makes it clear that you're being obtuse, or as you would say engaging in sophistry. So how about this. Read the 3 cases I listed. Throw in Brown vs. Board of Education to understand how discrimination justified by "separate but equal" turns out. Maybe take a con law class if they aren't clear, although that's not really necessary if you just take the time to read them, which you clearly have not. Then we can have a rational discussion about what makes a law permissible in the United States. Until then, a rational conversation isn't possible. While you're at it, you might read the bible a couple times if that's your imaginary book of choice, because you're doing a pretty poor job of acting like that Jesus dude told you to act. People like you were the shove that got me to start critically thinking about my religion, at which point I affirmatively rejected it and most of it's fundamentalist adherents, of which I was once one. Think about that, your actions are driving people away from the christ you believe in, mainly because you're doing such a poor job of acting like he told you to act. This is by no means an attack on any religion, there are plenty of spectacular Christians who I love dearly and who unquestionably make the world a better place. They don't act anything like you're acting or believe what you or the fundamentalists seem to believe. Shockingly they actually act like Jesus to the best of their ability. Something you might try?
Actually, His message was not really about being "peaceful". it was about redemption. Really, anyone who wanted to be redeemed, had the opportunity. Unfortunately, many did not take it. But many others did.
Well, maybe we have to ask, where does good law come from ? Perhaps it is arbitrary. But I think not. Humans were implanted (or perhaps taught) what is right and wrong. We as humans do not (normally) adhere to the law of the jungle. We care for the sick and needy. We are unlike any other species. It is not a "Christian" thing. It is a human thing. I believe that Christ is the culmination of this, but all humans are "made in the image of G-d", and therefore behave unlike any other species.
If that were true, why aren't humans invisible. But It's the other way around. God is "made in the image of humans" in the imagination of humans, by humans. God is thereby made imaginary and in extreme reverence and superstition of their imaginary image, some humans dare not even write its name properly.