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

[Ravenshire]

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.

And yet you use equivocation and shifty arguments...

[Amarok]

I would continue, but I feel like you guys will just offer the same arguments that you just turned down a moment ago.

Too bad we won't because they are nothing alike 

 I can’t keep up with eqivocating terms, Andy shifting arguments.

Nope you can't keep up with good arguments that damn your nonsense and you keep trying to muddy the water

[RoadRunner79]

Perhaps...because married bachelors isn;t a thing and gay marriage isn't bestiality?  Just throwing that out there, lol.

Now, correct me if i;m wrong, but..you;re in favor of gay marriage, correct?  You see no reason to oppose any state sanction.  So sleep easy tonight.  Those christians who do find reason...and there are many can give no other answer than their vaguely worded bigotries fobbed off on a god.

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.  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.  

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).

[Amarok]

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

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).

The same long broken rant with the answers applying to it

[The Grand Nudger]

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.  I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage. 

There we go.  Why carry water for bigots, then?  You know it;s different...and....you know why it;s bigotry.  Additionally...you;re not  one of Those People™...so....?

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.  

The one where two adults enter into a contractual arrangement?  Right?

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).

The subjects are not alike, as you agree above, and gay marriage fits the definition of marriage in all ways relevant to us law. This put;s inclined christers in a pickle. They can say "godsaidso" to which anyone familiar with our laws will laugh...or they can attempt, and fail, to justify their opposition outside of their religious beliefs.

What to do....what....to....do?

[Amarok]

Once again.... I wasn't making a comparison.  I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage. 

There we go.  Why carry water for bigots, then?  You know it;s different...and....you know why it;s bigotry.  Additionally...you;re not  one of Those People™...so....?

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.  

The one where two adults enter into a contractual arrangement?  Right?

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).

The subjects are not alike, as you agree above, and gay marriage fits the definition of marriage in all ways relevant to us law.

I wonder if he even reads our responses?

[RoadRunner79]

Once again.... I wasn't making a comparison.  I do think they are different, and different from two people of the opposite sex being joined in marriage. 

There we go.  Why carry water for bigots, then?  You know it;s different...and....you know why it;s bigotry.  Additionally...you;re not  one of Those People™...so....?

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.  

The one where two adults enter into a contractual arrangement?  Right?

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).

The subjects are not alike, as you agree above.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

There we go.  Why carry water for bigots, then?  You know it;s different...and....you know why it;s bigotry.  Additionally...you;re not  one of Those People™...so....?

The one where two adults enter into a contractual arrangement?  Right?

The subjects are not alike, as you agree above.

Only a problem for knuckle dragging regressive types.   In post modernism, we don't acknowledge such things, and everyone is equal. 

Says who, lol?  

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.

When the distinction serves no immediate justifiable purpose, what;s the point?  Further...post modernism doesn;t state that you and I are equals.  It states that the law should treat us as such even though I;m clearly your superior.

It should. You were born that way, after all.

[Amarok]

Only a problem for knuckle dragging regressive types.   In post modernism, we don't acknowledge such things, and everyone is equal. 

Again pure derp 

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.

And straw man

I think Roads finally lost it

[RoadRunner79]

Only a problem for knuckle dragging regressive types.   In post modernism, we don't acknowledge such things, and everyone is equal. 

Again pure derp 

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.

And straw man

I think Roads finally lost it

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