If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[The Rabbi]

Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong.
Next.

 

[bendog]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

Might want to ask that State Representative in Oklahoma.

Sharia law.

 

[bodecea]

So...you will have to tell us how your state crumbles into anarchy when Gay Marriage becomes legal.

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Your defeat on this point is acknowledged.

Let us know how it fares in your state when gay marriage is legalized nationally. And you are welcome to taunt me all you want if the Supremes strike gay marriage down.

 

[konradv]

Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage? It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong.
Next.

I'll take that as a WIN since you obviously don't have a cogent argument to refute mine.

 

[konradv]

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Just like anyone else?!?! I thought your thesis would preclude me from marrying a man, i.e. me being "anyone" would be barred and therefore harmed, which you said was not true. Which is it? I'm afraid you've been hoisted on your own petard. Give up before you start to look totally foolish.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oops. thanks for reminding me,
Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Your defeat on this point is acknowledged.

Let us know how it fares in your state when gay marriage is legalized nationally. And you are welcome to taunt me all you want if the Supremes strike gay marriage down.

Argument #2.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage? It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong.
Next.

I'll take that as a WIN since you obviously don't have a cogent argument to refute mine.

I dont need a logical argument. Your statement is factually wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Just like anyone else?!?! I thought your thesis would preclude me from marrying a man, i.e. me being "anyone" would be barred and therefore harmed, which you said was not true. Which is it? I'm afraid you've been hoisted on your own petard. Give up before you start to look totally foolish.

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.
You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals.
No discrimination whatsoever.

 

[konradv]

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals. No discrimination whatsoever.

Wow!!! That's straight out of "1984". You're setting limits and calling it "freedom". What's next, "War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"?

 

[Skylar]

Argument #3: Whose marriage is harmed by gay marriage?
It's a red herring of an argument because gay marriage undermines the purpose of marriage.

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong.
Next.

Oh, its demonstratably right. Marriage can be about procreation. Yet millions of couples never procreate, or can't. Yet their marriages are just as legally valid as those who do have children.

Demonstrating unambiguously that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with having children or being able to.

And at the same time demonstrating that valid bases of marriage aren't singular.

 

[konradv]

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong. Next.

I'll take that as a WIN since you obviously don't have a cogent argument to refute mine.

I dont need a logical argument. Your statement is factually wrong.

Sure you do. Elderly couples marry for company, NOT procreation. Ergo, there IS more than one purpose. Give up, please. Your mind is slipping out of all limits of rationality. You're becoming ridiculously easy to debunk.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Just like anyone else?!?! I thought your thesis would preclude me from marrying a man, i.e. me being "anyone" would be barred and therefore harmed, which you said was not true. Which is it? I'm afraid you've been hoisted on your own petard. Give up before you start to look totally foolish.

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.
You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals.
No discrimination whatsoever.

Which is the exact same logic used by opponents of interracial marriage. Since the prohibitions existed for both black and whites, there was no discrimination. The problem with that reasoning is that the basis of restriction needs to be valid as well. If you just arbitrarily say that brown eyed people can't marry blue eyed ones.....you need a reason. A rational reason, and a valid state interest being served.

And there isn't either. Just an arbitrary restriction that withholds rights from millions of people. For no particular reason.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm fine with the state not recognizing any marriage.
But then what do you do about alimoney, divorce settlement, adoption, paternity, bankruptcy and inheritance?

yes, you would have some seriously problems burning down legal marriage out of spite.

But doing something incredibly destructive has never stopped the right wing before

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals. No discrimination whatsoever.

Wow!!! That's straight out of "1984". You're setting limits and calling it "freedom". What's next, "War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"?

Your non-response is noted.

 

[The Rabbi]

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Just like anyone else?!?! I thought your thesis would preclude me from marrying a man, i.e. me being "anyone" would be barred and therefore harmed, which you said was not true. Which is it? I'm afraid you've been hoisted on your own petard. Give up before you start to look totally foolish.

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.
You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals.
No discrimination whatsoever.

Which is the exact same logic used by opponents of interracial marriage. Since the prohibitions existed for both black and whites, there was no discrimination. The problem with that reasoning is that the basis of restriction needs to be valid as well. If you just arbitrarily say that brown eyed people can't marry blue eyed ones.....you need a reason. A rational reason, and a valid state interest being served.

And there isn't either. Just an arbitrary restriction that withholds rights from millions of people. For no particular reason.

Argument #1. Already debunked.

 

[The Rabbi]

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong. Next.

I'll take that as a WIN since you obviously don't have a cogent argument to refute mine.

I dont need a logical argument. Your statement is factually wrong.

Sure you do. Elderly couples marry for company, NOT procreation. Ergo, there IS more than one purpose. Give up, please. Your mind is slipping out of all limits of rationality. You're becoming ridiculously easy to debunk.

People marry for a variety of reasons.
The state's interest is limited to one.
I've made this clear before.

 

[Skylar]

Apparently you don't know that in order to restrict a group of citizens from a right enjoyed by others, there has to be a demonstration of HARM for allowing them the same rights. What IS the harm?

No harm as there is no inequality here. You are free to marry any man you want, just like anyone else.

Just like anyone else?!?! I thought your thesis would preclude me from marrying a man, i.e. me being "anyone" would be barred and therefore harmed, which you said was not true. Which is it? I'm afraid you've been hoisted on your own petard. Give up before you start to look totally foolish.

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.
You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals.
No discrimination whatsoever.

Which is the exact same logic used by opponents of interracial marriage. Since the prohibitions existed for both black and whites, there was no discrimination. The problem with that reasoning is that the basis of restriction needs to be valid as well. If you just arbitrarily say that brown eyed people can't marry blue eyed ones.....you need a reason. A rational reason, and a valid state interest being served.

And there isn't either. Just an arbitrary restriction that withholds rights from millions of people. For no particular reason.

Argument #1. Already debunked.

Nope. If you could debunk it you would have. Instead, you give us excuses why you can't.

Don't tell us. Show us. Because opponents of same sex marriage have said much the same thing until it came time to present those arguments in court. Then, things generally don't work out so well.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage can have a number of purposes. You're committing a logical fallacy by suggesting that there is a single purpose.

Wrong. Next.

I'll take that as a WIN since you obviously don't have a cogent argument to refute mine.

I dont need a logical argument. Your statement is factually wrong.

Sure you do. Elderly couples marry for company, NOT procreation. Ergo, there IS more than one purpose. Give up, please. Your mind is slipping out of all limits of rationality. You're becoming ridiculously easy to debunk.

People marry for a variety of reasons.
The state's interest is limited to one.
I've made this clear before.

If it were, then the benefits would come when the children did. Instead, benefits of marriage come regardless of children or the ability to have them. Nor is anyone required to be able to have children in order to marry in any state.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Don't tell us....your answer is another one of those secret arguments that you can't actually articulate, describe, or use in any meaningful way? Um, Rabbi......your secret argument schtick is your tell.

 

[konradv]

People marry for a variety of reasons. The state's interest is limited to one. I've made this clear before.

...and you've been wrong before. Besides the protection of children another interest would be property concerns.

 

[konradv]

Nope. You are free to marry any women you like. She is free to marry any man she likes. Just like all the other men and women out there.You are not free to marry another man and she is not free to marry another woman. Just like heterosexuals. No discrimination whatsoever.

Wow!!! That's straight out of "1984". You're setting limits and calling it "freedom". What's next, "War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"?

Your non-response is noted.

Note all you want. What anyone with a brain realizes is that your arguments have been trashed at every turn for which you have no answer.