Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[danielpalos]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

Uh huh. You have natural rights because the law says you do. If you buy into that, then I'm glad you are easily made happy.

Our Bill of Rights exists.

Yes. It is called the law. It isn't "natural".

yes, our federal and State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course: There must be natural rights, since they are declared and recognized in State Constitutions, which renders any potential legal fiction of natural rights an expressly declared, legal fact.

Uh huh. You have natural rights because the law says you do. If you buy into that, then I'm glad you are easily made happy.

Our Bill of Rights exists.

Yes. It is called the law. It isn't "natural".

yes, our federal and State Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights.

If it makes you feel good to believe that, go ahead.

 

[danielpalos]

it is more than just legal fiction.

 

[PratchettFan]

it is more than just legal fiction.

No. It's less. It's just a fiction.

 

[danielpalos]

it is more than just legal fiction.

No. It's less. It's just a fiction.

only in your mind pumkin; i insist there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[PostmodernProph]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

lol dude.....both allowing or not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society....either upon a group who want to get married and did not meet the definition society had for marriage, or upon those who don't like the government coming along and changing the definition society has for things.....this debate is about the ignorance of those who don't understand this.........we had the same situation back in 72 when the courts decided that killing your unborn children was no longer a bad thing to do, but had turned into a constitutional right.......

We're going around in circles. So let me put my position in a simple manner.

The right to marry applies to everyone equally. It is not the place of the state or anyone else to tell someone who they can or cannot marry, so long as it involves competent adults - just like in any other legal contract. If that impacts others, I don't. If it irritates others, I don't care. If someone is forced to provide their services because state laws say so, I don't care.

As to killing unborn children. My only problem is that the state has any say in the matter at all. There should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind because a woman has absolute say as to how her body will or will not be used - no matter if it kills an unborn child or takes away the say of the father. If you think it is wrong, don't have an abortion but you don't get to make that decision for anyone but you.

This is a free country so you are free to disagree.

well we have come a long way so far....we have progressed from you pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on others to you not only admitting that approving gay marriage does that, but going on record that you don't give a **** that we don't like it........thank you for your honesty......its refreshing........

Oh, I wasn't pretending it was wrong for one segment of society to impose its beliefs on another. That was definitely wrong and I am glad it is changing. But it is true I don't give a **** if the people who were doing the imposing don't like that they won't be able to do it any more. Now if only the people who were doing the imposing stop pretending they are being imposed upon for not being allowed to continue to impose, then we might have some progress.

sorry but you just lost the argument.....you can't simultaneously say that we are pretending we are being imposed on and say that you don't give a ****, because now its your turn to have your beliefs imposed on someone else........

I'm not in an argument. I am in a discussion and expressing my point of view. That view is if a bully is beating on someone, if that person hits back the bully can't claim they were assaulted. Or at least they can't expect me to take their claim seriously. You are free to have your own point of view. I don't require your agreement with mine.

lol.....now that you've lost it you have decided you haven't really been arguing with me for several pages......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The point is that it is law that defined it, not society. If the law defines it differently, then it is different.

bingo!......the left used the law to change society's definition of marriage.....that is what the complaint is about......

 

[PratchettFan]

it is more than just legal fiction.

No. It's less. It's just a fiction.

only in your mind pumkin; i insist there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Uh huh. I claim rights come from the law. You say they are "natural rights". And what do you use to support that claim? Because the law says it. You don't see the irony in that?

 

[PratchettFan]

The point is that it is law that defined it, not society. If the law defines it differently, then it is different.

bingo!......the left used the law to change society's definition of marriage.....that is what the complaint is about......

It's a free country. Complain as much as you like.

 

[PostmodernProph]

bingo!......the left used the law to change society's definition of marriage.....that is what the complaint is about......

It's a free country. Complain as much as you like.

lol......should I just suck it up the way you did?.....

The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society.

 

[danielpalos]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

 

[PratchettFan]

bingo!......the left used the law to change society's definition of marriage.....that is what the complaint is about......

It's a free country. Complain as much as you like.

lol......should I just suck it up the way you did?.....

The point being made is not allowing SSM is directly imposing upon an entire segment of society.

Yeah. That's what you should do.

 

[PostmodernProph]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

 

[danielpalos]

In terms of our society as a whole, marriage is a legal contract and nothing else.

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

 

[PostmodernProph]

a silly dodge......of course its a legal contract......that however doesn't change that it was only a contract between a man and a woman.......why are you afraid to address that fact.....

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; freedom of association and contract is a natural right.

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

 

[PostmodernProph]

nobody has said that any two people cannot associate any time they want.....they can even enter into a contract.......however, only when the state enters the scene and imposes that contract upon all of society does that contract become a marriage.......

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

 

[danielpalos]

nope; a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

????....why do you say "nope" and then state the fact which makes it a yup?......the recording with the state is what creates the ability to enforce the agreement against persons other than the man and woman getting married.......

nope; even State is Prohibited from impairing in the Obligation of Contracts.

???.....yes.....that is why I say the state imposes recognition of the marriage upon those not a party to the contract.....if we could ignore the agreement that two people entered into there would be no issue......it is the act of the state in certifying it that causes the imposition......

a marriage contract can simply be recorded with the public sector for full faith and credit purposes and to establish that Obligation of that Contract.

let me try a third time to clarify for you.....to put it simply....THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!......there, did that help?........

No, dear; simply because you are full of fallacy.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

 

[HenryBHough]

Oh Jesus, somebody let Obama hear the name "Ceasar....". Now we're in a world of hurt. Bad enuff He believed Himself God now it'll get twice as bad.