Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long
You know, repeating arguments that I've already destroyed really doesn't help you.
People can make their decisions anyway they like. However, if they make them based on emotion and not facts, then I'll point it out. That's what you did.
Different argument. You seem to claim that 37 states being against SSM means something that makes your position, stronger. Of course, you lack context in your argument, so I added the context and showed how your presentation makes my position stronger. This is known as self-pwnage. You seem good at that.
:lol: This is a contradiction. Morality is relative. As soon as you claim it's related to someone more closely, it ceases being relative. I'd say this is self-pwnage too, but that would be too kind.
No there isn't. There are people who have similar morality.
Since morality is relative, this is nothing but opinion and is therefore irrelevant.
Since morality is relevant, this is nothing but your opinion and therefore irrelevant.
You are making this too easy.
Still going with the failed argument, eh? How many states were not fine with it 10 years ago? I noticed that you didn't answer that question. I wonder why? :lol:
You mean like DOMA? :lol: You just keep self-pwning. Are you trying to make yourself look bad?
Awww... what's the matter? You want to neutralize any group that presents information that proves you wrong? Good to know that you believe in censorship.
And I guess I will just have to keep proving you wrong with facts, while watching you complain and sulk with nothing but emotion. That's OK. It's amusing to watch.
Feel free to have your opinions. I like uninformed opinions like yours. They make my responses far easier to compose.
I didn't. It was YOUR comment that I forgot to place in quotes so it would be assigned to you. Breaking up your quotes so I can address each point of inaccuracy that you make is quite tedious. I missed one.
As soon as you use the phrase "needs to be" your position is a fantasy, not based in fact, and irrelevant. You keep making the same errors, even though I have been correcting you as we go along.
"Should" is irrelevant to reality. The laws are relevant. Just because you believe something "should" be, doesn't make it fact. If it is law, it is fact. Currently, in 13 states, SSM is legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. Currently in 37 states, SSM is not legal. Your "should" is irrelevant there. LAWS and facts are relevant.
Now I've explained this three times. Lets see if you finally get it.
Norm is what society says is the norm and what is accepted. We know that 51% of the population accepts SSM. Therefore, it is the norm. We know that homosexuality is accepted as a different variant of sexual orientation. Therefore, it is normal. Thank you for, once again, helping my argument. Perhaps I should just let you make it for me, since you are doing such a good job.
Wow. An appeal to popularity, the numbers, and tradition logical fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence. Three in one. You've outdone yourself this time.
And here we go back to not understanding the position of relative morality. I guess if you are used to something, even if it doesn't work, you'll stick to it.
And as usual, all I need to do is take apart your own failed argument. Mostly, when you debate me, you help me prove you wrong. You might actually be decent if you didn't use emotion and personal morality in all of your arguments... but since it also seems that you don't have a good grasp of the topic, I would imagine you must use emotion in order to stay in the debate. But do let me know if you do have any substance to present. I'll be happy to examine it.
This is such a crock that I am certainly not going to take the time with you anymore, beyond this post, as it’s just not worthwhile. Your self-absorbed belief that these ‘ oops, forgot to flush’ opinions of yours don’t stink is hilarious…so thanks for that, but to expect anyone to spend time going all through this hot mess in the future?
Nah.
Let’s start with the ‘morality is relative’ statements…if that is so, then the topic of morality would totally be subject to emotion and opinion… and so to make the accusation that it is only I that is doing so when you, by your own parameters, would have to be doing the same thing is…what do you call it?
Self-pwnage—self described?
Si Señor . The fact that you got your butt owned on how homosexuality somehow became ‘normal’ is well known. So, you have what are supposed to be unbiased institutions shilling themselves because they are liberal [and probably many times even subject to the same deviance that they, if we believed them, want to try to force the rest of us to considered normal]…its laughable but hardly objective. Just following the liberal non-reproductive herd,
unnurgh unnurrrgh…nice.
Then the self denial of the fact that you cannot just do away with the fact that 37 states have either Constitutional bans on SSM or define marriage as to be only between one man and one woman…that it is irrelevant unless you are then taking into account that there has been minimal movement on the point over 10 years…then it suddenly becomes relevant...hmmmm, if it’s not relevant, then movement in the last ten years would also be irrelevant. Simple to anyone who knows how to reason, but to those whose positions are incessantly irrational, it makes perfect sense that it is irrelevant in the one but suddenly relevant in the other.
Self pwnge again?
Si Señor.
But of course it is not irrelevant, because the American people have overwhelmingly through the institution and strenuous effort necessary to accomplish Constitutional amendments to ban this depraved desire thus prove that
WE, the majority, REFUSE TO GO ALONG WITH A DEGENERATE MORALITY. One might spray a ton of perfume on dog dumplings…it’s still gonna be dog dumplings.
As regards a common morality… you can look up common but seeing as you have no particular idea of what is normal and what is deviant you seem to have a morally relative dictionary and so definitions mean what you want them to mean, but common would be the most regularly occurring morality…which come from the major religious moralities in toto … argue it all you want but you non-religious or religious but actually nonbelieving folk are the minority. And we are going to keep it that way. The 51% is fictional and most people have been 'politically corrected' into going along with something they know deep down is sordid at best. We “normal folks” don’t even like to think of what …well…simply yuck….Sorry to have to break it to you.
But the fact that you over and over and over again [ read above in at least four instances] call morality relative and therefore subject to emotion means your supposed statements of substance are only those of
your opinion and so, based on your own logic, irrelevant [ self-pwnge again?
Si Señor] …but this is where the 37 states come in [ yes, AGAIN, as
it is relevant ] because even if you were right about opinion, this would be
THE MAJORITY OPINION in a nation where the
MAJORITY RULES. Got that relevant factoid, do you? The APA does not get to decide for us. That would be an appeal to authority [ which in any case would be erroneous as has previously been proven that they are not really a true authority but merely a biased interloper ].
? Si Señor.
‘Should’ and ‘needs to be’ are banished eh? So is shame apparently, because any perverted thing you folks want to push on the rest of us and we are just supposed to lay down, or more apropos, bend over and let you drive right through huh? 'Should be' becomes law when there is sufficient support, as in the case of people not wanting your degeneracy to become the common morality. Sorry,
there is a common morality and one that is necessary to maintain an ordered society. We are not going to let you try to brow beat us, because that is all the strength you can muster, into becoming a totally debauched country…certainly not without a fight. And we now know you folks will not stop at tolerance, you want your depraved deviancy to equate to the normal and upright …
nope…that’s out, we take off the gloves and now its bare knuckles… and we are just tougher and smarter…oh and more numerous....you have now awakened the sleeping giant.
Majority rules is how we govern, cap’n…better get used to it as well, its not just an appeal to popularity, it’s the Constitutional framework… get used to it…ha hah ahahahahhaaaaaa…too tooooo funny.
Oh, and your usual admission of failure, the ubiquitous, in your posts, "proclamation of victory"…wow, what it must be like to be up in there with all that low hanging fertilizer all around…there to be plucked at will…ha ha ha ha…yeah, I have already spent, wasted, too much time on your silliness. I mean its like squeezing a load of your lemons for too long and not getting even a little drip of the fabled juice...
nothing...so it is counterproductive to continue the process....But you have at it, being of liberal mindset, that being the more feminine based ideology, you get the last word…go for it cap’n.