Nearly 60% Support Legal Same Sex Marriage, 80% Youth

[John Galt]

[John Galt]

[The Tooth]

[John Galt]

[The Tooth]

It's not that I don't understand your argument, it's that I understand it has no merit. I explained this to you. That you continue to make an argument you know is false (I know you know it, because you quoted my explanation of your error in your post) is the part I don't understand.

Perhaps your confusion lies in your failure to understand that not all of us are right-wing homophobic bigots (or is that bigoted homophobes?) who feel compelled to handwave about how gay marriages aren't real in a feeble attempt to justify our bigotry and support of officially regarding homosexuals as second-class citizens. Yes, that's probably it; you're unable to comprehend that the rest of us aren't bigoted homophobes (or is that homophobic bigots?) so you can't possibly understand how anyone can take issue with your claim that marriages between gay people aren't "real". Or maybe you just lack the critical thinking skills necessary to see how your argument is garbage. Get a grownup to use their computer to look up "no true scotsman fallacy" and explain it to you. Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll provide an example:

GALT: Gay people cannot marry one another, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

GAY WOMAN: No. I married my girlfriend and we have three children between us. Got the wedding photos and in-laws and everything.

GALT: Well, that's not a true marriage, because a true marriage is between a man and a woman. If you marry another woman it won't be a true marriage, so preventing you from doing so doesn't prevent you from having a true marriage. You can still marry anyone you want.

The scottish original:

GALT: No scotsman would put salt on his porridge.

SCOTSMAN: I put salt on my porridge.

GALT: You obviously aren't a true scotsman, because no true scotsman puts salt on porridge.

And around and around you go, being wrong every time regardless of font size. Wikipedia describes the fallacy nicely thusly: "When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."

And that's that. You're wrong, and your argument has no merit.

[Aaron]

Galt isn't arguing for clarity, he's arguing because he denies reality when there is no justified opinion to be had. No one is going to get a genuine opinion from him because it sticks in his craw that gay people deserve to be happy.

[John Galt]

A year is one revolution around the sun

No, a year is the time between equinoxes, the tropical equinox year. we need to break free of calendars made by religions of yesteryear, we should instead look to define a year in a way that is equal to both hemispheres. i suggest something similar to the international fixed calendar, but splitting it into two halves so as to make two actual years out of what was previously known as a "year" in the archaic religion founded system that does not serve our modern day society and is full of inequality

That's not a true year because a True year takes one revolution around the sun

Before you say, "don't be preposterous" why is this argument different? you're talking about the definition of a word. it's not a no true scotsman fallacy because i am not describing someone's attributes and then saying it doesn't fit what i claim is universal, i am describing something that is defined as X. you're changing the definition of it then saying i have the fallacy? what is the point of words? you're describing something, a "gay marriage", that is not a marriage, it's a homosexual "marriage", which is beyond the scope of the word.

further you still are not able to show that they cannot marry anyone they wish, because they can. true, i can't take on a harem of women and call them all wife -- that would not be defined as a marriage in the way the people have decided for it to be called. but no one prevents me from getting a license to do X, where X is create a marriage, and marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman

flower of paradise - n. a person

The tooth is a flower of paradise as i now define it because i want to define it that way and so i can call you a flower of paradise
I'm a tooth and i'm not a flower of paradise because that's not what the word flower of paradise means
yeah that's a no true scotsman fallacy; you're a flower of paradise

put it another way. if "a scotsman" was defined as "someone from scotland who never puts sugar on his porridge" then it would be correct for him to say that it's not a true scotsman that puts sugar on his porridge. instead it's defined as "someone from scotland". you are incorrectly using the fallacy because i'm not saying that "men and women with no arms are not truly married". i'm saying that people that aren't defined as being married aren't married. bizarre concepts, i know

[Aaron]

No definitions or analogies are applicable to your opinion galt... the stand you have taken isn't anything other than one of denial of the obvious. Marriage between a man and a woman is no more valid than the default settings in a software program. It's been that way... and that has nothing to do with where it's going.

You aren't saying that they can marry anyone they wish, you are saying that they can walk into a church and do a dog and pony show for free... which is the opinion of a cynical, disingenuous piece of shit human being. Recognition of marriage is as important as the act it's self, and lawful and federal recognition will begin for gay couples whether you continue your idiot script with this issue or not.

[The Dude]

[The Dude]

Galt, I have a question regarding your "gays can't marry because it's defined differently."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you're right (you're not of course, but let's play ball). Okay, now does the state have a right to confer privileges and rights to marriage unions but not other similar social unions. For instance, can the state allow for a different estate tax for marriage couples and same-sex unions? Or must the state grant the two unions the same privileges and rights, at least so far as procreation isn't concerned?