I thought it was whether or not it can be made a law? I mean with the right things overturned and new laws passed why not?
I mean by that logic, we can make Yogi Bear king of the United States with a constitutional amendment. But no, this isn't likely to be overturned anymore than
Brown v Board is. So dealing with the constitution as is interpreted by the Supreme Court seems like a reasonable place to start. Or alternatively, give up on it and admit that the constitution endorses gay marriage. I'm not picky.
No no no, you said that it’s always religious, never non religious. Literally all I have to do is then show anyone non religious who had those laws. It’s not “surely the commies have a reason for this?” It’s that clearly if a group is anti-theist in policy and also anti-gay, explaining the reason isn’t even relevant at that point. It’s obviously not religiously based. Then you just used my example to point out merely that objections that aren’t religiously based to ignore all that and go down some bullshit.
No, I said there isn't
logic for making an antigay law, not that no one did. Here's the quote:
Sure, you can push a law in part because your religion believes in it, but not only because your religion believes in it, which is the problem with (actual, not leftist imaginings of) anti-gay laws. That's the difference. And there isn't logic for legislating against gay sex or gay marriage beyond religion.
Similarly, one can't enact a law demanding people take communion, or show up at church, etc. The thing is, for something to be a moral law, you need to either go outside the Bible to argue (making the law not a religious one), or ditch the appeals to the founders, as this is exactly what they were against: enacting religious laws.
Then what you gave me is:
I’ve already put all of that forward though. There’s a non religious side, you just disagree. I mean hell, the Atheist, anti-theist communists who massacred priests had pretty hardcore anti-gay laws, things I’d disagree with even because it’s too extreme. The idea this only comes from religion is blatantly false. Hell even the idea a law needs to be totally sound logically runs totally contrary to whatever the hell the ATF and California gun laws concoct. I think my arguments are more sound than theirs.
Right there in bold, you cite commies, never providing any of the logic requested for. My best reading here is that you somehow assumed that commies had logic, which is always a big assumption to make. As for your ATF/California stuff,
your defense for your proposed law was that laws don't have to make sense. I'll just leave that there.
Ridiculously disingenuous given I said these guys have these laws that I even find extreme and disagree with. There is no guilt by association, that’s not right in any sense.
... Then don't use them as an example? I mean, all I did was this:
Fourth, and most tellingly, citing communists agreeing with you is an interesting avenue of argument. Please, elaborate more.
I'm not invoking guilt of association on you if you decide to drag commies as an ally into the debate and I invite you to continue doing so. That's just you being incompetent.
I’ve already explained over, and over, and over, how it breaks down the meaning of marriage and how men are not women and there relationships are the same or equivalent.
And I'm asking you to do it here, because I can't find it other places. Regardless, the "meaning of marriage" is yet again a religious argument, and saying that men are not women still falls to the textualist argumentations of Gorsuch.
Because they desperately don’t want to conclude that, because politically volatile studies aren’t allowed. You can reword data however you want. However, the correlation certainly exists and absolutely should be alarming, especially at a young age. It’s also very often claimed “I’ve always felt this way.” I’ve met furries who will claim as much. It adds legitimacy to it, and memory as to when this exact feeling started isn’t even necessarily super reliable. It’s almost certainly an environmental factor especially given the historical record.
Yes, because the gays had such social power in the early 2000, where the study (that again,
you cited) comes from. If you make a positive claim, like LGB's come from molestation, you need to have evidence.
Dude, I showed how their relationships are very often open, non monogamous. That’s not family oriented, that’s not traditional. I’ve pointed out the way pride parades have gone and increased in their display. I’ve pointed out how the orgies pre stonewall haven’t ceased, they just have businesses around them now, festivals around them now. What more do you want man?
Um, but that's either partially true or just wrong?
So in order, first, gay relationships are trending more monogamous as time goes on. For example,
this study shows 30% of couples are nonmonogamous, down from 50% a few years ago. And I expect this to improve further, up until it come against the hard barrier of approximately the weirdo% of gays. So that is increasingly family oriented. On top of that, Pride Parades are barely a big deal, that's like telling me that the Saint Patrick day parades are getting boozier. It's once a year, and anecdotal evidence as well. Third, where did you point out about the stonewall orgies, because you have no idea what your talking about if you think they are still going strong.
So yeah, wrong on every point here as well. Cite sources, for gods sake, as well.