Is The Leftosphere Politic Of Gender Equality More Insane Than The Gender Insanity of LGBTQQIAAPP ??

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You argument is flawed, mate, because you only have an argument if you base it on a lie, this lie ....

Homosexuality is a demographic. Homosexuals were not allowed to marry until the marriage act was amended in 2017. And yes, Homosexuals were being treated unfairly by being denied marriage rights,

HOW MANY times must I write this ...  Not true. They were  allowed to marry under the Marriage Act, just like everyone else is permitted to do on exactly the same basis.   NO they were not being treated differently by the Marriage Act at all.  They were being treated the SAME AS EVERY ONE  ELSE.and were permitted to marry a female, just like every other male was likewise permitted to do. 

S H O W     M E     T H E     D I S C R I M I N A T I O N     I N      T H A T      L A W.       A S    Y O U     C A N N O T,     T H E N   I T    I S      O B V I O U S     T H E R E     I S      N O N E. 

it's plain as day, you can deny all you want, but that's water under the bridge, because homosexuals can marry, they should be allowed to, most people agree, and you are the only person who thinks your argument holds any water (It doesn't)

What is as plain as day, is that you are   L Y I N G     Y O U R      A R S E     O F F     A B O U T     W H A T      T H E     A C T     A C T U A L L Y     S A I D.       P A N T S     O N     F I R E ,    .

You have to contradict yourself in order to claim premise 1 isn't true. Here you are agreeing that homosexuals are a different group:

Of course they are a different demographic, as are all of the other demographics I mentioned.  You just glibly slide over the qualifiers though.  The qualifers are that they are   A L L ,   no matter their demographic, 

S T I L L     M A L E S      A N D       W H I C H    D E M O G R A P H I C    W A S      A L W A Y S      A N D      I S      I N C L U D E D     I N     T H E      M A R R I A G E     ACT.    G E T     I T?

Grafix said:  Why on earth do you ask that?   Of course they are.  Are rapists different from non-rapitsts?  Are the religious different from non-religious?  Are men different from women?  Are Red Indians different from Caucasians?  Are Asians different from Caucasians?  Are blacks different from whites?  Are thieves different from non-thieves?  Are murderers different from non-murderers?  What's your point, Einstein?

Then Happy HA HA replied:   

Now you contradict yourself:

Where's the contradiciton?   E V E R Y    H U M A N      D E M O G R A P H I C   can only consist of either males or females, the two demographics included in the Marriage Act.  They are not excluded.

Grafix said:  As are all of those I mentioned in the different demographics representative of different groups, subjected to exactly the same law as Homosexuals.  Your statement is stoopid, therefore.

Then Happy HA HA replied with:    "Such double-think, you ought to make your Marxist-overlords proud!"   A non-rebuttal.  A non-argument and running away.  Nada, zip, zilch, zero, pal.  NEXT ...

Grafix said:   NO they are not being treated differently by the Marriage Act at all.  They are being treated the SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.   You conflate the fact that they choose to pretend they are not male and female somehow entitles them to claim they are not included in the Marriage Law.  They are because they are males allowed to marry females.   The fact they keep up a pretence that there are more than two genders and pander to a fake claim is not our problem nor is it a problem for the law.  It is THEIR OWN problem which they created for themelves.   If we allow that rapists have some mental disorder which must therefore excuses them from the law against rape, does that mean we should pass a law saying they can lawfully rape people?  That's your argument.

Harry Ha Ha replies to that with this ...

This is so simple to debunk you would have to be mentally deranged not to see the problem. you are literally arguing that "allowed to marry" = "not allowed to marry"

Then if it's "so simple" to debunk, how come your debunking falls straight on its head for being an outright lie.  It's not what it says at all. The law allowed  ALL  males  in   A N Y  demographic to marry ANY female in any demographic.  Prove to me that it never said that.   Prove to me that is discriminatory against a single demographic.  It isn't.  It can't be, because every demographic consists of males and females.

Grafix said:  Therefore your argument is flawed, you logic is flawed and you have no idea what the definition of "discrimination" means.

