In response to:

To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage

Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:31 PM
Tinsldr2, you had to duck out earlier and missed this. I'd appreciate your opinion;
Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:31 PM
Cambermeister Wrote: 8 hours ago (11:50 AM) Tinsldr2, a serious question;

Your son is part of the 2% able ...but unwilling to participate because he doesn't care for the definition.

He's being left out and that's not fair....

Should government change the definition of Christmas so Jewish kids will be willing to participate?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:55 PM
Camber, If I responded you could simply not comprehend what I write and it would confuse you more so you would spam more ridiculous nonsense.

First what this topic has nothing to do with my son. You can not comprehend that. You will ignore it. For example I thought DOMA was unconstitutional in 1996 when my son was 3. But Camber can not grasp that. So he will post this nonsense again.

"Should government change the definition of Christmas"

There is no Government definition of Christmas that I am aware of, and certainly anyone that wants to can participate in Christmas. The Gov is constitutionally FORBIDDEN from interfering or DEFINING Christmas, as he knows which makes his off topic rant even MORE ridiculous


Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 8:58 PM
Now Camber will say anyone can get married. But that has nothing to do with the topic and he knows it.

People can not marry the consenting adult they love and that loves them back. But again he can not comprehend that. So he will go on off topic insane rants.
nawlins72 Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 9:37 PM
I explained to you before that Camber (AKA Kevlar) is but a sock puppet, not a rational being. It can only respond with programmed responses in an endless loop. Attempting discussion with it is futile.
Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 9:56 PM
Thanks for the response Tinsldr2. If I understand your post, you don't want the government to redefine Christmas and the Jewish kids need to understand as much.
Is that it?
dberger Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 1:20 AM
I don't quite understand how a definition that has been well understood for countless generations can suddenly be declared to be unconstitutional.

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become...