"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Mister Agenda]

It's been explained to you repeatedly why denying the right to get married to gays is a bigoted view. That you, Steve, GC and anyone else I forgot to mention continue to ignore the facts is not our fault.

Why is that bigotry, when the same arguments where made against a married bachelor, and a human/ non human marriage where just made, and I would say there was nearly universal disagreement.  It seems they went back to the definition of marriage, the same as myself and Steve. So I would ask again, how are you defining bigotry?

Went back to the definition of marriage as a union between adult humans, yes. You're using the old definition, which over 60% of American adult humans disagree with.

---

I would continue, but I feel like you guys will just offer the same arguments that you just turned down a moment ago. I can’t keep up with eqivocating terms, Andy shifting arguments.

We're using the current definition of marriage. You're the one equivocating by using the old definition when you know that's not the definition we're using. You're basically trying to get us to agree that the old definition is currently valid, but by any reasonable analysis, it is not. Common usage defines words. The majority of native English speakers define marriage as the union of two people in a state of matrimony.

---

Consider married bachelor is contradiction and yes comparing gay marriage to marrying non humans is also an absurd comparison

Once again.... I wasn't making a comparison.

You don't know how comparisons work? I can believe that.

I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage.  They are different, and therefore not equal.  I would argue that these things do not all need to be treated the same, because they are different, and only one meets the definition of marriage.

Only one meets the definition of marriage that you're using. The rest of us are using the current definition.  

And you keep using the word "absurd".   I agree,  and would point out, that is the intention of an argument from absurdity.  That following the same reasoning, leads to an absurd conclusion  in another instance.  When I use the same arguments, and you call it absurd.... I agree.  That was the point.    I would also point out, that similar rebuttals where used (arguing that those things don't fit the definition of marriage).  Same arguments, same rebuttals... only the subjects changed (and who was arguing what).

For an argument from absurdity to work, you must show that the premise (allowing people in love to marry, even if they are not of the opposite sex) leads to an absurd conclusion (bachelors being considered married or people marrying toasters). Your conclusion is a non sequitur, the absurd outcome you imagine is not relatable to the premise. It's not just the conclusion that's absurd, but the comparison itself.

We're consistently using the same definition of marriage to be found in the most current dictionaries. You're insisting on whining about it having changed, but there's nothing you can do about it, English will move on without you if you're unable to adapt.

---

Only a problem for knuckle dragging regressive types.   In post modernism, we don't acknowledge such things, and everyone is equal.  We don't distinguish between man, woman, or toaster (or discriminate against such things).  You just re-define the terms to fit what you want.

Speaking of re-defining terms to fit what you want and massive projection....

---

Again pure derp 


And straw man

I think Roads finally lost it

Ok, the. We do acknowledge differences, and can discriminate between them. I agree

As long as by 'discriminate' you mean 'are able to discern differences' and not

2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.