der trish, where in this quote did he say I personally find gay sex disgusting?
You repeatedly engage in obstructionist behavior. Everything or most everything is a deliberate false claim about what others say.
“The whole argument is predicated on the idea that SSM is disgusting”
No it isn’t, that’s just your persecution fantasy talking. And you still haven’t defined what you mean by “obstructionist”; you seem to like using disapproving sounding words like “obstructionist” and “dilution” in ways that make no sense.
It is common knowledge. I do not have to prove that gay activists have made a call for gay families to participate in studies. We all know it is true.
If you were debating fairly you would accept the common knowledge doctrine instead of pretending that gay activists do not plan strategies.
Laws.
If you do not play games with the burden of proof, I wouldn’t claim you are being frivolous. You took a dozens snippets and disregarded the context of whether I made an original claim or made a rebuttal or even made an offhand remark not related to the issue. Your rule is anyone who opposes you has the burden of proof. So far I have to prove everything I say and you have to prove nothing. This stuff about children in gay families wasn’t even my issue to begin with, and I only responded to someone else’s claim. Marley is busy finding some stuff, maybe I will concede it. But I never said it was bad anyway. I said someone claiming it is good needs to produce proof.
Show in this thread where I said “The whole argument is predicated on the idea that SSM is disgusting”
or that Lobodan even said I did.
I already pointed it out. :rolleyes: It even has the word “disgusting”.
Go back to my original post where I said that and click on quote, and prove it.
More goalpost shifting? The question was what he said. And the point he was making of course is that your entire argument about “dilution” only made sense if you thought SSM was disgusting. Which you obviously do.
It’s very obvious you despise them, and are just squirming around trying to find a rational sounding excuse for persecuting homosexuals. You just aren’t very good at it.
Hey, just checking in to see if David has managed to demonstrate the societal ruin caused by legalized gay marriage in all those other countries yet.
It’s OK, I’ll try again tomorrow. I’m sure by then he’ll be able to put something convincing together.
Highly unlikely.
I have no duty to predict the future for you. call your astrologer or psychic.
I don’t need a psychic to predict your complete and utter failure to provide the requested data.
But go ahead. Surprise us. 
As I said, if it were common knowledge, you’d be able to provide evidence. But it’s not common knowledge because you say so. It’s fantasy. Care to retract now?
Okay, can you be more specific? Are you suggesting outlawing preferential treatment for married couples by insurers, court, the IRS, etc. or creating an entire new class and requiring all those entities to provide all the rights and privileges of the married class?
Seriously, how much legislating will it take to accomplish what a simple recognition of same sex marriage will accomplish?
No, it’s not my rule. It’s a rule of debate. *You *make an assertion, someone questions its validity, *you *provide citation that your assertion based in reality, not fantasy. You want people to take you seriously, you’re going to have to cowboy up.
And he did not say I said that.
What he did was build a strawman, but he didn’t attribute it to anyone.
“gay sex is disgusting” is his interpretation of “marriage is primarily about child rearing.”
Go on and admit to being wrong, I didn’t say that.
But I think I prefer ignoring you. I gave you a chance.
“It’s very obvious you despise them, and are just squirming around trying to find a rational sounding excuse for persecuting homosexuals. You just aren’t very good at it.” Ad hominem and speculation on my motivations. addresses no argument I made and purely obstructionist.
He won’t do that any more than he’ll explain how SSM can hurt the marriage of a straight couple or any of his other worthless assertions.
No, he said that your argument implies it. Just like many of your other arguments, like comparing SSM to feces. You obviously despise homosexuals, and you don’t even hide it well.
No, it’s his interpretation of your calling SSM a “dissolution” of marriage. You’re just misrepresenting what he said again.
And yet more use of “obstructionist” in a meaningless fashion.
Obstructionists are sometimes called trolls on the internet.
In debate, it is someone who wants to tie up everything, like refusing ordinary meanings of words without suggesting mutual definitons; repeatedly making false claims about other people’s claims, either by building strawmen or outright falsification; repeated ad hominems; someone who impedes the valid debate by continually tying it up with the irrelevant and ludicrous.
That’s what I mean by “obstructionist” but I suspect you could have looked the word up and gotten the gist of it. But, no, you claim you do not understand the word obstructionist, whic illustrates my point exactly.
In the dictionary, I heard it has your picture next to it.
(oops, I attached to the wrong quote. this is in response to der trihs’ claim not to understand the word “obstructionist.”
Sounds like you are describing your own tactics.
Show where he said that. He never said I said it and I never said it, and you are plain full of it and absolutely against this debate moving in any direction except toward a meaningless morass.
Again: :rolleyes:
And if this discussion is a “meaningless morass”, it’s because so much of it is page after page of you making baseless assertions and refusing to actually answer questions.
Of course you don’t need a psychic to know I can’t provide the requested data because it is in the future!
We will not know the damage for sure until the whole country is forced to accept a shift in the concept of marriage. Sometime after that happens, we will know. We are just now beginning to have gay marriage.
Its not my duty to provide you common knowledge either.
The Netherlands has had legalized same-sex marriage for ten years now. Surely in an entire decade there must be some data that show a societal breakdown of some sort. It can’t be hard to find the sort of serious negative effects that you have assured us will happen.