Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights? (reject, paradise)

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Pah

Your response, which I quoted did not allude to a previous post by you. It was an answer to another, separate point made by turk179 "These two things have nothing in common. What would these consequences be?".

I said, "This is what so-and-so says." Turk said, "What about this angle?" Since he was responding to something that so-and-so says, it's pretty clear that I would be answering that question with regards to what so-and-so said.

I take it that you had the choice of words and you choose to use the ones you did. The plain meaning of your words show that you answered the question Turk posed and not trying to explain another.

Turk's post asked for clearification of the previous post. One should assume, if they're not too dense, that I gave clearification for the previous post. In other words, I gave him what he asked for.

Now answer the point that was made "It really is as close to black and white as you can get. You are not, it seems, supportive of "Do unto Ceasar" and "love thy neighbor". I'm afraid the rights of others, as Niemoeller spoke of them, are as meaningless [editted: to you] as you think the quote is."

I did answer that point. You're ocmpletely mistaken. You have twisted my words around until the mean almost exactly the opposite and then you expect me to defend that? That's like you saying, "The sky is blue." and then me saying, "Oh yeah? Well, what makes you think the chair is brown?!" YOu have compeltely misrepresented my views, and now ask me to defend them.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

But if marriage is a government-made institution, shouldn't the government have the right to decide who marriage applies to, and what the word marriage means? And in a representative government like this one, shouldn't it then be the people who are deciding what marriage means?

Actually, aside from constitutional amendments, all decicions of the government are subject to judical review. The Constitution is the final arbitrater. The people entered into that agreement when the Constitution itself was ratified.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by pah

Now answer the point that was made "It really is as close to black and white as you can get. You are not, it seems, supportive of "Do unto Ceasar" and "love thy neighbor". I'm afraid the rights of others, as Niemoeller spoke of them, are as meaningless [editted: to you] as you think the quote is."

Originally Posted by Aqualung

...
I did answer that point. You're ocmpletely mistaken. You have twisted my words around until the mean almost exactly the opposite and then you expect me to defend that? That's like you saying, "The sky is blue." and then me saying, "Oh yeah? Well, what makes you think the chair is brown?!" YOu have compeltely misrepresented my views, and now ask me to defend them.

Can you give the post number - the one where you spoke of "Do unto Ceasar" and "love thy neighbor"? Additionally can you show the "twisting" that was done on your words? by post number?

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Pah

Can you give the post number - the one where you spoke of "Do unto Ceasar" and "love thy neighbor"? Additionally can you show the "twisting" that was done on your words? by post number?

ACtually, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

You said that I do not hold to "Do unto Ceasar [sic]" or to "love thy neighbor" because, like what's-his-face's quote is about, I don't speak out against opression. This is a twisting. Why do you think I don't speak out against any opression, let alone gay marriage? Where do you think I don't care about anybody other than myself? Why do you think that I don't do unto "Ceasar"? Because you have twisted everything I have said. Because you twist the fact that I think homosexuality is a sin and an abomination and look over the fact that I won't vote against homosexual marriage, because it's not the government's place to legislate that. You twist "as another has said" into "as I wholeheartedly agree".

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

ACtually, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

You said that I do not hold to "Do unto Ceasar [sic]" or to "love thy neighbor" because, like what's-his-face's quote is about, I don't speak out against opression. This is a twisting. Why do you think I don't speak out against any opression, let alone gay marriage? Where do you think I don't care about anybody other than myself? Why do you think that I don't do unto "Ceasar"? Because you have twisted everything I have said. Because you twist the fact that I think homosexuality is a sin and an abomination and look over the fact that I won't vote against homosexual marriage, because it's not the government's place to legislate that. You twist "as another has said" into "as I wholeheartedly agree".

The simplier answer is "I don't have post numbers".

Working backwards -

It is the government's responsibilty to legislate all decisions of the Supreme court.
All law must be legislated
You do think homosexuality is a sin and are not opposed to seeing it applied to US law
I did not mention abomination
I think that you did not go into Caesar or Ceasar or whatever because it is an uncomfotable question juxtaposed with "love thy neighbor"
I have no idea why you don't speak out for elimination of oppression

[Aqualung]

What? See, once again, you are jumping to conclusions. You have no idea why I don't speak out for the elimination of opression. But you are jumping to the conclusion that I don't. Where did you come to that crazy conclusion?! I think it's my turn to .

I think homosexuality is a sin and am not opposed to seeing it applied to US law? There you go again, jumping to wild conclusion. I think it is a sin, but why does that mean that I am not opposed to seeing it applied to US law? Could you, in the future, try to keep your thoughts coherent and logical? Maybe stop jumping to conclusions based on how you think I should be?

[Jaymes]

Can we please get back on topic?

I've yet to see a logical reason for why anyone should be allowed to vote on my rights.

[WeAreAllOne]

Because we elect people to misrepresent our views. And they do such a damn fine job at it. we don't get to vote on it, thats the problem.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Jensa

Can we please get back on topic?

I've yet to see a logical reason for why anyone should be allowed to vote on my rights