Gay marriage question

[iNow]

Oh, so you're not only stupid, but a scumbag, too. Got it. Typical Marxist.

<...>

you make remarkably stupid arguments in a condescending tone (with your intellect you can't condescend to anybody)

<...>

Go back and answer the questions, dummy.

Good stuff. Appreciate you further exemplifying the paucity and utter bankruptcy of your stance on this subject. Thanks for playing.

[Phi for All]

Oh, so you're not only stupid, but a scumbag, too. Got it. Typical Marxist.

 

You make claims and then cite sources that don't substantiate them, then you don't apologize for bullshitting, you make remarkably stupid arguments in a condescending tone (with your intellect you can't condescend to anybody) and you just duck what you can't answer and come with insults.

 

Go back and answer the questions, dummy.

 

!

Moderator Note

#1 rule here folks, Be Civil. No more name calling, no more insults, please. Sensitive topics deserve some extra thought from everyone.

[Alfred001]

And I think a marriage is a legally sanctioned partnership between two people. Their sexual orientation doesn't come into it.

 

Ok, and you acknowladge that other people's opinions matter, too, right?

 

Don't you think those people deserve some consideration?

 

 

It is called democracy.

 

So was prohibition of interracial marriage. Wasn't it you who brought that up?

 

You know what else is democracy? You got three guys in a room, two vote that the third should be killed because he's black.

 

 

And no one is being "trampled".

 

Sure they are, what they care for is being disregarded and stomped on because they are a minority.

 

 

Seeing as the UK has chosen to cause havoc by leaving the EU based on a 52% majority, I don't think it is unreasonable to change a law when 65% approve.

 

Again, see the point about democracy.

 

Would slavery be ok if 65% approved of it?

 

(And its not 65%, not that it matters.)

 

 

No one's rights are being violated.

 

Don't just make pat statements, explain how my argument is wrong.

 

Also, would you answer the cultural appropriation question, since iNow obviously won't.

 

 

Good stuff. Appreciate you further exemplifying the paucity and utter bankruptcy of your stance on this subject. Thanks for playing.

 

Hahaha, you're a TYPICAL SJW. As soon as you can't deal with the arguments you run away.

 

I love how 3 posts back you were beating your chest about how sound your arguments are only to run away 3 posts later.

 

You guys can bs and quote false statistics and false sources and make insanely stupid arguments to the stupid and uninformed, but as soon as you run up against someone with an actual brain with whom you can't hand-wave and BS you run away I have experience arguing with your kind, it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. You have untenable positions, and you're not very bright, to begin with, but you're used to getting approval whenever you voice your incoherent views and when you run up against a non-stupid person you run.

 

And your reasoning is sooo bad That part where you make the argument that opinion on interracial marriage changed and you REALLY thought you had something there... logic is not your strong suit.

 

 

#1 rule here folks, Be Civil. No more name calling, no more insults, please. Sensitive topics deserve some extra thought from everyone.

 

This guy's been calling me a bigot for 3 pages, NOW you come and warn me?!

Edited March 16, 2017 by Alfred001

[zapatos]

Ok, and you acknowladge that other people's opinions matter, too, right?

 

Don't you think those people deserve some consideration?

 

Depends. In the US, laws apply to all. Marriage laws therefore apply equally. Doesn't matter if a minority or even a majority object, the laws apply. Even if 99% of the population objected to gay marriage, the Constitution would not allow you to make gay marriage illegal. I told you this on the very first page of this thread.

 

So to answer your question directly, when the opinions of people are at odds with the Constitution, then no, those people do not deserve any consideration.

[iNow]

Hahaha, you're a TYPICAL SJW.

Social justice warrior, eh? Sorry to tell you, name calling doesn't fortify your position in any way.

 

As soon as you can't deal with the arguments you run away.

That's a really good point, except the evidence clearly shows thirteen posts (now 14 with this one included) where I've done the exact opposite of running away.

 

You guys can bs and quote false statistics and false sources and make insanely stupid arguments to the stupid and uninformed as soon as you run up against someone with an actual brain with whom you can't hand-wave and BS you run away I have experience arguing with your kind, it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Apparently you and I are reading two very different threads.

 

I'm reminded of the quote: "Arguing with people opposed to gay marriage is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how much I'm kicking his ass or how many times I put him in checkmate, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and then fly around the table claiming victory."

 

you're not very bright, to begin with <...> you voice your incoherent views and when you run up against a non-stupid person you run.

And your reasoning is sooo bad <..> logic is not your strong suit.

Gentle reminder: Comments like these do not bolster your position. Quite the opposite, really.

[StringJunky]

Gentle reminder: Comments like these do not bolster your position. Quite the opposite, really.

It's all that's left at the bottom of barrel.

[Strange]

Ok, and you acknowladge that other people's opinions matter, too, right?

 

Don't you think those people deserve some consideration?

 

This is why we have representative democracy. The elected representatives attempt to produce a balance between individual rights and the wishes of the majority.

 

There will always be a percentage who are more or less unhappy with the result. There will be a proportion who think they should be allowed to have more than one wife (because in their tradition that has always been allowed); there will be people who think they should be allowed to marry 11 year old girls (because that has always been allowed in their tradition); there will be a proportion who think interracial marriages should not be allowed (because that is part of their culture); and, yes, there will be those who think same-sex marriages should not be allowed.

 

You know what else is democracy? You got three guys in a room, two vote that the third should be killed because he's black.

 

But not everything decided by the majority is automatically accepted (see also: representative democracy). They are tempered by things like human rights (in this case); whether the action is legal (again, this case); costs (the majority might want something that the country just can't afford); and so on.

 

Democracy is not (if you'll excuse the phrase) black and white.

 

Don't just make pat statements, explain how my argument is wrong.

 

Well, you would have to explain what rights are being violated. Because I can't think of any.

 

Is there a human right not to see, or live in the same country as, same-sex marriages? Is that defined in the US constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights or by the UN?

 

Also, would you answer the cultural appropriation question, since iNow obviously won't.

 

I don't understand the question.

 

 

 

You guys can bs and quote false statistics and false sources

 

A friend of The Donald, eh? As soon as you see statistics you don't like, you call them fake.

 

You were the one who initially said "more than 50%" but had to retract it when you found a source said "35%".

 

[Strange]

I'm not sure this is directly relevant (it is about the meaning of the word) but it is sufficiently interesting...

 

 

 

The 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” More than two decades later, in 1923, Merriam Webster’s dictionary similarly defined it as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” It wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.”

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality