Ryan Anderson vs. confused, uninformed homosexual

[video=youtube;Zcs1K7Gi9Pg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg[/video]

Interesting way the speaker set the questioner up.
In trying to find the basis of the question, to which the questioner couldn't provide or understand, Ryan Anderson set the path to discrimination by asking if the questioner was only concerned about his rights.... or those of others who wish the laws to be changed.

The questioner makes it well known he isn't interested in their rights, just his.

I know the expected replies anti-Anderson, anti-Heritage.... zzz... so no need to spew them.

Just seems the guy asking questions should be going after the laws of marriage, not the taxation of it.

Also curious....the way he kept looking around after asking questions... either hoping to rile people up? Or maybe hoping he's made some profound statement that people will cheer and applaud.

Regardless.... he was clearly pwned.

 

He was "pwned" by a fallacy. The speaker was making an appeal to nature. By stating marriage is "naturally" between two peopleof the opposite sex.

That is faulty in and of itself because marriage is a creation of man and not nature.

Too bad the questioner didn't have a good debate position.

The speaker also claimed a marriage wasn't a marriage because it didn't fit his criteria. That is called aproprietary claim. I would have owned that speaker.

 

nothing new here

homosexuals are only interested in themselves and redefining the term marriage.

The speaker was spot on saying that the questioner has every right to enter into marriage, but he chooses not to do so.

 

Why would a homosexual marry someone of the opposite gender?

You probably expected an interracial couple to just give up and marry someone of the same race too.

After all, blacks and whites both had the same rights to marriage. They could marry anyone they wanted who was the same race.

 

I wouldn't be too happy if my son had married a lesbian. If I had a straight daughter, I wouldn't want her marrying a gay man either.

Even the lead defense attorney in California's Prop 8 recently reveled at his own daughter's lesbian wedding; a clear case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

At this point the anti-SSM "arguments" are in hospice care. This is just morphine for the mopers.

 

please do not try and draw a similarity to race and sex-life

I cannot wake up in the morning and all of a sudden become white. You can wake up today and immediately stop living the homosexual life.

It is a very weak argument to try and draw a similarity.

 

I'm not. I'm drawing a similarity between race and orientation. Both are inborn traits.

.
Strawman.

Which is why I didn't, and why you made the strawman.

 

A self-hating homosexual who was in the closet and trying to "force" themselves to be straight might.

But basically, you're right. It's a phony argument the homophobes make to gays that "You have the right to marry...as long as it's to a person of the opposite gender."

Which is like the anti-miscegenation folks saying 50 years ago "You have the right to marry...as long as it's a person of the same race."

 

to you it's a "strawman" because you want to believe, in fact, it seems that you need to believe that the desire to have gay sex is equivalent to my or your race.

Again, I can stop having heterosexual sex if i want. I cannot become white.

 

No it's a strawman because you made up an argument and attributed it to me.

Strawman

 

I'm sorry Rahl, but your "strawman" assertion has been REFUTED

 

lol, I accept your concession SEC, since you have no rebuttal.

always a pleasure.

 

Can you stop being heterosexual? Even if you abstain from sex (of any kind) for the rest of your life?

 

Sec is wrong, and has been shown to be a million times for years in this forum.

I can't suddenly wake up tomorrow and be attracted the to the opposite sex. I am attracted to the same sex, always have been and always will be.

 

Remember, the subtext of what sec posts...is about himself.

He believes that you are "not homosexual, if you don't have homosexual sex". Thus his argument about "I can stop having heterosexual sex...I can't stop being white."

We both know what I'm talking about here. If not, PM me and I'll explain further.

 

refuted again

- - - Updated - - -

I cannot wake up tomorrow and be white no matter how hard I try

I can wake up and stop having sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Gorny- please discuss the topic, not a forum member

 

Oh no, I get it. But it's been the same idiotic statement over and over for years. He's not fooling anyone except maybe himself.

 

For the tax breaks and governmental entitlements they cant seem to go on without.

 

Is that what you would have told interracial couples? To marry someone of the same race, even though you're attracted to someone of a different race, just to get the tax breaks?

Do you honestly think your arguments aren't moronic? I'm truely curious of you actually think they are valid or make any kind of sense?

 

Nope. Interacial couples were prohibited by law from cohabitating in the same house. The Lovings wanted to marry so they could legally live together. No laws prohibit homosexuals from living together.

 

And are you really going to pretend this has anything to do with my post which made you look silly?

 

The speaker is a tool. There is no such thing as a "thruple", so it's irrelevant. And marriage does not have an inherent definition. It means what we say it means, and under current laws, denying it to same sex couples, as has been found by 17 district and 3 appellate courts, is clearly unconstitutional. The only thing that can be done is a federal constitutional amendment, which as a practical matter, is simply not going to happen.

 

I doubt these courts would have any problem declaring the Constitution to be unconstitutional if it served their agenda.

 

??? Actually, I plainly and clearly answered your question. But of course, that's why you now need to pretend the answer to YOUR question is irrelevant. Get an argument if you can come up with one.

 

Except you didn't. You very pathetically tried to dodge the question.

I've refute everything you've come up with. My argument has won 20 straight court cases while yours have lost 20 straight. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

A particularly moronic comment.