The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Heterosexual couples that believe in marriage also believe in the bond between a man and a woman.

The belief in a bond between a man in a woman is mutually exclusive to believing in the bond between a man and a man or woman and woman?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What's the point of "marriage" if the definition has been watered down to "2 of anything"?

Real nice strawman here. Slash isn't saying "2 of anything." Two consensual adults isn't "2 of anything."

Originally posted by Lucius
The belief in a bond between a man in a woman is mutually exclusive to believing in the bond between a man and a man or woman and woman?

Real nice strawman here. Slash isn't saying "2 of anything." Two consensual adults isn't "2 of anything." [/B]

Not only did I not claim this was slash's definition, but my "2 of anything" was the same thing as you said. I wasn't aware I needed to be extremely specific for something someone other than yourself apparently would understand. But nice attempt at pointing out an alleged strawman. Next time don't be so cocky.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're kidding right? I'm not sure if you're aware of the contradiction in your statement. Those who believe that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman obviously do not believe that it is also a bond between man-man, woman-woman. If this was the case, they'd more likely believe that marriage is the bond between 2 consenting adults. Please try and make sense next time.

Ok, so I'm not allowed to get married and believe in a bond between my wife and I, while at the same time believing that there is a bond between my homosexual cousin and his boyfriend.

I'm glad we could clear that up. Thank you for helping me understand what I am allowed to believe.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Not only did I not claim this was slash's definition, but my "2 of anything" was the same thing as you said. I wasn't aware I needed to be extremely specific for something someone other than yourself apparently would understand. But nice attempt at pointing out an alleged strawman. Next time don't be so cocky.

I'm pretty certain that I've said this multiple times, but I'll say it again. Two consenting adults.

Marriage should be a romantic and legal union between two consenting adults, regardless of biological sex or gender orientation.

That's my clause, conclusion, thesis, statement, belief, opinion, whatever. Ideally I would prefer the government to define them all as legal or civil unions and keep hands off after that, but that's not realistic.

"2 of anything" is deliberately phrased to make it sound deviant, as if Slash was advocating something weird and disgusting.

Originally posted by Lucius
Ok, so I'm not allowed to get married and believe in a bond between my wife and I, while at the same time believing that there is a bond between my homosexual cousin and his boyfriend.

I'm glad we could clear that up. Thank you for helping me understand what I am allowed to believe.

I'm pretty certain that I've said this multiple times, but I'll say it again. Two consenting adults.

Marriage should be a romantic and legal union between two consenting adults, regardless of biological sex or gender orientation.

"2 of anything" is deliberately phrased to make it sound deviant, as if Slash was advocating something weird and disgusting. [/B]

It's really not and I'm pretty sure you're going to be the only one pointing this out. I'm too old and thankfully too mature to introduce strawman arguments..

That's nice, and considering this is all we've been arguing about, I don't have to spell it out for you because anyone else would understand what I mean by "2 of anything". Notice how I didn't say children or goats.

'Anything' included children and goats last time I checked.

Originally posted by Nephthys
'Anything' included children and goats last time I checked.

You haven't even been part of the argument to know what anyone is referring to. If slash had a problem with clarification, then I would understand that I made a mistake. Seeing as how he hasn't made a peep, I'm fine with what I said.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Heterosexual couples that believe in marriage also believe in the bond between a man and a woman. What's the point of "marriage" if the definition has been watered down to "2 of anything"?

What's the point of "marriage"? It seems like you're speaking for heterosexual couples as in all of them, while a very few actually care about the definition of marriage being between man and woman. The point is like I said, the legal benefits and the bond between eachother. Getting married with the idea that only man and woman can do it is at the bottom of the list of reasons for getting married.

But yes "2 of anything" sounds quite condescending towards homosexuals... By the way, you say that the definition get watered down when it's between two people instead of man and woman, but you can also say that the definition gets expanded.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
If you believe that the bond of marriage is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, while simultaneously believing that it's between you and your wife, then you are really saying that marriage is a bond between two consenting adults. I don't know why this is so difficult for you.

