In other words you lied.
I have seen you on other threads to know where your sense of morality comes from.
Did you write my name down in the "book"?
Am I wrong to say that your desire to prohibit gay marriage does not come from your religious belief that it is immoral?
You're wrong to make false assertions in a debate based on what you think. You're wrong to hurl insults when your reasoning is faulty and debunked. And you're wrong to attempt to redefine words when it suits your ideology.
What reason do you have for wanting to ban gay marriage?
I'm not. Gay marriage is oxymoronic. I'm attempting to limit the size of government. I get one vote in that matter.
Does your reasoning not come from your religious belief, ultimately?
I don't argue the redefining of the word marriage from a religious point of view for a reason. You're it. I argue it from a secular point of view so as not to allow the chaff in with the wheat. You and your religion/fascist thing is a perfect example.
I would certainly argue from a religious point of view that the act of homosexuality is wrong but I would also argue that what goes on in the privacy of ones property is not the interest of the state.
I stopped making false accusations when you stopped beating your wife.
Your problem is the evidence on this thread supports my position that you lied, you have no such evidence for your next false assertion in a long list of them.
Yes, I believe people should govern themselves. I do not believe other people should govern them when their actions do not infringe on their rights. I believe in the smallest government possible. You are the one pushing for a strong intrusive government. You obviously have no clue what fascism is. It is the private *ownership* of property and the government control over said property.
Thanks for the attempted lesson but think again. The basic element of fascism is authoritarian central government, public control of property flows from that basic element not the other way around. I have found that there is a segment of the libertarian movement who are very authoritarian. They would, if they could, have an overly strong central government enforcing their world view from DC. Some would even rewrite the Constitution of the Unoted States. Amazing, huh?
The most basic right we have is the right to our own existence, to the ownership of ourselves. You would ban a segment of people from doing something with there property (themselves) when their actions in no way infringed anybody else's rights to life, liberty, or property. You want the government to control the property of someone else. Your view in this matter is fascist.
You sink deeper and deeper into the pit of false assertion. You have no "right" redefine words to your suiting. But authoritarians see that as no particular problem in pursuit of what they see as correct. That shoe fit?
People do not have the right to vote away someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Mob rule is inconsistent with a free society. Democracy is not an end in itself.
Evidently you disagree with President Reagan that this country is big enough for everybody and every town, county and state must adhere to the 0.5% solution. Your way or the jackboot?
I stopped making false assertions when you stopped beating your wife.
LOL, anybody can see that I never mentioned religion nor do I favor authoritarian rule from an overly strong central government. We live in a pluralist nation that is plenty big enough for those of us who wish to live by different sets of rules while recognizing that certain rights are inalienable. Evidently though, that isn't good enough for you. Too bad.