Michelle Bachmann says "Gays have bullied the American people"

[Wells]

The argument being what? That I don't make sense because I choose to define marital relationships in one way but not also in every other way? How is that a fallacy?

You can define it for your own purposes however you want. The problem is you want the government to force your own tradition on others.

[Felya]

I will try to say it in simpler terms:

All people are either a circle or a square. Law 1 and 2 are like the laws we have now, but laws 3 and 4 are not.

Law 1: All shapes may do this.

Law 2: No shapes may do this.

Law 3: Only circles may do this, but not squares.

Law 4: Only squares may not do this, only circles.

Our laws are like laws 1 and 2, they don't discriminate. The same rights held by the circles are the same exact rights held by the squares. Anything a circle can legally do, so can a square, and vice versa.

Now explain how a gay person is being married is a square and straight is a circle? The only difference is the shared gender, this isn't squares and circles... It's circles and circles... If you want an example of why cherry picking in your case is disingenuous, go ahead and describe how different gay marriage to straight marriage is the same as the difference between a circle and a square...

[spinner981]

I'll try to say this in simpler terms:

Gay couples deserve the same basic civil rights and statuses as straight couples.

And they have them. An LGBT person has the same rights as a heterosexual person. Referring to couples as a single person and not individuals is skipping a step though.

[Espe]

...do people REALLY need to tell you that the other forms of "type of marriage ever" that you refer to involve things OUTSIDE of the basic concept of two-consenting adults?

He knows exactly what he is doing. Just another dog whistle for his bigoted friends - "hurr, durr, bestiality, pedophilia, hurr"

Like Wells said, bigot word salad. I'm sure he makes his god proud.

[Wells]

And they have them. An LGBT person has the same rights as a heterosexual person. Referring to couples as a single person and not individuals is skipping a step though.

Then all you're doing is defining what genders the signatories of a contract must be. Which there is no justification for. If marriage is a contract, which it is, the state needs a compelling reason to dictate which genders enter into it together. There is none.

[spinner981]

Now explain how a gay person is being married is a square and straight is a circle? The only difference is the shared gender, this isn't squares and circles... It's circles and circles... If you want an example of why cherry picking in your case is disingenuous, go ahead and describe how different gay marriage to straight marriage is the same as the difference between a circle and a square...

What exactly are you referring to? Are people trying to change the subject again, or are we still talking about whether or not gays have equal rights?

[Melusine]

@Melusine: You think non-homosexual people support gay marriage out of fear? Really? You apparently don't understand the concepts of empathy and prejudice.

And you don't understand the concepts of dishonesty and disingenuousness, either. And yes, some don't want any trouble. Act as you will to disbelieve it, but it is the truth, nonetheless.

[Felya]

The argument being what? That I don't make sense because I choose to define marital relationships in one way but not also in every other way? How is that a fallacy?

Because you you think a gay couple is so different than a straight one, it's line circles and squares. I have yet to hear a distinction so wide that would make gay marriage so different than straight marriage. It's identical... The difference with them being gay or straight is so minuscule, that the only factor is sexual orientation... That's why everything you say us a fallacy... You have yet to establish an inherent difference that changes a circle into a square. Unless you think sexual orientation is enough, because if that's the case, I'd recommend doing some reading on math...

[belfpala]

I will try to say it in simpler terms:

This is going to be a mess...

/reads...

Ok. Gotcha.

...and you don't see the difference between Law 1 and Law 2?

[spinner981]

Then all you're doing is defining what genders the signatories of a contract must be. Which there is no justification for. If marriage is a contract, which it is, the state needs a compelling reason to dictate which genders enter into it together. There is none.

This isn't about compelling reasons or 'Why gays shouldn't be able to marry.' this is about equal rights and whether or not LGBT had them or not, which they did. Even if you want to call something what it isn't, that's a fact. Stop trying to change the subject. Using vague and biased words like 'justification' and 'compelling' don't help your case either. This is a discussion of facts, not feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

This is going to be a mess...

/reads...

Ok. Gotcha.

...and you don't see the difference between Law 1 and Law 2?

When did I claim they weren't different? Why can't people just ask me a straight forward question that actually has to do with the topic, instead of putting words into my mouth and then trying to refute the words they put there themselves.

[Wells]

This isn't about compelling reasons or 'Why gays shouldn't be able to marry.' this is about equal rights and whether or no LGBT had them or not, which they did. Even if you want to call something what it isn't, that's a fact. Stop trying to change the subject. Using vague and biased words like 'justification' and 'compelling' don't help your case either. This is a discussion of facts, not feelings.

Please address my post. You can't discuss gay marriage without discussing compelling state interest.

[Felya]

What exactly are you referring to? Are people trying to change the subject again, or are we still talking about whether or not gays have equal rights?

They don't have equal rights because you treat one and the other like a circle and square. When in reality the difference is negligible and is confined to their bedroom. If they were equal, your example would only have circles or squares...

[Espe]

Because you you think a gay couple is so different than a straight one, it's line circles and squares. I have yet to hear a distinction so wide that would make gay marriage so different than straight marriage. It's identical... The difference with them being gay or straight is so minuscule, that the only factor is sexual orientation... That's why everything you say us a fallacy... You have yet to establish an inherent difference that changes a circle into a square. Unless you think sexual orientation is enough, because if that's the case, I'd recommend doing some reading on math...

He has also said that he believes homosexuality is a choice.

I'm sure he's done in-depth research

[spinner981]

You left logic on the side of the road with a 5 inch diameter asshole long ago.

So that's your opinion, and you use your own opinion as an excuse to purposefully abandon logic? Calling cherry picking a fallacy even though it isn't one?

[Wells]

I'd like to point out the hysterical levels of ignorance required to claim that the idea of compelling state interest has no place in a discussion of gay marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

So that's your opinion, and you use your own opinion as an excuse to purposefully abandon logic? Calling cherry picking a fallacy even though it isn't one?

Its like reading mad libs at this point.

[spinner981]

He has also said that he believes homosexuality is a choice.

I'm sure he's done in-depth research

Once again with the word manipulation. People need to start realizing what words mean instead of using completely wrong words to make completely wrong claims.

[Dendrek]

And you don't understand the concepts of dishonesty and disingenuousness, either. And yes, some don't want any trouble. Act as you will to disbelieve it, but it is the truth, nonetheless.

I understand those perfectly well. Your previous post was a spot on example of them. "And yes, some don't want any trouble." Right... some. In statistics, the margin of error for the quantitative word "some" is +/- 99.9%.

[spinner981]

Its like reading mad libs at this point.

Look, if you want to just keep stating nothing but your opinion and insulting me, then I don't see a point in responding to you, especially when we are discussing facts and not opinions.

I think Socrates said something like; the people who resort to slander in an argument are the ones who lost the argument. Too lazy to look up the exact quote now.

[belfpala]

When did I claim they weren't different? Why can't people just ask me a straight forward question that actually has to do with the topic, instead of putting words into my mouth and then trying to refute the words they put there themselves.

Because if I did so, Endus would be forced to give me an infraction even though he's on my side.

I don't want to do that to Endus.

[Wells]

Look, if you want to just keep stating nothing but your opinion and insulting me, then I don't see a point in responding to you, especially when we are discussing facts and not opinions.

You have yet to demonstrate any compelling state interest in stopping gays from marrying. Until you actually make an attempt at doing so there's no much left to do but have fun with you.