Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional
ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.
I would agree. Your post is a complete trainwreck. It is obvious that you have either no or limited knowledge on this issue. Here. Let me help educate you.
First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?
How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?
It's called a red herring logical fallacy. There. Now you've learned something. Here. Let me see if I can teach you some more.
Second: No one has argued that Polygamy is identical to the sexual deviancy of homosexuality...
Aw... isn't that cute. You used the word deviancy. Let's see how smart you are. Prove that homosexuality is deviant. Now, remember, in order to do that, you are going to have to accurately define the word deviant. Get your dictionary out.
Third: Who has suggested that Polygamy is a sexual orientation?
Excellent. You just helped prove me right. Since it is not, it is a red herring to the issue and is not comparable. You are
really good at helping me win debates.
Fourth: Polygamists would vehemently dispute your assertion that their 'lifestyle choice' is not beneficial... And they believe it every BIT as much as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals of their own gender; just as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals which have yet to grow to the age of consent, OKA: Pedophiles, VEHEMENTLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR PARTICULAR KINK is beneficial.
If there are no studies that show it, then it doesn't exist. I have plenty of studies that show the benefits of GM. Let's see you prove the benefits of plural marriage. Evidence and links are the only things that will suffice.
There, now I have given you a lesson on evidence. Let's see if you can handle it.
Fifth: how does a deviant, abnormal sexual orientation become acceptable as a means to violate the established, reasonable, well founded marriage standard that marriage consist of two individuals, each representing the distinct genders; and Polygamy does not?
More definitions. Please define abnormal. See, when you debate, it is always important to define your terms, accurately. I suspect that you do not know what these terms mean, so your task is to educate yourself on their actual meaning., Link to the dictionary definitions.
Oh, and remember: reasonable, established, and standard is meaningless in debate as it is an appeal to antiquity logical fallacy. There. More education.
Sixth: There is no correlation between the popularity of a given idea and the validity of that idea... relevant to your implications regarding 'widespread support'... Meaning that just because an idea becomes widely supported, does not make it logically valid, or intellectually sound; let alone something approaching a good idea.
An actual relevant point! Your first! What you say may be true, however, when it comes to societal changes, if there is no support for that change, then the change will not happen. That's how voting affects things in this country.
So, though your point was relevant, it was easily negated.
Seventh: Homosexuals violate the marriage standard regarding distinct genders and polygamist violate the stated acceptable volume of individuals.
Which has nothing to do with my argument. Another red herring logical fallacy. If you'd like, I can link you to a site that identifies all logical fallacies so you can stop committing them.
In truth, your would-be argument is little more than raw dissemblance... which never serves any purpose except to distract from the truth; thus you're the one advancing a distraction.
Actually, your pathetic post has been so easy to disassemble, that it is obvious that you know so little about this topic that all you have is logical fallacies, in accurate definitions, and distractions in your arsenal.
So, let's see those definitions and links to studies showing polygamy is beneficial.
At the end of the day, where the advocates of normalizing abnormality prevail in destroying the marriage standard, the notion that they will be able to defend the newly lowered standard from the claims by others of different abnormalities, that they should be provided the same benefit of Marriage and included within the standard; and the same specious reasoning that crippled the standard allowing the homosexual will be used to allow the polygamist.
More inaccurate definitions and an appeal to antiquity logical fallacy. It is sad to see that this is all you have. I was hoping for some competition.
The bottom line is that Homosexuals can readily find the financial benefits which they claim to rest at the foundation of theid discontent, by simply filing to incorporate and lobbying congress to add legislation to include a specific Corporation for domestic unions of the common fag. There's no moral component to it, and there's no limit to the number of people who can participate in these legal entities designed to jojn multiple distinct parties into one legal entity. But the advocates of normalizing abnormality are not truly interested in the tax benefits intrinsic to marriage... THEY CRAVE THE LEGITIMACY INHERENT I MARRIAGE.
Legitimacy, that will evaporate, the instant that the institution is crippled by allowing them to participate.
So, let's see those definitions and links to studies showing polygamy is beneficial. Until you do that, as I said, your post... and position is nothing but a trainwreck.