That statement stands on the empirical and indisputable evidence already provided in this discourse.  Then you try to twist a pear into pretzel with quoting me again but yet with no response to the question I put to you left lingering unanswered on the page.  Why don't you answer the question in the last sentence below, yet you quote me saying my own words prove your argument.  What?  Answer the last question.

Grafix said:    @Happy_Killbot - 

Yours is the false comparison because we can immediately see that  N O T    A L L    were prohibited from murdering others in your  example.   Whereby the Marriage Law was not like that at all.

I T    P R O H I B I T E D    E V E R Y O N E    F R O M     E N T E R I N G      A     S A M E - S E X      M A R R I A G E.     I    R E P E A T     E V E R Y O N E    N O     E X C E P T I O N S

YOUR COMPARISON IS THE FALSE EQUIVALENT BECAUSE IT ALLOWS   E X C E P T I O N S

Definition of discrimination:   To isolate, to single out, to treat differently, because of a difference.  How and who was being treated differently or singled out by the marriage law?  Answer that.
.

Now answer that question.  You refuse to.  How and who was being treated differently or singled out by the marriage law?  It permitted every male and every female in the population to marry, despite your claim to the contrary.  An obvious lie made up by you to support a fallacious argument.  Go wash your mouth out.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Are you still complaining and being ignorant?

Sorry, your argument dissolved like skin in acid.

Thanks for playing.

Happy_Killbot

[duplicate]

Grafix

@MayCaesar -   Quit playing the wand-waving wordshmith, May.   It is clear what  I wrote and why  and it was very unclear what you wrote and still is.  You're  W O R D S M I TH I N G because you're all out of Aces.  You wrote gobbledegook arguing that an absent law  is not discrimnation - confused babble.   I said if it were law that the populace must worship black Africans then it would be discriminatory and it would be.   You don't state for the reader to understand that a law was instead made prohibiting people from worshipping black Africans.  You statemnt is silent on that.  It's a completely dumb analogy for that reason.   It proves absolutely nothing.   If you had stated there was a law which probhibited people form worshipping black Africans then that would also be discriminatory too, because some might have a black African whom they DO want to worship.   Then you say ....

If every individual is permitted to marry, and marriage occurs between two individuals, then, for the absence of discrimination, any two individuals must be permitted to marry. What culture it serves or does not serve is absolutely irrelevant with regards to the terminology question.

But the law does not say ANY TWO INDIVIDUALS for obvious reasons.   It would allow children under age to marry.  It would allow sons and mothers to marry.  It would allow Fathers and daughters to marry, brothers and sisters to marry, etc. It never has allowed ANYONE to do any of that, just as it never allowed anyone to marry people of the same sex.   It is a fallacious argument to construe that as "discriminatory" for the very reasons the marriage law forbade EVERYONE  FROM DOING SO.  What part of  E V E R Y   O N E  don't you understand?  I am gobsmacked at the obdurate stubborn obtuseness over the word "everyone".

Our Western culture opposes incest, sodomy, bestiality and polygamy, the reason it is so specific about the exclusion of these practices.  If you want to argue that is discriminatory you need to argue that some were allowed to marry under those circumstanes while others were not, but that would be a lie, because EVERYONE was forbidden to.   You could even try to argue that excluding the Muslim practise of polygamy was discriminatory given that the Western culture is a monogamous one, but even then your argument falls over because EVERYONE, not just Muslims, is prohibited from practising polygamy.  If you are not willing to accept the definition of "discrimination" as it is properly interpreted and that it is not applicable when EVERYONE is subjected to the same law, then you are just being plainly dishonest.  Next ...

You have not answered my question: is legalised gender segregation discriminatory? Is the mentioned Saudi law discriminatory? 