That's exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

Assuming I'm married:

[list]
[*]A) I believe there is emotional bond of romantic nature between my wife and I.
[*]B) This bond is not because of the marriage but was something formed before we were married. (we dated, discovered we liked each other, had similar interests, connected etc.)
[*]C) We married because of the bond.
[/list]

If a homosexual couple has achieved B, then how is that different from a heterosexual couple?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's nice, and considering this is all we've been arguing about, I don't have to spell it out for you because anyone else would understand what I mean by "2 of anything". Notice how I didn't say children or goats.

As a lawyer (or lawyer in training,) I would think you would know better than anyone else here just how powerful a rhetorical trick it is to change "two consenting adults" to "2 of anything."

But whatever, I concede this point as a misinterpretation on my part.

Read that article by the way. Not sure why you think someone like Lynn Wardle is going to convince me of anything.

The Beef has spoken and has contributed nothing to the actual debate, as usual. Ignoring the usual blah blah...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Seeing as how I've repeatedly claimed my feelings have nothing to do with religion, you'll do well not to continue making shit up just because you can't come up with anything intelligent. And the only appeal to majority has been "well other countries are doing it so we should too!" I'm not surprised you didn't pick up on that one seeing as how you're not exactly a beacon of objectivism.

Oh, right.

After outing yourself as a rather religious person on multiple different occassions here, you want to convince people that your opinion on same sex marriage has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Why would somebody not believe you? It's a common feature of human beings to shake of their cultural heritage and religious education in order to cast objective judgements on topics that do touch both fields. Not. So what? Are you some kind of multiple personality or not as religious as you stated before?

This is especially funny, since you don't mind to grace us with the - certainly brilliant - reasoning behind your opinion. It has nothing to do with religion? So what kind of counter-arguments are left? Anything written against same sex marriage that I've seen so far, was either based on the idea that marriage is a sacrosanct institution defined via devine laws, which certainly doesn't include same sex marriage. This is religious. You could attempt to argue from a moral view. But the moral code is also influenced by religious believes.

But, apparently, you have a total rational argument against same sex marriage. So why don't you share it with us? It can't be that hard to participate in a discussion, instead of just attempting to call out others on "emotional rationalization", while not offering anything for your own view. Or are you just out for some antagonizing?

Speaking of basic concepts, if there are absolutely NO negative consequences as you assert, then why is it "might be seen" rather than is? I only ask because it doesn't look like you're able to follow your own text..

Speaking of basic concepts, you might be interested in getting some reading comprehension. Knowing that you apparently don't view the argument as "rational" (and attempted to call it emotional, which I find quite funny), there seems to be some non-absolute involved in Lala-Land, when it comes to rationalization, which I tried to consider by making this statement.

But as you seem to be aware of some negative consequences of same sex marriage, feel free to name them. Or is that another part of the debate you don't want to participate in?

I'm pretty sure domestic partnerships involve paying lower taxes and other benefits as well. Let me answer your question with another question. If all the benefits are the same in a civil partnership and marriage, would it be fair to assert that homosexuals just want the "marriage" title, and then would it be fair to deny them this title based on what I or someone else consider to be the concept of "marriage".

So you're pretty sure about that? You're also pretty wrong with it.

In contrast to marriage, domestic partnerships don't protect against poverty caused by medical expenses for a gravely ill partner. Private insurance for a partner is more expensive than for a spouse. Marriage offers some priviliges automatically that one needs to pay some nice prices for in a domestic partnership (attorney costs, documents). Estate tax kicks in when on of a couple that isn't married dies, which is a huge disadvantage for same sex couples and there isn't any lower individual taxation if the incomes if the partners differ widely - something that married couples benefit from.

So, as you can see, there is a huge difference in privileges between domestic partnerships and marriages, with the former suffering from a rather huge disadvantage. I don't think that same sex couples would demand to get married legally, when domestic partnership would offer the same - or even compareable - benefits.

I'm sorry for your strawman arguments too. Please continue claiming my rationale is based on religion

Actually I claimed that you didn't use any rationale at all. Maybe you should read my posts before replying to them. Oh. I could be wrong of course, but since you're constantly avoiding to share your thoughts with us, I simply have to assume I'm right. Otherwise you could totally own me by posting your totally non-religious and rational reasoning. Right? But as you seem to be inable to do so, such kind of reasoning apparently doesn't exists.

But please. Go on and prove me wrong, Beef.

