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

[thanatos144]

Same sex already standard in some states.

Soon in all states

Plural marriage won't be far behind tho that might self-limit to Muslims in Mormons (ummmmmmm.....The Vast "Letter M" Conspiracy?)

But to be fair to Muslims equality for goats!

Can a line even be drawn there?

How about a boy-and-his-dog? Or does that, at least in DC, fall afoul of the pure food laws?

Dont forget that liberals believe pedo love to be natural as well

 

[Carla_Danger]

Gay Marriage Scares Oklahoma Rep So Much He Proposes Banning All Marriages

If this isn't the most petulant thing I've read from the Right wing today........

And they say Republican's want less government, and they don't interfere into people's person lives....BOY, THAT IS RICH! LOL!

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

 

[bodecea]

Same sex already standard in some states.

Soon in all states

Plural marriage won't be far behind tho that might self-limit to Muslims in Mormons (ummmmmmm.....The Vast "Letter M" Conspiracy?)

But to be fair to Muslims equality for goats!

Can a line even be drawn there?

How about a boy-and-his-dog? Or does that, at least in DC, fall afoul of the pure food laws?

Dont forget that liberals believe pedo love to be natural as well

What a liar you are. So much for that Commandment against bearing false witness, eh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gay Marriage Scares Oklahoma Rep So Much He Proposes Banning All Marriages

If this isn't the most petulant thing I've read from the Right wing today........

And they say Republican's want less government, and they don't interfere into people's person lives....BOY, THAT IS RICH! LOL!

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Your surrender here is noted.
Now run along.

 

[konradv]

I make no sense? Under whose auspices do the courts and lawyers operate?

Irrelevant. Agricultural Adjustment agents operate under the government too. It doesnt mean they have an interest in marriage.

You're the one spouting irrelevancies. Just because one part of government doesn't have an interest in marriage, doesn't mean another can't.

The government enacts laws.
Some laws have to do with property rights between married individuals.
Therefore, the government DOES have an interest in marriage.

Since you seem to have an interest in logical fallacies, you should recognize that your argument violates the syllogism above.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And they say Republican's want less government, and they don't interfere into people's person lives....BOY, THAT IS RICH! LOL!

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Your surrender here is noted.
Now run along.

And they say Republican's want less government, and they don't interfere into people's person lives....BOY, THAT IS RICH! LOL!

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Your surrender here is noted.
Now run along.

You keep talking about #2, so I figured you needed a bathroom.

 

[konradv]

You keep talking about #2, so I figured you needed a bathroom.

I worry when he starts talking about #3!

 

[The Rabbi]

I make no sense? Under whose auspices do the courts and lawyers operate?

Irrelevant. Agricultural Adjustment agents operate under the government too. It doesnt mean they have an interest in marriage.

You're the one spouting irrelevancies. Just because one part of government doesn't have an interest in marriage, doesn't mean another can't.

The government enacts laws.
Some laws have to do with property rights between married individuals.
Therefore, the government DOES have an interest in marriage.

Since you seem to have an interest in logical fallacies, you should recognize that your argument violates the syllogism above.

That is not a syllogism. That is a fallacy based on a misinterpretaiton of the word "interest." It also has other problems wrapped into it. It is like saying government makes laws about cars. Therefore government has an interest in people owning cars.
They dont.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Your surrender here is noted.
Now run along.

Why is it you liberals don't understand how the country was founded to work? Less government doesn't mean less states rights or less voice for the voter

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Do you need to go to the bathroom?

Your surrender here is noted.
Now run along.

You keep talking about #2, so I figured you needed a bathroom.

Thats because you have the mentality of a 9 year old.

 

[konradv]

That is not a syllogism. That is a fallacy based on a misinterpretaiton of the word "interest." It also has other problems wrapped into it. It is like saying government makes laws about cars. Therefore government has an interest in people owning cars. They don't.

Yes that is a syllogism. If I've misinterpreted "interest" enlighten me. The last part is mere equivocation based on YOUR malinterpretation of the word "interest".

