opus649 Member

Then you didn't bother to read all of the posts in this thread. Because, in fact, that was my original argument - the government has no business getting involved in marriage, period.

But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church. Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United…

Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?

I'm going to ignore your anecdotal "evidence" and address the links: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917 From the article: "It was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or 'single-payer' health insurance." Note that one of…

Do you have any sources for those claims or are you just spouting the same old standard elitist anti-American rhetoric bull****?

Well, that's not entirely true. First, the argument could be made that there isn't actually a single recorded word of ANYTHING that Jesus of Nazareth said. In fact, an argument could be made that it's impossible to prove he even existed. But that's a different debate. Assuming you believe Jesus was a real person and…

I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

You need to drink 8 glasses of water a day

Love it!

Oh here's a horse that hasn't been beat to death....

This is incorrect. Most of the Founding Fathers were religious. Thomas Jefferson was more of a deist as was Thomas Paine (obviously). It's correct to say that the Constitution wasn't founded on Christianity. But it would be wrong to say that the Founders (for the most part) were not, themselves, devout Christians.

No, what I argued with was your ridiculous assertion that if you're against something that doesn't "effect" you, you should "get a life."

Are you somehow under the impression that I'm against gay marriage????

You could ask Ron Paul the same question.... http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

To be fair to Dr. Laura, she never actually quoted Leviticus to support an anti-gay position.

I like how all Americans are painted with one broad brush.... because the FCC speaks for everyone in this country. :noway:

Yes, that other fella came to your defense.. admirably, I thought. So are you sticking with, "If you're against something that doesn't effect you, get a life." ??

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and giving her too much benefit of the doubt... I just assumed she was in favor of gay marriage but was merely making the point that you can be against something that doesn't directly affect you. Now that I have read her post again, maybe I'm wrong....

I already answered this..... MAN ON DOG!!

As long as you would support a law to ban routine male circumcision, it's not pertinent. This whole line of debate began with the assertion, "If it doesn't affect you, get a life." Apparently you want to amend that sentiment to be, "if you are against something that doesn't affect you and causes no objective harm, get a…

Both?

I wasn't arguing in favor of circumcision, I was making a point...

I'm pretty sure she was saying that even if something doesn't affect you directly, it can still be morally reasonable to take a stance against it. For example, genocide in Africa doesn't really impact people in Canada, but I would suspect most Canadians are against genocide... except for maybe those in Quebec... they're a…

Meh, I'm still not convinced suffrage was the way to go... :bigsmile:

I don't think she said what you think she said...

How about routine male circumcision? That causes objective harm.

Ehhh........ really? Not being able to get married is "just like" being forced into servitude because you are not considered fully human? If anything, marriage is much closer to slavery than being single :wink:

Damn, that's a much better example than my Snooki reference...

I'm against Snooki being a celebrity.... that doesn't really affect me or cause objective harm...

:drinker: