<p>Desperate? Backed into a corner? I’m not the one who kept shifting my argument every time I got checked by something. And again, except for the “brainwashed” comment, which I admitted was in poor taste and explained, I haven’t “insulted” you at all. I said your views on LGBT people are unenlightened, and they are. We wouldn’t be having this conversation at all if your views on LGBTs and marriage equality weren’t misinformed. </p>
<p>Oh really?</p>
<p>Where did my argument shift?</p>
<p>Remember oh… about a page ago? How whenever raiderade would comment on “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” you would say “THAT’S NOT MY ARGUMENT, MY ARGUMENT IS MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION”</p>
<p>And when she’d argue against Marriage is for Procreation, you would say “THAT’S NOT MY ARGUMENT, MY ARGUMENT IS MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN”</p>
<p>1984 much? That’s called shifting your argument. You’re really arguing BOTH points, but because she’s taking apart your argument a bit at a time, you keep trying to shift to safety to repeat something you’ve already said. When she counters that, you shift back to the first argument. If she manages to counter both, you either ignore it or you handwave it.</p>
<p>"Remember oh… about a page ago? How whenever raiderade would comment on “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” you would say “THAT’S NOT MY ARGUMENT, MY ARGUMENT IS MARRIAGE IS FOR PROCREATION”</p>
<p>And when she’d argue against Marriage is for Procreation, you would say “THAT’S NOT MY ARGUMENT, MY ARGUMENT IS MARRIAGE = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN”"</p>
<p>Seriously? Seriously? Link me to the posts. I NEVER said that and you know it.</p>
<p>-sighs- Kid, I’m not gonna link you to the posts. They’re less than a page ago, go read them. It would require me copying her posts AND yours pasting them on top of each other and explaining in great detail why this is what your argument comes down to. I don’t really have the patience to explain reading comprehension and the ability to take the main idea from something to someone. But here, I’ll give you a hint:</p>
<p>Post #190 through Post #207 (at least) but it really starts about #187 and goes till about #210. Excuse my mistake, it was pages 13 and 14, not just 14. Re-read those, boiled down to the essentials every time she got you in a corner you claimed she was “misconstruing” your argument and presented the other option. If she got you in a corner about that, she was misconstruing THAT argument, and you shifted back to the first one. I watched you do this.</p>
<p>Of course now, watch those posts magically change…</p>
<p>I think the premise here is that if the govt leagalizes gay marriage that ‘everyone is going to turn gay’ which isn’t true. Just like how not everyone is straight, not everyone will be gay, even if it’s taught in schools that “it’s okay to be gay.”</p>
<p>^Yeah, I’m not really sure how they get that. If you look at countries where people legalized gay marriage, people didn’t suddenly all turn gay. The people who wanted to be married got married, and maybe a few people who were in the closets felt it was finally okay to step out of them without the fear of being exiled from their families. The “OMG EVERYONE WILL BE GAY” thing doesn’t really make sense even if we twist logic around.</p>
<p>Magically change? Dude you can’t edit posts on here except for your most recent post. You are flat out lying.</p>
<p>My mistake, I saw too many “edits” by my last post or so and forgot on CC we only get the most recent one.</p>
<p>But really, nice way to address like, the least important thing in my post. A simple mistake. Now address the other stuff, you know, the stuff that actually matters?</p>
<p>The other stuff in your post has already been addressed. You know I explained the difference between marriage and the purpose behind that definition. Definition: 1 man 1 woman Reason for definition: Procreation.</p>
<p>Thought I made some points you never contradicted, as well…</p>
<p>Yes, you explained that. But what you didn’t explain is how it makes sense when raiderade provided an argument against the Definition, you switched to the Reason (while claiming her argument invalid) and when she argued against the Reason, you switched to the Definition (while claiming her argument invalid). Now, we’re going to try this again.</p>
<p>Argument against the Definition: Traditionally, marriage has been redefined before, 1 man +1 woman is not the “Traditional Marriage” everybody thinks it is, it’s just the most current form of it. Recent Revisions: When we struck down Anti-miscegnation laws in the 1970s. Other societies have different definitions of marriage, I could cite precedent with the Yanomamo and probably with the Dobe Ju/'hoansi. </p>
<p>Argument against Reason for the Definition: You cannot claim the reason is Procreation UNLESS you back that up by mandating pregnancy. You’ve shown an argument saying that would be expensive so making babies is just “assumed.” Well we’re talking about a Reason, a concrete Reason, “assuming” something doesn’t work here. Either we have Preggo checks and mandate couples to concieve, or Procreation is not an argument for marriage being between one man and one woman. Actually if the continuation of our species is SUCH a huge part of Marriage, that’s an argument for Polygamy, lots of guys with MAAANNNY women scoring round the clock to pump out as many babies as possible. If that’s all marriage is good for then why not?</p>
<p>You use the “assumption” thing and try to admit it as valid because it’s easier than admitting there’s more to marriage than just Sex (which is what you accuse the LGBTs of doing - making it just all about the sex)</p>
<p>When it comes to titles (with marriage, unions), separate but equal doesn’t work (and never has) and really isn’t fair in my opinion.</p>
<p>^Yes, again, you (Al) never answered us on the Seperate but Equal premise</p>
<p>I don’t know. A lot of arguments I here made (in general, not necessarily in this thread) that **** me off is that “legalizing gay marriage is going to lead to schools having to ‘teach’ that man and man/woman and woman could get married which is going to lead to more kids “becoming” gay which is going to lead to the death of our species.” That general argument makes no sense to me. Like I stated earlier, just like how not everyone is straight, not everyone will be gay. No matter if there is increase in “gays” the human race will never die out for the simple fact that not everyone is gay. I just think it’s faulty logic but whatevzzzzz.</p>
<p>
Al also never answered this, leading me to believe he has no idea where it did fail—mainly because it didn’t.</p>
<p>Again, I say, who cares about the definition of marriage? That’s mostly a religious/philosophical concern, and realistically no matter how we define it, if two straight people really want to get married and have children, they’ll do it even with the knowledge that gays are allowed the same privilege…</p>
<p>@zchryevns – that’s what I was going for, I asked knowing full-well I wouldn’t get an answer. He knew he was outmatched on the argument, so instead of addressing my points (note when he came back the first thing he addressed was the “Magically change” blonde moment I had rather than the other stuff I said) he latched onto the few times I lost my temper and insulted him, however lightly, and continued to insist I was insulting him even when I was actually trying to say something nice (or at least neutral), it would be easier to try and discredit me than address those nagging little facts I raised. I feel like “win/lose the thread” or Charlie Sheen “bi-winning” jokes would be apropos but eh. I only regret I didn’t look at his link and see it was from the Freepers sooner, I could’ve discredited the entire article by rote rather than bother with the tit for tat.</p>
<p>@ Al.</p>
<p>Wow, your definition of a marriage is ridiculous. Itach, pointed out many posts ago how it used to be a man and as many women as he wanted. A man and a woman is the current “standard”, but rest assured, it will be changed. Society is becoming more accepting.</p>
<p>Why do you even care if they are married. They will still be together regardless of the state acknowledging it or not.</p>
<p>& For the comment about marriages only being for procreation (sigh). So do you have an issue with a normal man and woman who decide that they don’t want to have kids, but love each other just the same?</p>
<p>I would like to point out no one answered my deep, philosophical question from a few pages back</p>
<p>Do gay guys get turned on by their own weiners?</p>
<p>I don’t. I get turned on by other guy’s though. ;)</p>