 

[The Rabbi]

That is not a syllogism. That is a fallacy based on a misinterpretaiton of the word "interest." It also has other problems wrapped into it. It is like saying government makes laws about cars. Therefore government has an interest in people owning cars. They don't.

Yes that is a syllogism. If I've misinterpreted "interest" enlighten me. The last part is mere equivocation based on YOUR malinterpretation of the word "interest".

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

 

[konradv]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsorship of marriage. Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

The government has an interest in the orderly transfer of property. Without it anarchy can ensue. The state doesn't produce citizens, by the way, unless you subscribe to the Stalin-Hitler-Mao view of history.

 

[JFK_USA]

Turner’s proposal underscores the real motivation behind the movement to ban same-sex marriage. Clearly Turner is less interested in preserving the sanctity of “traditional marriage” than he is in punishing gay people. He would sooner deny every couple the right to marry than allow same-sex partners to wed one another.

Typical lib response: bumper stickers and cartoons.

Typical neocon response. Cuss and angrily defend your position without logic or reason but with insults.

 

[thanatos144]

Same sex already standard in some states.

Soon in all states

Plural marriage won't be far behind tho that might self-limit to Muslims in Mormons (ummmmmmm.....The Vast "Letter M" Conspiracy?)

But to be fair to Muslims equality for goats!

Can a line even be drawn there?

How about a boy-and-his-dog? Or does that, at least in DC, fall afoul of the pure food laws?

Dont forget that liberals believe pedo love to be natural as well

What a liar you are. So much for that Commandment against bearing false witness, eh?

No lie. Why else defend nambla

 

[The Rabbi]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsorship of marriage. Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

The government has an interest in the orderly transfer of property. Without it anarchy can ensue. The state doesn't produce citizens, by the way, unless you subscribe to the Stalin-Hitler-Mao view of history.

1) Move goal posts. Infer general from specific case.
2) Slippery slope fallacy
3) Confusion between state having an interest and state acting.

You're just not doing very well here, are you? Every response is a logical fallacy, a factual error, a mere assertion that what you think is the truth.
Try dealing with the argument. Oh, but you can't. Because there are only two arguments for "gay marriage" and both have been debunked.

 

[The Rabbi]

Turner’s proposal underscores the real motivation behind the movement to ban same-sex marriage. Clearly Turner is less interested in preserving the sanctity of “traditional marriage” than he is in punishing gay people. He would sooner deny every couple the right to marry than allow same-sex partners to wed one another.

Typical lib response: bumper stickers and cartoons.

Typical neocon response. Cuss and angrily defend your position without logic or reason but with insults.

I dont see any cuss words in my response. I dont see any anger in my response.
Are you sure you're reading the same post??

 

[konradv]

1) Move goal posts. Infer general from specific case.
2) Slippery slope fallacy
3) Confusion between state having an interest and state acting.
You're just not doing very well here, are you? Every response is a logical fallacy, a factual error, a mere assertion that what you think is the truth.Try dealing with the argument. Oh, but you can't. Because there are only two arguments for "gay marriage" and both have been debunked.

1) I didn't infer a general from a specific case. That's what you were doing when you started mentioning government agencies not involved in the initial discussion.
2) Mentioning a possible result isn't slippery slope. I'd have to insist that there was a definite result. Much the way you do when you claim same-sex marriage would cause harm to society or other people's marriages.
3) I haven't confused having an interest and acting. I don't recall saying anything about the state acting. That was your position when you insisted the government should reverse its recognition of same-sex marriages.

I think I'm doing quite well. You apparently don't know logic as well as you think you do. I have seen nothing that proves same-sex marriage causes harm to society, children or heterosexual marriages. Maybe if you could go through it one more time?

 

[The Rabbi]

1) Move goal posts. Infer general from specific case.
2) Slippery slope fallacy
3) Confusion between state having an interest and state acting.
You're just not doing very well here, are you? Every response is a logical fallacy, a factual error, a mere assertion that what you think is the truth.Try dealing with the argument. Oh, but you can't. Because there are only two arguments for "gay marriage" and both have been debunked.