Of course it is, but it is still irrelevant to the "everyone" argument.   I gave you the same example of the same kind of segregation here in our toilets, bathrooms, bedrooms and lockerrooms.   Sensible discrimnation is everywhere.  We discriminate all the time between poor quality and good quality, between sour and sweet tasting food, between men's and women's sports, between men and women's clothing, in hair styles for men and women, etc.   There is no law which says we cannot make sensible discriminations and the fact that we can does nothing,  A B S O L U T E LY    N O T H I N G,  to support the fallacious argument that a marriage law which APPLIES TO EVERYONE is discriminatory.  How can it be when it is applicable to EVERYONE?  It can't be.  That's obvious.  You lot are trying to muddy the waters because you've all been brainwashed.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Okay, let me make it very easy for you. Here are two statements that are true with regards to heterosexual-only marriage laws:

1. They allow only men to marry women.
2. They allow only women to marry men.

What do we call it when only one gender can do something and another gender cannot legally? "Discrimination".

If the law existed that allowed all women to drive cars, but did not allow any men to do the same, you would scream "discrimination" at the top of your lungs. Yet when a law exists that allows all women to marry a man, but does not allow any man to do the same, then it is suddenly not?

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

@Grafix  -  Okay, let me make it very easy for you. Here are two statements that are true with regards to heterosexual-only marriage laws:They allow only men to marry women.They allow only women to marry men.What do we call it when only one gender can do something and another gender cannot legally? "Discrimination".

Well as there has never been any gender excluded or remaining outside of the Marriage Act being discriminated against, there was no problem with the Marriage Act.  It included all existing genders, according to medical science.  So your analogy is pointless and as such is a non sequitur.  Then you ask ...

If the law existed that allowed all women to drive cars, but did not allow any men to do the same, you would scream "discrimination" at the top of your lungs. Yet when a law exists that allows all women to marry a man, but does not allow any man to do the same, then it is suddenly not?

There's the lie again.  The claim that the Marriage Act did not allow every man who chose to marry the capacity to marry any woman he chose to.   It actually did, so why do you need to lie about it and claim that it did not?  Eh?   You need to lie about it because the facts do not support your duplicitous and fallacious argument.    The law applied to EVERY MALE AND EVERY FEMALE.  As those are the only two genders in the human race on the face of the earth it discriminated against not a single solitary person.

Fake genders need not apply, not that homosexuality is a gender anyway or claimed as one, but it is what you and all your queer mates are trying to suddenly argue.   The marriage law excluded certain types of unacceptable behaviour, but it did not exclude a single male or female based on gender, as I have said until blue in the face.  Those prohibitions of those proclivities excluded behaviour not people and they applied to

E V E R Y O N E.      G E T       I T        R I G H T.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

, homosexuality doesn't need to be a gender in order for homosexuals to be discriminated against in places that fail to allow same-sex marriage.

If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a man can not marry a man and a woman can not marry a woman then those people who are disallowed to marry are being discriminated against, because the marriage laws prohibiting same sex marriage do not apply to heterosexual couples, or else no one would be allowed to marry.

This isn't hard, get it right.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

@Grafix -  , homosexuality doesn't need to be a gender in order for homosexuals to be discriminated against in places that fail to allow same-sex marriage.
If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man, but a man can not marry a man and a woman can not marry a woman then those people who are disallowed to marry are being discriminated against, because the marriage laws prohibiting same sex marriage do not apply to heterosexual couples, or else no one would be allowed to marry.
This isn't hard, get it right. 

May is trying to argue that it is a gender which has been excluded, despite the fact that homosexuals have never claimed to be a gender.  The lies just keep spilling onto the page with no shame.

That's right homosexuality is not a gender.  It is a proclivity.  A proclivity is not a person.  It is a preference.  Quite a number of proclivities are excluded as acceptable reasons to permit a marriage.  If a young man and an under age boy shared a consenting relationship based on paedophilia, could they apply for a marriage licence on the basis of their relationship and claim that being denied one was discriminatory?  Could a Father and Son apply for a marriage licence on the basis of their incestuous relationship and scream discrimination when denied one?  Could a man apply for a licence to marry his goat because he screwed it every day and was in love with it and scream discrimination on the basis of his bestial relationship with his goat, when denied a marriage licence?   Could a Muslim apply for a licence to marry four women because he was in love with them all and scream discrimination because he was denied a licence to marry three of them?   

