but but but but gender roles
thats a whine
but but tradition...
thats a whine
but but but call it something different...
thats a whine
When youre so focused on what 2 other adults are doing in their lives and their households, you have a glaring problem in your OWN.
Marriage is whatever the **** the married couple wants it to be...to THEM. You insane busy body control freaks can trip over your dicks and pretend its not some faux post hoc argument to satisfy that o.c.d....
but grown folks dont need to sit in the pocket and argue with such transparent and needless whining.
Youre an eyeroll, and America always phases out bigotry over time. Buhhhh bye, America's the best
The thread was started by your buddy progressive.
Have you dropped your line of argument that the gender roles are arbitrary? Which, btw, was ALL YOU HAD.
All I see above are unsupported assertions, and personal attacks.
This is where, if you were an honest person, you would admit that, yes, going to the courts was a bad idea. The rulings in our favor were bad rulings.
If you were an honest person, you would admit that this gender role thing is complete bullshit and a thinly vailed excuse to try to exclude gays from marriage. You would also admit that the only reason why you think taking it to court was a bad idea is because you don't like the outcome. Going to court was the necessary and appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It is how our system of law and justice works, The case for same sex marriage was made and it was heard. End of stort.
If the gender role thing is complete bullshit, it is funny that you are utterly unable to challenge it.
Your buddy is trying at least. NOt going so well for him. (still kudos to him for trying. he is way ahead of the norm lib curve. As you are demonstrating)
You can drop all the spin style shit. It does not impress me, and to really make it work, you need a braying mob of mindless jackasses echoing it.
Unable to challenge it? There is nothing to challenge, . It is not an argument at all . This is what it is:
Non sequitur (
Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
[1] In a
non sequitur,
the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All
invalid arguments are special cases of
non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
You do not have a clue as to how to construct an argument.
We agreed that the basis for considering Gay Marriage to be a Civil Rights issue, was that the requirement of one man, one woman was an arbitrary restriction.
i pointed out, correctly that those requirements are NOT arbitrary, but instead based on traditional gender roles.
GT, has moved on to the next step in your argument, ie that gender roles are arbitrary. A doomed argument, but he is at least trying.
You have collapsed into unsupported assertions and personal attacks.
Oh, and the idea that pointing out that the supposedly "arbitrary" restriction was based on traditional gender roles, that have been the basis of our societies, for at least, thousands of years,
was a "Non sequitur" is a ******* joke. Pathetic.
Like I said, such obvious bullshit, only works, when you control the medium, and thought massive dishonestly can create the illusion that the bullshit is credible.
Here, with just the three of us, such tactics don't work. YOu actually have to make an argument.
AND YOU CAN'T.