1) I didn't infer a general from a specific case. That's what you were doing when you started mentioning government agencies not involved in the initial discussion.
2) Mentioning a possible result isn't slippery slope. I'd have to insist that there was a definite result. Much the way you do when you claim same-sex marriage would cause harm to society or other people's marriages.
3) I haven't confused having an interest and acting. I don't recall saying anything about the state acting. That was your position when you insisted the government should reverse its recognition of same-sex marriages.

I think I'm doing quite well. You apparently don't know logic as well as you think you do. I have seen nothing that proves same-sex marriage causes harm to society, children or heterosexual marriages. Maybe if you could go through it one more time?

Of course you think you're doing well. Because you're stupid. You dont understand the meanings of words you use, much less ones I use.

So you take a specific case, marital property, and infer a general interest in the orderly dispersal of property. T he state has no specific interest in the orderly dispersal of property and that could be accomplished a hundred ways instead of marriage. In fact it is.
You did not mention a possible result. You asserted anarchy can ensue. That is absurd on its face, of course. Anarchy will not ensue without marriage. You implied this was a possibility. It is not.
Straw man fallacy as well. I never wrote the state produces citizens. The state has an interest in producing citizens. If you dont understand the difference between those two statements get an adult to help you.

 

[konradv]

1) Move goal posts. Infer general from specific case.
2) Slippery slope fallacy
3) Confusion between state having an interest and state acting.
You're just not doing very well here, are you? Every response is a logical fallacy, a factual error, a mere assertion that what you think is the truth.Try dealing with the argument. Oh, but you can't. Because there are only two arguments for "gay marriage" and both have been debunked.

1) I didn't infer a general from a specific case. That's what you were doing when you started mentioning government agencies not involved in the initial discussion.
2) Mentioning a possible result isn't slippery slope. I'd have to insist that there was a definite result. Much the way you do when you claim same-sex marriage would cause harm to society or other people's marriages.
3) I haven't confused having an interest and acting. I don't recall saying anything about the state acting. That was your position when you insisted the government should reverse its recognition of same-sex marriages.

I think I'm doing quite well. You apparently don't know logic as well as you think you do. I have seen nothing that proves same-sex marriage causes harm to society, children or heterosexual marriages. Maybe if you could go through it one more time?

Of course you think you're doing well. Because you're stupid. You dont understand the meanings of words you use, much less ones I use.

So you take a specific case, marital property, and infer a general interest in the orderly dispersal of property. T he state has no specific interest in the orderly dispersal of property and that could be accomplished a hundred ways instead of marriage. In fact it is.
You did not mention a possible result. You asserted anarchy can ensue. That is absurd on its face, of course. Anarchy will not ensue without marriage. You implied this was a possibility. It is not.
Straw man fallacy as well. I never wrote the state produces citizens. The state has an interest in producing citizens. If you dont understand the difference between those two statements get an adult to help you.

As usual you're getting really boring. You obviously don't have a clue what logic is, so claim your "win" and run along, son.

 

[Skylar]

I believe same sex marriage is now legal in 36 states. Soon it will be legal in all states. Suck on that, whydontcha. You don't get to trample on others Constitutional rights.

Argument #2. Again.

Ah. Your 'secret arguments'. Again. Which you can't articulate, can't use, can't even describe.

Or as we like to call it, your 'tell'.

You havent been following this very closely, eh?
I laid out what Argument #1 and Arguiment #2 are.

Oh, I've been following the conversation. If you had arguments, you'd present them. Instead, you give us excuses for why you can't.

They are the only arguments for gay marriage. And they are both fallacious.

Says who? They're clearly compelling enough to win virtually every case in federal court case on the matter and convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage should be legal.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong.
Argument #2.
Gay marriage has made inroads not because it was approved on a ballot. Indeed, the majority of referenda on gay marriage saw traditional marriage upheld. It won because activist judges, some of them gay themselves, overturned the will of the people.

And you fall back on your 'secret argument' schtick. Where you insist that a particular claim has been debunked. But you can't say how, where, or even describe your argument in anyway.

Keep running.