None of them can claim discrimination, because none of those relationships qualify as a foundation for a marriage, just as homosexuality never did.  The position of homosexuals wanting to marry is no different from any of the above.  They were all outlawed and NO-ONE could apply on that basis.  N O - O N E .  Got it yet?   Although these bans applied to everyone, somehow homosexuals felt they were more special than everyone else and a bunch of fake Marxist lawyers twisted a pear into a pretzel and pretended they were being discriminated against by the marriage law, but they were not in fact.  A lie. Fake law.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Once again...

• Women can marry men.
• Men cannot marry men.

There is the action - marrying a man - that women can take, but men cannot. There is an action women can take that men cannot.

It is not very difficult to understand, is it?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Is that what he is actually arguing or is that just what you think he is arguing?

It doesn't matter if he is arguing that homosexuals constitute another gender or not, if homosexuals are not allowed to marry, that discriminates against them. Plain and simple.

Homosexual marriage isn't outlawed most places anymore, it is only in the nasty theocratic regions where people take their religious texts seriously where it is still taboo, but not in the US and I doubt in Australia.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Marriage has a definition.  A longstanding definition.  Homosexuals used and abused a proclivity to change that definition based on  N O T H I N G, on no  legal precept.  Men sodomizing men was never included in the definition of marriage.  The proclivity of women pretending to have sexual intercourse with each other, which is impossible, has never been included in the definition of marriage, either.  These bans applied to every member of society, men and women alike.   Read my lips:  These bans applied to EVERYONE, not just to homosexuals or lesbians, but to every single person in society, so how can you claim that is discrimination.  It is not.  How could it have been when it was applicable to every soul, every citizen?   It is a fake argument to pretend there is discrimination when something applies to everyone.  It is a lie and you are lying your arse off May, to support debauchery and a degenerate sophistry.  I'll repeat my reply to Happy HA HA  for you to digest with some serious contemplation ...

Grafix said:  

@Happy_Killbot - May is trying to argue that it is a gender which has been excluded, despite the fact that homosexuals have never claimed to be a gender.  The lies just keep spilling onto the page with no shame.

That's right homosexuality is not a gender.  It is a proclivity.  A proclivity is not a person.  It is a preference.  Quite a number of proclivities are excluded as acceptable reasons to permit a marriage.  If a young man and an under age boy shared a consenting relationship based on paedophilia, could they apply for a marriage licence on the basis of their relationship and claim that being denied one was discriminatory?  Could a Father and Son apply for a marriage licence on the basis of their incestuous relationship and scream discrimination when denied one?  Could a man apply for a licence to marry his goat because he screwed it every day and was in love with it and scream discrimination on the basis of his bestial relationship with his goat, when denied a marriage licence?   Could a Muslim apply for a licence to marry four women because he was in love with them all and scream discrimination because he was denied a licence to marry three of them?   

None of them can claim discrimination, because none of those relationships qualify as a foundation for a marriage, just as homosexuality never did.  The position of homosexuals wanting to marry is no different from any of the above.  They were all outlawed and NO-ONE could apply on that basis.  N O - O N E .  Got it yet?   Although these bans applied to everyone, somehow homosexuals felt they were more special than everyone else and a bunch of fake Marxist lawyers twisted a pear into a pretzel and pretended they were being discriminated against by the marriage law, but they were not in fact.  A lie. Fake law.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix I went back through and read all his arguments, he never says what you claim he said once.

This is why I don't attempt to have a reasonable conversation with you, because you are unwilling or unable to have a reasonable discussion on account of you abandoned all logic in favor of emotional rage and discredited sources.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Let us look at a few definitions from the most widely recognised dictionaries...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/marriage  - splits marriage into multiple categories, including opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=marriage - does not say anything about genders.

Oops, looks like you are wrong, as always.

My argument is also not in support of anything; I am just explaining that your characterisation of heterosexual-only marriage laws as not discriminatory is terminologically incorrect. Even if marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman (which it is not in any of the major English dictionaries), it still would not change the fact that there are legal actions women can take that men cannot, and vice-versa, which is discriminatory by definition.

