Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

[Upchurch]

Oh, like when they redefined marriage to include people of two different races? You feel it was wrong to do that? There should have been one set of laws for couples of the same race and a different set of laws for the different races?

...or are you okay that they redefined "marriage" in that case?

Please, help me to understand what you mean.

I only ask because those who forget history are ...you know.

 

[Robert Prey]

Excellent!


Oh, like when they redefined marriage to include people of two different races? You feel it was wrong to do that? There should have been one set of laws for couples of the same race and a different set of laws for the different races?

...or are you okay that they redefined "marriage" in that case?

Please, help me to understand what you mean.

Red Herring time, eh?

 

[Robert Prey]

Asserting that it's common knowledge A.) doesn't make it true that it is common knowledge. B.) would be an appeal to popularity if it were true. C.) fails the skeptical requirement that you demonstrate your claims.

Sorry but you fail in every possible way.

I say it's common knowledge. You could refute that with facts, but you don't because you know you are wrong.

 

[Shalamar]

I say it's common knowledge. You could refute that with facts, but you don't because you know you are wrong.

Actually, you are wrong, and have been, repeatably.

So, what is this 'natural law' you like so much that prevents homosexuals from marrying the person that they love?

 

[Mudcat]

Red Herring time, eh?

No. It is exactly the point. A homosexual relationship is (usually) committed between two consenting adults, just like an interracial relationship (usually) is. If you have a reasonable objection (pro-tip: you haven't been providing one) then speak up or remain silent already.

 

[RandFan]

I say it's common knowledge. You could refute that with facts, but you don't because you know you are wrong.

If you were right you could prove it. It's not my job to prove a negative. It's not my job to prove your claim.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ewwww. That is even WORSE.

I was a vegetarian for years and years and Tofurkey is a sad joke.

Worse than... Vegemite?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, you are wrong, and have been, repeatably.

So, what is this 'natural law' you like so much that prevents homosexuals from marrying the person that they love?

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Ewwww! The gays are icky!!!"

 

[Travis]

Don't waste my time. What is Common knowledge does not require proof. Google it yourself.

What is appealed to as "common knowledge" is usually neither common or knowledge.

While you're googling maybe you should look up what natural laws are.

 

[Shalamar]

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of "Ewwww! The gays are icky!!!"

Pretty much.

 

[Amazer]

Lovely, but off topic, really. We're discussing whether or not the law should treat one group of people differently from another group.

Robert, do you believe there exists a group of US citizens who deserve to be treated differently in the eyes of the law than other US citizens?

Absolutely not. Under our Constitution and under Natural Law and the Common Law, there is no such a thing as Group Rights. Only Individual rights.

So no distinction between man and woman then?

 

[Skepticemea]

Red Herring time, eh?

What's with the food references? I'm trying to watch my figure.

 

[SezMe]

Baloney or bologna is a type of pink lunch meat that looks rather synthetic, and the red peel around the edge of each slice is inedible.

Now you tell me. I've had to pick that crap out of my teeth for years.

 

[Upchurch]

Red Herring time, eh?

Not a red herring, history.

The arguments you use against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage back in the day. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. If you are against the "redefinition" of marriage now, are you against the "redefinition" of marriage then? If not, why not?

Your adherence to "traditional marriage" in some cases and not others appears to have nothing to do tradition, but based on which groups you say you hate.

 

[Travis]

It was the Romans that redefined marriage. Why isn't everyone mad at them?

 

[Robert Prey]

Not a red herring, history.

The arguments you use against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage back in the day. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. If you are against the "redefinition" of marriage now, are you against the "redefinition" of marriage then? If not, why not?

Your adherence to "traditional marriage" in some cases and not others appears to have nothing to do tradition, but based on which groups you say you hate.

More baloney with Red Herring on the side.

 

[RandFan]

More baloney with Red Herring on the side.

Automatic gain saying. This is not argument.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

More baloney with Red Herring on the side.

Look, you're pretty a little leaguer at critical thinking, that much is glaringly obvious. But if you're going to step into Yankee Stadium, at least try to swing the bat like an adult.

 

[Upchurch]

More baloney with Red Herring on the side.

Really? How does your argument differ, exactly?

 

[NoahFence]

More baloney with Red Herring on the side.

so you literally have nothing to contribute except a bigoted comment every so often.