Or. I have a better idea:

a) Present your totally rational argument against same sex marriage
b) List the negative consequences of same sex marriage
c) Present your reasoning behind stating that marriage and domestic partnerships are essentially the same

Or simply admit that you neither have a rational argument on the issue, nor can make up any negative consequences and were plain and simply wrong with comparing marriage to domestic partnership. If you don't want to do any of the above, you can simply shut up, because that would prove your unwillingness to make any real contribution to this discussion and expose you as a troll. Your choice.

Originally posted by Borbarad
The Beef has spoken and has contributed nothing to the actual debate, as usual. Ignoring the usual blah blah...

After outing yourself as a rather religious person on multiple different occassions here, you want to convince people that your opinion on same sex marriage has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Why would somebody not believe you? It's a common feature of human beings to shake of their cultural heritage and religious education in order to cast objective judgements on topics that do touch both fields. Not. So what? Are you some kind of multiple personality or not as religious as you stated before?

This is especially funny, since you don't mind to grace us with the - certainly brilliant - reasoning behind your opinion. It has nothing to do with religion? So what kind of counter-arguments are left? Anything written against same sex marriage that I've seen so far, was either based on the idea that marriage is a sacrosanct institution defined via devine laws, which certainly doesn't include same sex marriage. This is religious. You could attempt to argue from a moral view. But the moral code is also influenced by religious believes.

But, apparently, you have a total rational argument against same sex marriage. So why don't you share it with us? It can't be that hard to participate in a discussion, instead of just attempting to call out others on "emotional rationalization", while not offering anything for your own view. Or are you just out for some antagonizing?

Speaking of basic concepts, you might be interested in getting some reading comprehension. Knowing that you apparently don't view the argument as "rational" (and attempted to call it emotional, which I find quite funny), there seems to be some non-absolute involved in Lala-Land, when it comes to rationalization, which I tried to consider by making this statement.

You need to work on your English Nai because this didn't make sense. But your attempt at calling me logically inept was cute.

But as you seem to be aware of some negative consequences of same sex marriage, feel free to name them. Or is that another part of the debate you don't want to participate in?

So you're pretty sure about that? You're also pretty wrong with it.

In contrast to marriage, domestic partnerships don't protect against poverty caused by medical expenses for a gravely ill partner. Private insurance for a partner is more expensive than for a spouse. Marriage offers some priviliges automatically that one needs to pay some nice prices for in a domestic partnership (attorney costs, documents). Estate tax kicks in when on of a couple that isn't married dies, which is a huge disadvantage for same sex couples and there isn't any lower individual taxation if the incomes if the partners differ widely - something that married couples benefit from.

So, as you can see, there is a huge difference in privileges between domestic partnerships and marriages, with the former suffering from a rather huge disadvantage. I don't think that same sex couples would demand to get married legally, when domestic partnership would offer the same - or even compareable - benefits.

Actually I claimed that you didn't use any rationale at all. Maybe you should read my posts before replying to them. Oh. I could be wrong of course, but since you're constantly avoiding to share your thoughts with us, I simply have to assume I'm right. Otherwise you could totally own me by posting your totally non-religious and rational reasoning. Right? But as you seem to be inable to do so, such kind of reasoning apparently doesn't exists.

a) Present your totally rational argument against same sex marriage

b) List the negative consequences of same sex marriage

c) Present your reasoning behind stating that marriage and domestic partnerships are essentially the same[/b]

Or simply admit that you neither have a rational argument on the issue, nor can make up any negative consequences and were plain and simply wrong with comparing marriage to domestic partnership. If you don't want to do any of the above, you can simply shut up, because that would prove your unwillingness to make any real contribution to this discussion and expose you as a troll. Your choice. [/B]

A troll. Like someone who come here once every few weeks to run a few embarrassing insults and contribute absolutely nothing to the ongoing conversation? +1 for self awareness Nai. Sorry for exposing your insecurities.

Originally posted by Lucius
That's exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

Assuming I'm married:

[list]
[*]A) I believe there is emotional bond of romantic nature between my wife and I.
[*]B) This bond is not because of the marriage but was something formed before we were married. (we dated, discovered we liked each other, had similar interests, connected etc.)
[*]C) We married because of the bond.
[/list]

If a homosexual couple has achieved B, then how is that different from a heterosexual couple?

As a lawyer (or lawyer in training,) I would think you would know better than anyone else here just how powerful a rhetorical trick it is to change "two consenting adults" to "2 of anything."

