Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Heywood]

Sorry Rampant, your arguments and your thinking are about as bad as Esquilax's.

Rasetsu, Chuck, Alex K, Cthulhu Dreaming, make tough arguments. I'm sure there are others, but those 4 come to mind as being the brightest around here.

I asked you to present an argument against gay marriage, since you're the one against it, and assert they're plentiful and easy to provide.

If you're incapable, that's fine, but don't pretend to pin your lack of a compelling argument is a "failed argument" I never presented.

When did I say I was against gay marriage? I am indifferent. However I do not like judges overturning laws under false pretenses.

I gave a rational reason in my first post in this thread.

[Ryantology]

You've got a signature that says, "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again" and you call me horrible? You're advocating murder.

Jesus is fictional, and it's just a joke anyway. You advocate policies that actually harm and kill real people.

1. Who cares? The people of Arkansas.

The people of Arkansas don't have the right to relegate minority citizens of Arkansas to second-class status. They voted for an unconstitutional law.

2. Claiming marriage has no value is a poor argument. Most find marriage a valuable component in society.

No, honey, ad populum is a poor argument. And, you misrepresent my statement. I said marriage does not need to have a value to society, except insofar as it benefits the people engaged in that union.

3. You are applying specific incidents and claiming it applies as a general rule.

Says the guy who insists that certain marriages should be disallowed to entire groups of people because certain examples don't contribute to society to an extent that he prefers.

4. This is actually a good point. Where you err is in thinking it makes the rational reason to ban gay marriage go away.

Where you err is this delusion that you presented a rational argument against gay marriage at some point in human history.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, I rejected your arguments because they were unconvincing...and often downright irrelevant.

...

Need I even point out that this is exactly what someone who is incapable of letting go of their own flawed reasoning would say, too?

When did I say I was against gay marriage? I am indifferent. However I do not like judges overturning laws under false pretenses.

I gave a rational reason in my first post in this thread.

Ohh, so you're just being an anal retentive douchebag over the wording of the ruling!

Man, you really need to grow the fuck up.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Ah, so he's back-pedaling after bluffing about a "rational" argument to support his bigotry, after plopping out a few Jeff Foxworthy level arguments for Jesus.

[Heywood]

Ohh, so you're just being an anal retentive douchebag over the wording of the ruling!

Man, you really need to grow the fuck up.

You need to learn how to comprehend the written language. I never said I had a problem with the wording of the ruling. I never even said I had a problem with the result of the ruling. I said I have a problem with judges making rulings under false pretenses. The judge claimed their was no rational reason to exclude the minority....which I showed in my first post in this thread to be false.

Maybe I am being anal here, but I like people...especially judges to make good arguments. Your willingness to ignore bad arguments is probably why your so bad at critical thinking and argumentation.

[Esquilax]

You need to learn how to comprehend the written language. I never said I had a problem with the wording of the ruling. I never even said I had a problem with the result of the ruling. I said I have a problem with judges making rulings under false pretenses. The judge claimed their was no rational reason to exclude the minority....which I showed in my first post in this thread to be false.

Maybe I am being anal here, but I like people...especially judges to make good arguments. Your willingness to ignore bad arguments is probably why your so bad at critical thinking and argumentation.

And here we are again: you say we're willing to ignore bad arguments, when what you've presented as "rational" argumentation against gay marriage relies on special pleading with regards to the purpose of marriage, and frankly misses the point of marriage in this day and age.

You just can't step out of your own head for one goddamn second, even if it's just to consider the possibility that some of us don't find your arguments compelling.

[Lemonvariable72]

You need to learn how to comprehend the written language. I never said I had a problem with the wording of the ruling. I never even said I had a problem with the result of the ruling. I said I have a problem with judges making rulings under false pretenses. The judge claimed their was no rational reason to exclude the minority....which I showed in my first post in this thread to be false.

Maybe I am being anal here, but I like people...especially judges to make good arguments. Your willingness to ignore bad arguments is probably why your so bad at critical thinking and argumentation.

And here we are again: you say we're willing to ignore bad arguments, when what you've presented as "rational" argumentation against gay marriage relies on special pleading with regards to the purpose of marriage, and frankly misses the point of marriage in this day and age.

You just can't step out of your own head for one goddamn second, even if it's just to consider the possibility that some of us don't find your arguments compelling.

Piece of advice given by one sameul clements. Never argue with a idiot

[Heywood]

You need to learn how to comprehend the written language. I never said I had a problem with the wording of the ruling. I never even said I had a problem with the result of the ruling. I said I have a problem with judges making rulings under false pretenses. The judge claimed their was no rational reason to exclude the minority....which I showed in my first post in this thread to be false.

Maybe I am being anal here, but I like people...especially judges to make good arguments. Your willingness to ignore bad arguments is probably why your so bad at critical thinking and argumentation.

And here we are again: you say we're willing to ignore bad arguments, when what you've presented as "rational" argumentation against gay marriage relies on special pleading with regards to the purpose of marriage, and frankly misses the point of marriage in this day and age.

You just can't step out of your own head for one goddamn second, even if it's just to consider the possibility that some of us don't find your arguments compelling.

Your argument is essentially this:

Homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriage because in this day and age procreation is not a purpose of marriage.

You are the one making the special pleading. You are citing this day and age as an exemption without justifying it.

Our population...our society...depends on heterosexual unions. This day and age is not an exemption. Our population....our society...does not depend on homosexual unions. It never has and I don't see how it ever will. Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions(unless there is a God who determines such) and that is a rational reason for the people of Arkansas to vote not to give it the same status. The judge's argument was wrong.

[Mothonis]

And here we are again: you say we're willing to ignore bad arguments, when what you've presented as "rational" argumentation against gay marriage relies on special pleading with regards to the purpose of marriage, and frankly misses the point of marriage in this day and age.

You just can't step out of your own head for one goddamn second, even if it's just to consider the possibility that some of us don't find your arguments compelling.

Your argument is essentially this:

Homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriage because in this day and age procreation is not a purpose of marriage.

You are the one making the special pleading. You are citing this day and age as an exemption without justifying it.

Our population...our society...depends on heterosexual unions. This day and age is not an exemption. Our population....our society...does not depend on homosexual unions. It never has and I don't see how it ever will. Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions and that is a rational reason for the people of Arkansas to vote not to give it the same status. The judge's argument was wrong.

1.People don't need to get married to reproduce

2.Even if we were to agree that Homosexual marriage doesn't contribute to society it isn't harming it either therefore no reason to deny it.

3.Last I check we have a over population problem homosexuality helps that problem.

[Heywood]

Your argument is essentially this:

Homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriage because in this day and age procreation is not a purpose of marriage.

You are the one making the special pleading. You are citing this day and age as an exemption without justifying it.

Our population...our society...depends on heterosexual unions. This day and age is not an exemption. Our population....our society...does not depend on homosexual unions. It never has and I don't see how it ever will. Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions and that is a rational reason for the people of Arkansas to vote not to give it the same status. The judge's argument was wrong.

1.People don't need to get married to reproduce

2.Even if we were to agree that Homosexual marriage doesn't contribute to society it isn't harming it either therefore no reason to deny it.

3.Last I check we have a over population problem homosexuality helps that problem.

1. Gay couples don't need state recognized marriages to engage in life long loving relationships.

2. If homosexual marriages don't contribute to society to the same degree as heterosexual marriages that is a rational reason not to give it the same status.

3. The fertility rate in the US is well below that needed to sustain the population. Arkansas is just slightly below that needed to sustain the population.