Originally Posted by PrecisionRifleman
I think I spelled it out pretty clearly. Read what I said in the context of what was written. I believe you understood what was said, but you don't agree with it. That's perfectly suitable, and we can disagree without getting into nit picking a single sentence out of a paragraph and turning the statement into something else.
You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else here, but it's just subjective opinion without external objective justification and as such should not be a factor when considering legality in an environment intended to promote individual liberty. The only relevant factor in such a system when considering whether a behavior should be prohibited is if there is a direct and unavoidable victim to such behavior. There is not in the case of homosexual marriage. I'm sure some will try to generalize here and attempt to characterize homosexual marriage as a toxic family environment, but this is also unsupportable in an objective fashion.
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."
JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Last edited by Geko45; 11-05-2012 at 21:39..