But whatever, I concede this point as a misinterpretation on my part.

Read that article by the way. Not sure why you think someone like Lynn Wardle is going to convince me of anything. [/B]

The funny thing is though, I no longer support the don't ask don't tell army stuff.

Your bond being between your wife and yourself doesn't constitute the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, when you believe that homosexuals have a right to get married. You can't believe both.

When did he ever say that 'marriage should be between a man and a woman'? He's saying it should be 'between two consenting adults', regardless of gender. How have you not got this yet?

Present your totally rational argument FOR same sex marriages.

List the positive consequences of same sex marriages, as it benefits the whole society.

4 people have all asked you to prove up first, whilst offering arguments of their own and yet you still dodge the question? Wtf?

Originally posted by Nephthys
When did he ever say that 'marriage should be between a man and a woman'? He's saying it should be 'between two consenting adults', regardless of gender. How have you not got this yet?

4 people have all asked you to prove up first, whilst offering arguments of their own and yet you still dodge the question? Wtf? [/B]

You're not even part of this debate so we don't care what you asked. Veneficus didn't ask me to prove anything first yet. So we only have 2 people and that's because they don't have an argument to begin with. How are you not getting this, even with basic math?

I'm just impressed that you're still getting away with it. Personally if you'd have tried this against me I would have told you to piss off by now.

This is what he wrote:

* A) I believe there is emotional bond of romantic nature between my wife and I.
* B) This bond is not because of the marriage but was something formed before we were married. (we dated, discovered we liked each other, had similar interests, connected etc.)
* C) We married because of the bond.

If a homosexual couple has achieved B, then how is that different from a heterosexual couple?

You replied that if you believe that marriage is between a man and a women then you can't believe it could be between two homosexuals. 'You can't believe both.'

Now either I've misinterpreted your ****tastically written paragraph (as an English Lit. student I wag my finger at you), you've misinterpreted his post or that is what you're saying.

How are you not getting this, even with basic math?

By not being a tard and reading through 3 pages to verify a tiny point.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm just impressed that you're still getting away with it. Personally if you'd have tried this against me I would have told you to piss off by now.

This is what he wrote:

* A) I believe there is emotional bond of romantic nature between my wife and I.
* B) This bond is not because of the marriage but was something formed before we were married. (we dated, discovered we liked each other, had similar interests, connected etc.)
* C) We married because of the bond.

If a homosexual couple has achieved B, then how is that different from a heterosexual couple?[

You replied that if you believe that marriage is between a man and a women then you can't believe it could be between two homosexuals. 'You can't believe both.'

Now either I've misinterpreted your ****tastically written paragraph (as an English Lit. student I wag my finger at you), you've misinterpreted his post or that is what you're saying.

By not being a tard and reading through 3 pages to verify a tiny point. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh good, Nai has spoken and contributed nothing to the actual debate other than his trolling and insecurity-ridden insults. Pot.Kettle. Black

...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Typical defense mechanism against people that are better than you. "Oh you're better than me, you MUST be insecure". Good one Freud.

🙂

See Nai, the problem with this post is it makes me think you either pretend to be intelligent, or pretend to be stupid. What does me being a rather religious person have to do with social policy when I've always claimed religion shouldn't play a part in social policy? Also, I don't have to convince anybody since you're the ONLY one questioning this. And religious education? You mean the 4-5 years of my 20+ year life? Wonderful logic Nai. As usual. 😂

You always claimed that religions shouldn't play a role in social policy?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I have never argued for the superiority of Judaism, or Theism. I personally think it's a better system than secular humanism, but the two COULD coexist.

Who the hell did sign in here with your account to claim that theism is superior to secularism then? Or did you, once again, have no idea what you were talking about back then? It's astonishing.

No, the moral code is NOT influenced by religious beliefs.

Right. Let's ignore 2000 years of history, because it doesn't favor your point. You don't live in a country that has "In God we trust" written on it's money, right?

No Nai, the only one who antagonizes on here is you. You continue to humor us with your persistent attempts at sarcasm and insults, and not actually making an argument FOR same sex marriages.

