Quote:See what I did to your logical fallacy?
Right. You equate homosexuality with murder, rape, and paedophila, and accuse ME of faulty logic. You understand that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful, correct?
Quote:Thats not the reason I am against gay "marriage". I have never made that argument against SSM. Try using the quote function instead of the sock puppet ventriloquism routine.
lol, that's EXACTLY the argument you made - the thread began with a definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and you immediately brought up procreation. (see, I'm using the quote function now. Tell your boyfriend, he'll be so proud.)
Quote:See? Strawman argument all gone now. Bye bye. Wink
Next?
Oh wait....it's ANOTHER strawman argument.
Bzzt, sorry - there was no strawman, since I did not parody your POV and then attack the parody. Nice try, though.
Quote:Nope. I'm not squeamish. If I closed my eyes, I can probably imagine that a ''blindfolded" human orgasm sensation feels pretty much the same no matter what gender or age or other species is involved. Wanna legalize pet brothels?
Or are you one of those..."animals dont like having orgasms err...I mean...animals cant give consent" type folk?
See, now THAT'S a strawman, since I never once suggested beastiality. Why do you lot always seem to resort to that - something to hide?
Quote:Well, I suppose if you are running that lame... no harm, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS trope, how about the starving people in Africa? Do we say they are none of our business?
Come to think of it, someone was earlier making the "over population argument" for homosexuality.
You're seriously equating helping hungry people with denying rights to gay people? Seriously? Ok, since this seems to be a block for you, I'll help you out just a smidge:
When you give food to a hungry person, you've done a GOOD thing.
When you seek to deny equal protection under the law to gay people, you've done a BAD thing.
Quote:How about those unmarried moms who got pregnant. Their body. Their choice. Should tax payers, (I should say religious charities,) provide welfare for them? Or is that another MYOB look the other way scenario?
Yes, taxpayers should provide assistance to unmarried mums (those who need it, anyroad). But again, you seem to have trouble grasping the difference between helping someone (unmarried mums) and hurting someone (gay people who want and deserve the same rights as straight people under marriage laws).
Quote:Make up your mind.
I have done. I've decided that, when it comes to compassionate consideration for other people, you couldn't get a clue if you were standing naked in the middle of a herd of clues, at the height of the clue mating season, covered in clue musk, and doing the clue mating dance.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
