Really? You couldn’t?
Here, you seem to take exception to the suggestion that you have ceded anything wrt SSM.
Conversing with you can be a very confusing experience, did anyone ever tell you that?
Okay, well define the actual harm bit then. What is the actual, measurable, harmful effect of same-sex marriage?
Teh gay is icky!
-Joe
Apparently the red herring was too delicious a morsel for y’all to pass.
I was being ironic.
Confusing? All the time. tend to happen when I’m right an the other guys keep banging their heads.
I do not wish to do so.
If I said “SMM will make apples smaller” that’ll start 200 more replies saying that even if true oranges would be sweeter, and I have no intentions of particiapting in such a thread.
Because you can’t.
Here, you seem to take exception to the suggestion that you have ceded anything wrt SSM.
Conversing with you can be a very confusing experience, did anyone ever tell you that?
[/QUOTE]
You’ve been right before?
Well, could you link to that?
…and in order to prove you underline it. Well done. Good for you.
I don’t like braggin’
Funny how you don’t want to have this argument, when this is the exact argument that will determine the outcome of this whole mess. If the people legally defending Prop 8 are as reluctant as you are to actually DEFINE their position (i.e. why the overturning of Prop 8 should be itself overturned), then the appeal will be over in 15 minutes. Talk about not fighting for what you believe is right.
The miserable failure of the people who claim such harm exists to provide evidence for such harm is the proof. You are just another failed defender of bigotry.
Stop with the stupid analogies and just tell us what will happen to society if same sex marriage is legal.
If the only thing that will happen is that religious zealots will feel like people they don’t even know are committing moral wrongs, then that is not an argument. You are free to your religious beliefs. You are not entitled to inflict them on other people who don’t share them.
“The previous argument was brought you 2nd grade, were goading actually works”.
Failing to achieve something you didn’t set out to do is really no demerit.
Look, I’ve just failed free-diving all the way down the Marianas Trench!
I don’t want to stop with the stupid analogies, they are great. Imagine that instead of stupid analogies I gave you Vermillion flycatchers, would you also be angry? (and in Lima we even get lots of of sooty-morph ones)
Why do you suppose my arguments are religous?
By the way, inflicting one’s ideas on others is a staple of democracy
What?
Look, just lose all the other crap. Tell us what actual, measurable harm is caused by same-sex marriage. That’s the crux of your argument and yet you won’t explain it. That’s pretty damn weak.
I’m beginning to suspect that Aji’s purpose here isn’t to have an honest debate.
You are trying to defend opposition to SSM, which means you are trying to defend bigotry.
They are either religiously motivated bigotry, some other form of bigotry, or trolling. There are no reasons to oppose SSM which do not boil down to one form of malice or another; which is no doubt why you refuse to state the supposed objective harm caused by SSM; you know quite well there is none.
This is a constitutional republic; not mob rule.
So what you’re saying is, you can only get off by sodomizing infants— and only after you’ve drugged and bound them with duct tape to incapacitate them, so they can’t kick your ass while you’re trying to locate your penis?
I disagree with your lifestyle, but admire your candor.
Reasonable as in “supported by reliable data and/or basic logic that isn’t obviously refuted with 10 seconds of thought”. Which refutes the harm alleged by the Prop 8 defender quoted earlier in the thread.
And I’m sure it refutes this mysterious harm you refuse to actually state, giving you the benefit of the doubt that your argument isn’t just “a homo says what?” spoken quickly.
It comes from prop 8 defense we’ve been discussing in this thread, since post 196.
Did you forget your own defense too, and that’s why you refuse to actually state what it is?
That’s not the crux of my argument, sorry. That’s not even my argument.
I have repeated several times I do not want to participate in yet another SSM debate, so I fail to see the dishonesty.
Bigotry…you say it so often as if it meant what you intend.
Do you deny that people are forced to abide to rules they don’t like?
So, we’re down to kindergarten insults. nice.
You forgot that I dress them as Pinocchio before sodomising them.
And the judge of that is you.
Since I personally didn’t make that statement, I failed to see the reason to defend it.
Translation: I’m too much of a pussy to even try to rationalize my bigotry, because I know it wouldn’t stand up to any kind of logical scrutiny.
A coherent point can be expressed in a sentence or three.
I recall another thread where someone claimed to have some kind of good reason against SSM, but also refused to actually state what it was. Anybody remember that? Was that Ají too, or is this “tactic” something taken up by multiple bigotry defenders?
It seem like the logical last resort of a defenseless position, doesn’t it? I’m right, but I’m not going to tell you why!