Reality check: I just asked for one rational argument against same sex marriages, because you were attempting to call out people on their "emotional arguments". That was antagonizing? Right. Shall I point out that you've started to demand something from me before answering and now still deny to give one argument against same sex marriage to prove your point? You must be quite desperate, DS.

We're still waiting for your argument Nai. So far you've done what you've done for years which is include 1 or 2 views in a slew of insults.

We, DS? Who is "we"? Is your multiple personality (demonstrated above two more times) taking over again? I have joined the discussion by asking a question, you have failed to answer it. So it's not your right to ask for anything, is it? That aside from the fact that I've posted two arguments for same sex marriage (utilitarism / list of benefits) already. I know, you have chosen to ignore them, and will go on with it, because you don't have any answer. But please don't play the hypocrite here.

I'm glad you can prove this.

Which I just did.

You just said you have no familiarity with American law regarding this topic so are you speaking about Germany or America?

I have said that I didn't know the exact workings in American law, so I did some further research and the above was, what I found. In Germany, we don't have the problem, because same sex marriage is allowed and the rights for "domestic partnership" extend farther than those in the USA...

But they do. If you've clued in to various gay parades, you'll know that at least a lot of homosexuals just want to be recognized as a legally married couple.

This is stupid, DS. I was referring to a situation which doesn't exists, you answer it with a reference to the present situation. Of course they want to be recognized as legal couples, because the present situation doesn't treat them as such. They don't receive the same benefits that opposite sex couples receive, which is, quite frankly, the entire point for some protest. Does that require to get married? Not necesserily. One could extend the privileges for domestic partnerships instead. I don't think that anything else is that important (exchange some rings and oaths of love? Dunno.).

Oh the irony of the bold statement, that explains your years of posting here. Again, we're still waiting on your argument which doesn't appear to come anytime soon. Instead you elect to deflect from the issue and continue asserting that my opinion is based on religion.

Whatever, Beef. I'm waiting for your argument. I asked for it long ago, and still nothing coming. I've listed some points, you skipped over them, not my problem. But please entertain me with your attempts to gloss over this fact. Nothing better than DS attempting to dodge the topic. It's a real classic.

Present your totally rational argument FOR same sex marriages.

Already present:
- utilitarism dictates it should be done
- people should receive the same benefits when living in a "fixed" relationship
- add: people do deserve to be treated equally in front of the law, which would extend to same sex couples that want to spend their lives together.

Your turn.

List the positive consequences of same sex marriages, as it benefits the whole society.

1) You would get rid of the annoying gay parades who demand same sex marriage.
2) The financial benefits would ensure that less people would be in need for governmental exists if something bad happens (dead of the partner, losing the house because of taxes / health costs).
3) Less psychological sicknesses caused by "minority stress" as it's called.
4) Decreasing spendings in medic aid / care and Supplemental Security Income
5) Increased income taxes due to marriage penalties.

Your turn.

A troll. Like someone who come here once every few weeks to run a few embarrassing insults and contribute absolutely nothing to the ongoing conversation? +1 for self awareness Nai. Sorry for exposing your insecurities.

Reality check #1:

Apparently, you're the one recognized for trolling here. Fact.

Reality check #2:

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Typical defense mechanism against people that are better than you. "Oh you're better than me, you MUST be insecure". Good one Freud.

So after being inable to come up with anything, and indirectly admitting your inferiority to me twice, I think we can conclude that you still suck at debates and will never be able to present an argument regarding the present topic. I'm looking forward to the first lawyer attempting to built his career on the Chewbacca defense entirely. Should be fun to watch that.

I'm not sure you even understand what he's saying. His bond is between his wife.

With you so far..

If he believes that homosexuals can get married, he's subscribing to the belief that marriage is between two consenting adults,

Yes, as he has repeatedly said, that is his belief.

even if himself has the bond of marriage with a particular woman.

Wut? O.o

How is that mutually exclusive? What, if he believes in homosexual marriage he shouldn't marry a woman? He says that is should be two consenting adults. Now I don't know if you know this, but women count as people, and when they grow up, they count as adults. Vene is also an adult. If they consent to get married, then they are two consenting adults. If we replaced the chick with a man, then it would be the same. So he wouldn't be betraying his beliefs either way.

If I'm wrong then explain how to me, becuase right now it looks like you've majorly ****ed up.

Seeing as how you've gotten your ass kicked more than anyone not named Nebaris, your denial is humorous.

