Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

And now you're spamming the same reply over and over. It doesn't take much to break you, does it?

 

[Skylar]

Examples would be: "Marriage has never been between one man and one woman", "Marriage is what we {the infinitesimal, thus otherwise irrelevant minority} say marriage is." "Marriage isn't about FUCKING!", Marriage is a Legal Contract"... ( I love that one... because your fellow cult members have glommed onto it and have now declared that "WORDS MEAN NOTHING IN CONTRACTS".) All of which is endlessly entertaining, but sadly, none of it is even logically valid, let alone intellectually sound.

When did I ever say marriage has never been between one man and one woman? Because I'm pretty sure you made that up. And making up imaginary quotes would again be more of your relativism.

I've said that marriage is our invention. And that it is whatever we say it is. That marriage is as changable as we are. And that there is no inherent definition of marriage, nor any imaginary 'natural law of marriage'. And that you'd made both up.

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yup. As your evidence of sound reasoning is your claim of sound reasoning.

Is it Skylar?

Now you're basing that on what? And please, be specific, at least as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. As your evidence of sound reasoning is your claim of sound reasoning.

Is it Skylar?

Yes. It is. Your conclusion and your evidence are the same thing. That's a circular argument.

As I said, if not for fallacies of logic your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

 

[Skylar]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

Says you. All the same sex marriage happening in 37 of 50 States says otherwise.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter either way. As your willful ignorance is gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yup. As your evidence of sound reasoning is your claim of sound reasoning.

Is it Skylar?

Yes. It is. Your conclusion and your evidence are the same thing. That's a circular argument.

As I said, if not for fallacies of logic your posts would be little more than punctuation.

No.. that's your subjective need, requiring that my pointing to human physiology and the irrefutable facts relevant to such, which define marriage, is my opinion, thus bears no authority; when in TRUTH, nature is the supreme authority and doesn't give a dam' about what you NEED Marriage to be.

 

[mdk]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well Reader, that record exposes the lie as completely as any lie has ever been exposed...

That the Cult denies it, is irrelevant... as they're well established as being lost to the unholy trinity of Left-think:

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

ROFL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

 

[mdk]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

ROFL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Yes, I am finding your flailing hysterics and delusions of grandeur most precious. Please carry on, it is most entertaining.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. As your evidence of sound reasoning is your claim of sound reasoning.

Is it Skylar?

Yes. It is. Your conclusion and your evidence are the same thing. That's a circular argument.

As I said, if not for fallacies of logic your posts would be little more than punctuation.

No.. that's your subjective need, requiring that my pointing to human physiology and the irrefutable facts relevant to such, which define marriage, is my opinion, thus bears no authority; when in TRUTH, nature is the supreme authority and doesn't give a dam' about what you NEED Marriage to be.

There's nothing 'irrefutable' about your subjective assumptions. You assume marriage is immutable. You assume a made up 'natural law of marriage'...citing only yourself. You assume that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation. You assume that what you choose to cherry pick from mature is the 'supreme authority', while anything you ignore isn't. Says who? Says you.

But none of these assumptions are logically or factually valid. Marriage is utterly mutable, as all the same sex marriage going on proves. As all the polygamy proves. Some marriages are based on love. Some are arranged. Some are between two people. Some are between groups. Some are a joining of equals. Some are explicitly dominant and subordinate.

And they're all marriage. Utterly obliterating your imaginary Highlander definition of marriage, 'where there can be only one'. With you deciding what that one is.

Laughing....no, you don't.

As for your 'supreme authority', you ignore nature whenever its inconvenient to your argument. Predation of the old and sick and weak are all part of nature. Infacide is part of nature. But you don't consider these natural occurances natural law. You ignore your 'supreme authority' whenever you don't like the observation. And cite your 'supreme authority' whenever you do. Demonstrating elegantly that your only supreme authority...is own subjective opinion, using the Confirmation Bias fallacy.

Which establishes nothing objectively.

And finally, you assume that marriage can have only one valid basis: procreation. You're obviously wrong. As all the childless and infertile married couples demonstrate. There is obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Which is only emphasized by the fact that not one state requires anyone to have kids or be able to have them in order to get married.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 37 of 50 States, we don't. Your subjective assumptions fail again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

ROFL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Yes, I am finding your flailing hysterics and delusions of grandeur most precious. Please carry on, it is most entertaining.

ROFLMNAO!

Thank you...

I do SO adore the sweeter irony.

 

[Skylar]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

ROFL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Yes, I am finding your flailing hysterics and delusions of grandeur most precious. Please carry on, it is most entertaining.

Laughing....seriously. This is a hoot. About 3 days ago...I broke him. And since he's just been hysterical.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hmm...

So whatever I say is an unfounded assumption... thus Skylar implies that because I said it, that I just made it up.

Now let's apply her would-be principle to her own would-be contribution and see how it works for it.

You assume marriage is immutable. You assume a made up 'natural law of marriage'...citing only yourself.

Huh... self refutation!

That DO speed the conversation along...

 

[mdk]

A point you have yet to refute. And a point proven by all the same sex marriages going on.

You've lost that debate, every way it can be lost... and you've done so on an EPIC SCALE.

It was predicted months ago that you and your ilk would become more delusional as the June ruling approached. You have not disappointed thus far.

ROFL!

Now isn't that PRECIOUS?

Yes, I am finding your flailing hysterics and delusions of grandeur most precious. Please carry on, it is most entertaining.

Laughing....seriously. This is a hoot. About 3 days ago...I broke him. And since he's just been hysterical.

Was that when he spammed 1/2 a dozen sub-forums with the same nonsense and then cried like a bitch when they all got merged? Too funny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader... That they can't answer the argument, so instead they spam and troll... and do what would reasoably expected of those who simply lack to means to reason objectively.

 

[Skylar]

Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.

For the 20th time, rejecting your subjective assumption isn't 'circular reasoning'. As you citing your subjective beliefs doesn't establish anything objectively.

Circular reasoning would be your claim that you have sound reasoning because you claim to have sound reasoning. Where your evidence and your conclusion are the exact same thing.

Its probably better for you if you don't try to accuse someone of a fallacy until you actually know what it is.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Again, humanity existing in nature doesn't mean that anything you make up about humanity is objective truth is you label it 'natural law'. As you citing you isn't natural law. Its your personal opinion. Your argument breaks in the exact same place every time:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your subjective opinion doesn't define natural law.

And thus, your entire argument dies. Sigh...again.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.

Yawning.......whatever. Your imaginary 'concession' is you offering a concession to yourself. Just like your 'reader' is you talking to yourself. Just like your 'natural law of marriage' is you citing yourself as your own source.

Which is about as hopelessly relativistic as it gets.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman. Marriage is what we say it is, as its a social construct of our invention. And it can have more than one valid basis. As all the infertile couples marrying demonstrates. As all the childless couples demonstrates. As all the same sex marriages demonstrate.

Ignore as you will. It really don't matter.

You are gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.

 

[mdk]

Reader... That they can't answer the argument, so instead they spam and troll... and do what would reasoably expected of those who simply lack to means to reason objectively.

You whining about spamming, trolling, and objectivity is as rich as Croesus.