Oh, and the freedom to bear arms clearly can result in harm, regardless of what you and Wayne LaPierre say. 

Again, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I don't want gun ownership banned.  I just want sensible laws that make weapons designed primarily for killing people difficult to acquire. Limits on freedom where freedom causes harm make sense.  Limits on freedom where freedom causes no harm (as in gay marriage) is just catering to some people's prejudice. 

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

Did you just say that "the separation of church and state has nothing to do with how people form their views on public policy"...?

Did you?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then why on earth did the foudning fathers feel a need to PUT THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Look. I know you're a dope junior, but you're not usually this bad. Maybe you have had a few cocktails while out whining and dining a prospective client at an early lunch.

Let's try and make this simple so even you can understand.

Separation of church and state means...

An institution of government will not cross boundaries with an institution of religion.

Separation of church and state does not mean...

Individuals must not allow their religious beliefs to color their opinion on public policy as can be affected by their right to vote.

Please tell me you have been drinking and you are not truly this dense.

No.  It means both.   It means the right to practice any relgion you wish without fear of persectuion, but also not to allow any one religion to supersede law.

Hence, Jefferson's own words to keep them separate. It's reciprocal. That's why it's so general, v.s. it specifcially saying what you are implying.

You're wrong.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Oh, and the freedom to bear arms clearly can result in harm, regardless of what you and Wayne LaPierre say. 

Again, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I don't want gun ownership banned.  I just want sensible laws that make weapons designed primarily for killing people difficult to acquire. Limits on freedom where freedom causes harm make sense.  Limits on freedom where freedom causes no harm (as in gay marriage) is just catering to some people's prejudice. 

Very difficult to acquire. Europeans laugh at us with our gun laws, as they should.  Mutliple tests, inteviews, etc, for semi or automatic weapons.

If you need more than a glock, revolver, shotgun or rifle, I have questions about anyone who seeks to acquire other weapons and so would George Washington.

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.

Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

What is the harm in incest you claim?

So, you would deny multiple spouses based on the complexity of inheritance law?

This is your answer to the "rights" of the aforementioned being trampled upon as you see those of gays being undermined?

I'm not seeing a consistent application of principle here. I'm seeing political pandering.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to RockScully's comment:

Did you just say that "the separation of church and state has nothing to do with how people form their views on public policy"...?

Did you?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then why on earth did the foudning fathers feel a need to PUT THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Look. I know you're a dope junior, but you're not usually this bad. Maybe you have had a few cocktails while out whining and dining a prospective client at an early lunch.

Let's try and make this simple so even you can understand.

Separation of church and state means...

An institution of government will not cross boundaries with an institution of religion.

Separation of church and state does not mean...

Individuals must not allow their religious beliefs to color their opinion on public policy as can be affected by their right to vote.

Please tell me you have been drinking and you are not truly this dense.

No.  It means both.   It means the right to practice any relgion you wish without fear of persectuion, but also not to allow any one religion to supersede law.

Hence, Jefferson's own words to keep them separate. It's reciprocal. That's why it's so general, v.s. it specifcially saying what you are implying.

You're wrong.

Proof of junior's insanity.

Anybody who agrees with him please inform me. I can honestly say I never heard a single person espouse this maniacal view of SOCAS.

Wikipedia says it is this:

The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

Yes "the distance".  How does this mean "only for gov't to not interfere with organized religion"?

It doesn't. It means to separate law from religion. Both ways.

It's comical to everyone here that you think you just made some point. lol

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

Oh, and the freedom to bear arms clearly can result in harm, regardless of what you and Wayne LaPierre say. 

Again, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I don't want gun ownership banned.  I just want sensible laws that make weapons designed primarily for killing people difficult to acquire. Limits on freedom where freedom causes harm make sense.  Limits on freedom where freedom causes no harm (as in gay marriage) is just catering to some people's prejudice. 

So you want all devices or substances that could cause harm to be severely regulated?

Some people think the institution of marriage is there to provide security to procreation and not as a benefit trove to a particular pair that wish to shack up.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.

Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

What is the harm in incest you claim?

So, you would deny multiple spouses based on the complexity of inheritance law?

This is your answer to the "rights" of the aforementioned being trampled upon as you see those of gays being undermined?

I'm not seeing a consistent application of principle here. I'm seeing political pandering.

Take a genetics course, I guess, if you want to learn why inbreeding is bad.  

I said I'm not sure about polygamy.  With more study, I might decide it is okay.  I do, however, think there are possible issues with it that require more research before making up my mind one way or the other. 

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.

Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

What is the harm in incest you claim?

So, you would deny multiple spouses based on the complexity of inheritance law?

This is your answer to the "rights" of the aforementioned being trampled upon as you see those of gays being undermined?

I'm not seeing a consistent application of principle here. I'm seeing political pandering.

Take a genetics course, I guess, if you want to learn why inbreeding is bad.  

I said I'm not sure about polygamy.  With more study, I might decide it is okay.  I do, however, think there are possible issues with it that require more research before making up my mind one way or the other. 

Polygamy itself is fine, but if they start popping out kids, then it's incest and not fine.  Leave it to Babe to not have an issue with incest and its scientifically proven negatives, but to have an issue with two responsible, taxpaying, stand up homosexual civilians to marry and be acknowledged the same under law.

Classic.

Babe's own hypocrisy gets in the way again.

Babe his his bible at the ready and his Tom Brady shrine dusted off at Magnolia Manor.

What ever happened to be able to express ones opinion?? Some of us think that the whole gay lifestyle is disgusting...

The fact you don't respect that there are in fact gay people walking around who feel the same way you or I do about a woman, means you don't respect that gays exist, have feelings, etc.

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

In response to BabeParilli's comment:

In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.

Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

What is the harm in incest you claim?

So, you would deny multiple spouses based on the complexity of inheritance law?

This is your answer to the "rights" of the aforementioned being trampled upon as you see those of gays being undermined?

I'm not seeing a consistent application of principle here. I'm seeing political pandering.

Take a genetics course, I guess, if you want to learn why inbreeding is bad.  

I said I'm not sure about polygamy.  With more study, I might decide it is okay.  I do, however, think there are possible issues with it that require more research before making up my mind one way or the other. 

I'm familiar with genetics. I'm also familiar with the modern advantages of vasectomy, hysterectomy and tubal ligation. Any other excuses why these poor people can't have the freedom you so ferociously demand for gays?

Get back to us when you have sorted out your lofty principles regarding polygamy pro. In the meantime we'll just consider you to have selective sensitivity to injustice that sort of falls in with pandering to your heroes rather than displaying any real sense of conviction on the matter.

Once again, you make childish arguments.  Homosexuality is quite common in our society whether you approve or not and homosexual couples are common.  Incestuous couples are (fortunately, I think) a rare abberation.  Polygamy is also still rare, except among a few odd cults. Permitting a large group of people to marry when they desire to do so and when doing so is not harmful (and actually even beneficial, since marriage has many useful property protections) seems consistent with American values and does not create some precedent for allowing marriages with sheep or whatever other wild fancies you want to dream up.