.........

I didn't deny anything. 🤨

Originally posted by Borbarad
You always claimed that religions shouldn't play a role in social policy?

Who the hell did sign in here with your account to claim that theism is superior to secularism then? Or did you, once again, have no idea what you were talking about back then? It's astonishing.

Right. Let's ignore 2000 years of history, because it doesn't favor your point. You don't live in a country that has "In God we trust" written on it's money, right?

Reality check: I just asked for one rational argument against same sex marriages, because you were attempting to call out people on their "emotional arguments". That was antagonizing? Right. Shall I point out that you've started to demand something from me before answering and now still deny to give one argument against same sex marriage to prove your point? You must be quite desperate, DS.

We, DS? Who is "we"? Is your multiple personality (demonstrated above two more times) taking over again? I have joined the discussion by asking a question, you have failed to answer it. So it's not your right to ask for anything, is it? That aside from the fact that I've posted two arguments for same sex marriage (utilitarism / list of benefits) already. I know, you have chosen to ignore them, and will go on with it, because you don't have any answer. But please don't play the hypocrite here.

Which I just did.

I have said that I didn't know the exact workings in American law, so I did some further research and the above was, what I found. In Germany, we don't have the problem, because same sex marriage is allowed and the rights for "domestic partnership" extend farther than those in the USA...

This is stupid, DS. I was referring to a situation which doesn't exists, you answer it with a reference to the present situation. Of course they want to be recognized as legal couples, because the present situation doesn't treat them as such. They don't receive the same benefits that opposite sex couples receive, which is, quite frankly, the entire point for some protest. Does that require to get married? Not necesserily. One could extend the privileges for domestic partnerships instead. I don't think that anything else is that important (exchange some rings and oaths of love? Dunno.).

Whatever, Beef. I'm waiting for your argument. I asked for it long ago, and still nothing coming. I've listed some points, you skipped over them, not my problem. But please entertain me with your attempts to gloss over this fact. Nothing better than DS attempting to dodge the topic. It's a real classic.

Already present:
- utilitarism dictates it should be done
- people should receive the same benefits when living in a "fixed" relationship
- add: people do deserve to be treated equally in front of the law, which would extend to same sex couples that want to spend their lives together.

Your turn.

1) You would get rid of the annoying gay parades who demand same sex marriage.

2) The financial benefits would ensure that less people would be in need for governmental exists if something bad happens (dead of the partner, losing the house because of taxes / health costs).

3) Less psychological sicknesses caused by "minority stress" as it's called.

5) Increased income taxes due to marriage penalties.

Apparently, you're the one recognized for trolling here. Fact.

So after being inable to come up with anything, and indirectly admitting your inferiority to me twice, I think we can conclude that you still suck at debates and will never be able to present an argument regarding the present topic. I'm looking forward to the first lawyer attempting to built his career on the Chewbacca defense entirely. Should be fun to watch that. [/B]

How is that mutually exclusive? What, if he believes in homosexual marriage he shouldn't marry a woman? He says that is should be two consenting adults. Now I don't know if you know this, but women count as people, and when they grow up, they count as adults. Vene is also an adult. If they consent to get married, then they are two consenting adults. If we replaced the chick with a man, then it would be the same. So he wouldn't be betraying his beliefs either way.

:::facepalm:::

Ok, let me try and dumb it down for you and hope your head doesn't explode. If he subscribes to the idea that marriage should be between men and women, then he can't subscribe to the idea that it should be between two consenting adults, because they are contradictory. And vice versa. If he believes that marriage is defined between two consenting adults, he can't possibly subscribe to the idea that marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Understand the contradiction? You can't believe in both.

If he subscribes to the idea that marriage should be between men and women,(Which he doesn't!) then he can't subscribe to the idea that it should be between two consenting adults, because they are contradictory.(Yes, becuase he only believes in the last one!) And vice versa. If he believes that marriage is defined between two consenting adults,(which he does!) he can't possibly subscribe to the idea that marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (Which he ****ing doesn't)Understand the contradiction? You can't believe in both. (And he doesn't)

facepalm2facepalm2facepalm2

Originally posted by ME!
When did he ever say that 'marriage should be between a man and a woman'? He's saying it should be 'between two consenting adults', regardless of gender. How have you not got this yet?