Rhode Island legalizes Gay Marriage

Dont confuse your inability to comprehend the written word, with anything else.

 

Oh, I know. I wish he would just come out and say he doesn't like gay people. At least it would be honest.

 

No, I am quite capable. I was merely reinforcing the fact that you are overtly proclaiming to support one position while at the same time promoting a contrary one. You prefer to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. RI law now allows homosexual couples to marry. You lose, in this case, as justice prevails.

 

Don't confuse your own perception of yourself as being clever as being representative of reality.

 

One doesnt need to be clever in order to comprehend the written word.

 

How fortunate for you

 

"Clever" is not a word I would use in reference to dixon.

 

Depends on the context

 

I would like to reiterate my position that those that are opposed to allowing homosexuals the same legal rights and advantages of marriage as heterosexuals enjoy are bigots as defined by Merriam-Webster here:

 

And you learned nothing from the examples of the Nazi's, which fits with being a Hitler sycophant for sure.

 

Witholding tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage from all couples other than heterosexual couples has as much to do with bigotry as our witholding of tax breaks and governmental entilements reserved for small businesses from all business owners other than the owners of "small business". Nothing what so ever.

 

Another rebuttal rife with logical fallacy.

 

Another reply to a rebuttal, void of even a shred of substance. String together e few words identifying the fallacy?

 

Try to follow along. The issue, here, is marriage rights. Specifically, marriage rights for homosexual couples as, up until recently in the state of Rhode Island, they had been denied the rights legal privileges equal to their heterosexual counterparts. You consistently introduce red herrings, such as procreation and incestuous relationships; or straw man arguments, such as the notion that I have any opinion pertaining to the tax status of a small business vs. that of all business that may be contradictory to my position here. I could go on with a litany of other logically fallacious claims, suggestions, and juxtapositions regurgitated by you ad nauseum in this thread alone and I suspect countless others.

Let me go a little further for you, to make sure you understand, fully. A red herring is a type of a logical fallacy. Here's a good definition that I think you can comprehend.

Your juxtaposition about the rights of the incestuous is irrelevant to the topic of homosexual marriage.

Here is a definition of a straw man fallacy.

This issue is not related to small business regulations nor do I have a stated opinion on it. Your statement claims it to be relevant and thus implies a false argument that I have not made. I have neither advocated for nor against small business regulations. It is irrelevant to the topic.

 

Ah! So your reply was irrelevant to the post of mine you chose to respond to.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah! So your reply was irrelevant to the post of mine you chose to respond to.

 

No, Dix- you failed as usual.

 

What? That is a false argument, comparing being a real American with Nazi principles because we have and exercise our natural aversion to perversity and social engineering which were Nazi staples in the begining, just as it is here now with progressive leftist loserism.

 

I wasn't posting about a real American, I was replying to you- when I said:

And you learned nothing from the examples of the Nazi's, which fits with being a Hitler sycophant for sure.

 

And from the "backwards thinking of progressive leftist loserism" file we have this lttle gem.

 

Jimmy two times, is that you?

[video=youtube;93oxdtP6JNc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93oxdtP6JNc[/video]