- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36,235
- Reaction score
- 8,380
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.
No, I am not painting anything. Morals are subjective whether you want to admit it or not. Has nothing to do with my argument here and never did.
The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.
Is that all you have left? Going to accuse me a lying now? :roll:
Look at my statement and who I was replying too. I am and was talking about gay marriage, period.
Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.
And yet the majority of our laws are mysteriously moral based.
I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.
By law it has happend many, MANY times. So no, it seems it can.
They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.
So again it is entirely subjective.
I mean we now have eminent domain for private u
And in that action against support for the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, you have demonstrated that you do have a problem with protecting the rights of the individual. Support of action against the rights of the individual is not protection of the rights of the individual.[/QUOTE]