I was just rubbing it in. He can sour grape it all he wants to, so can you. You'll end up just like the people bitter and angry over the Loving decision. You'll get over it or die and we'll still be getting the same rights, benefits and protections you have (buy you don't enjoy, I know)
Yes, you ignorant slut, I'm against gay rights because I hate gays. This is why I don't take you seriously, ho. Now you can whine that I insulted you when I told you I don't take you seriously so I'm going to insult you.
Children are in my view the one legitimate argument against gay marriage outside the realm of why government is involved in marriage at all. People evolved to need a mother and a father. It's not gays having their own children that makes it an argument, it's adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to adopt children before going to less than ideal situations, which is all other situations besides heterosexual pair.
As for your reply, Karnac predicts you don't know what the word "ideal" means...
And BTW, you have all the same "rights, benefits and protections" the rest of us have now. Like all liberals, you are not equal unless you are superior.
How is being in a homosexual marriage superior to being in a heterosexual marriage? You're gonna have to explain that one.
He's not serious. He does it on purpose. Kaz doesn't think anyone should be civilly married (despite being civilly married).
I know you know this, which is why I don't get your insistance on calling me a homophobe in every argument. I realize that's what your liberal conditioning prescribes, and yet as you keep repeating you know it's not my issue with gay marriage. It just makes me not take you seriously.
He doesn't want to discuss the world where it is, but where he thinks it should be. If you ask him "as long as civil marriage exists, should gays have equal access to it?", despite being a self described libertarian, he won't answer that question and instead falls back to his "there should be no civil marriage argument". Back to the world where he wants it, not where it is.
I think you can't pin him down on the question because he thinks gays are icky and just doesn't want gays to have the same rights he enjoys with his civil marriage. I don't know if it's a deeply held religious belief for him or not, but he's decided to go full hyperbole over it instead of just answering the simple question;
As long as civil marriage exists, should gay couples have equal access to it for their relationships?
Actually, I've answered that question directly, many times. I don't answer it when you lace it with ridiculous strawmen and insults in the question, but I have taken every chance to answer it for you and others when you don't do that. I have two modes, serious and fun. You don't get to mix them, you have to pick. So again,
1) All government marriage is wrong, government should treat all of it's citizens equally. There are better solutions to everything government marriage does than government marriage. Taxes should be flat, the death tax is evil, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to biology and not paper, etc.
2) Adding gays to that extends inequality between married and single to more people. That a libertarian would believe that the path to ending government discrimination is by extending discrimination to more people is preposterous. It's also presposerous to argue to a libertarian that THEY have it, so you want it from government too. We don't like government. It's like asking Hitler to bless a Jewish wedding. I hate government, your need for validation from it isn't relevant to me and I don't grasp why it's relevant to you.
3) If you get gay marriage through the legislature, I am not for it, but I pretty much don't give a rat's ass. You're not going to get me demonstrating against it and it will be way, way down from the top of my list of government actions I oppose.
4) However, you are doing it criminally, by getting self appointed dictators to legislate from the bench and decree it. Every time they do that, they are more emboldened to decree more of my liberties away.
5) As for the 14th amendment. The role of the courts is literal, it is not to make life fair. When blacks were sent to separate schools, forced to sit in the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains, they were literally treated differently from other citizens. Being black changed how the law applied to you. Gays can literally marry the same people as straights. Either can enter man/woman government marriage, neither can enter single sex marriage. The job of the courts ends there. It's not fair? Fairness is a job for the legislature.
When I don't answer your questions, read this again and stop with the strawman crap putting words in my mouth and being an ass when you ask them. Or, insult me and have fun and don't expect a serious answer. But when you are posting with me, you pick. I'm fine either way. But when you choose to go with snotty questions, you won't get serious answers.
