I just explained the premise with examples. I know you're retarded enough to believe in a sky daddy, but I can't spoonfeed this any easier than I have.
If you need to ask why government shouldn't endorse lifestyle choices, you're an autocrat.
Christians are doing everything they accuse everyone else of.
But wait, I thought we're not supposed to hold unjustified beliefs? I asked you to give a justification for your belief things should be the way you say and I get "I explained the premise with examples" which is begging the question and ad homs about sky daddy?
Aren't you supposed to be the reasonable one here who deals with logic and facts and not unfounded beliefs?
Those are a lot of shoulds and should nots. I'm asking where do you get those from and why ought we follow this premise?
I just explained the premise with examples. I know you're retarded enough to believe in a sky daddy, but I can't spoonfeed this any easier than I have.
If you need to ask why government shouldn't endorse lifestyle choices, you're an autocrat.
Christians are doing everything they accuse everyone else of.
But wait, I thought we're not supposed to hold unjustified beliefs? I asked you to give a justification for your belief things should be the way you say and I get "I explained the premise with examples" which is begging the question and ad homs about sky daddy?
Aren't you supposed to be the reasonable one here who deals with logic and facts and not unfounded beliefs?
I am dealing with facts. It's a very simple premise - the government has no right to enforce or criticize people's lifestyle choices.
Any involvement of the government in personal choices is an infringement of basic human rights.
Therefore I get to kill you!
My lifestyle, my choice :)
Oh wait, you believe in rights? Where are they? Can I touch and smell them? Do they exist or are they made up like sky daddy is?