Now, you could argue that this discrimination is warranted, because of traditions, religious considerations, common sense or whatever. But it is discrimination, whether you like it or not.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot -  You wrote ...

@Grafix I went back through and read all his arguments, he never says what you claim he said once.

 I think I should be the one opining "that is why I don't attempt to have a reasonable conversaton with you"  because you persistently lie.  You claim May never argued regarding gender.  She did.  Take a look, right here on this page, fourth line down.  She pushed the same argument for several posts ...



Then you bleat, with no truthful foundation for this carping ....

This is why I don't attempt to have a reasonable conversation with you, because you are unwilling or unable to have a reasonable discussion on account of you abandoned all logic in favor of emotional rage and discredited sources.

I think we can all see who the fakes are in this discussion.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

What MayCaesar wrote in that comment in no way argues that:

May is trying to argue that it is a gender which has been excluded, despite the fact that homosexuals have never claimed to be a gender.

Are we reading the same words?

You are still being highly irrational and rather uncivil. That is why I treat you like the animal and child that you are.

Grafix

@MayCaesar -  You wrote ...

Let us look at a few definitions from the most widely recognised dictionaries...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/marriage ; - splits marriage into multiple categories, including opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/marriage - does not say anything about genders.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=marriage - does not say anything about genders.
Oops, looks like you are wrong, as always.

Are you trying to argue, based on modern-day lexicons, that the Marriage Act never said anything about gender before the craven Marxist sodomites got hold of it? Is that what you are now claiming?  It was most definitely excplicit on gender. The definition of "marriage" permissible by law is as old as our Western culture and Western nations, as first defined in Judeo-Christian law and then later in Westminster English law, which definition every Western nation adopted into its own law.  This is the excerpt from that original law addressing that inherited definition ...

" .... between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others  ...". 

That's how marriage was defined under the law and only permitted under the law from the beginning of our Western civilization as we inherited it from the Judeo-Christian ethos and later adopted it into Westminster law.  Definitions in today's dictionaries reflect the current defintion, that is since the sodomites got hold of the law, but that defintion I do not reference.  I'm arguing the definition as it stood before it was bastardized by Marxist sodomites, who corrupted the definition.  Then you claim ....

I am just explaining that your characterisation of heterosexual-only marriage laws as not discriminatory is terminologically incorrect.

No.  You're duplicitously pretending today's definition has always stood, deceitfully quoting definitions post the gay marriage crap.  It wasn't defined that way prior to then.  Caught lying again, May.   Pants on fire.

Now, you could argue that this discrimination is warranted, because of traditions, religious considerations, common sense or whatever. But it is discrimination, whether you like it or not.  

No that can't be argued, as hard as you try to pull that chain.  There's no discrimination when a law applies to everyone.  There's no discrimination when marriage bans apply to everyone,  to not only sodomites, paedophiles, incestuous relatives, bestiality persuasions and polygamists, but ALSO TO HETEROSEXUALS and every other demographic on the planet.  I ask again. How can you claim discrimination when these bans were applicable to EVERY demographic, every gender, every type, every person on the planet?  You persist in peddling the lie that a proclivity excluded translates to the exclusion of the person.  That is a blatant misinterpretation of the law.  The word "homosexual" is a discriptor, just like paedophile is, just like polygamist is, but nevertheless behind those descriptors are people who are not excluded from marriage.  Only the proclivity as per the marriage bans is excluded.  The person is not.  No man or woman is excluded.  Easy.  Nothing prevents their marriage in the same way no-one else is prevented from marrying.  Nothing, therefore there's no discrimination.

The LGBQT argument is fake on that basis, they not prevented from marrying at all.  Every single person on the planet is subject to the SAME marriage bans including heteros and homos.  There is no discrimination in either.  You refuse to answer this request:   PROVE that laws which EVERYONE is subject to are discriminatory.  

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I am arguing what I am arguing. You can look for hidden meanings all you want, but that is not how debating works: you either address what has actually been said, or you are talking to yourself.

We live today, not in the past, hence the modern terminology should be used. If you want to use ancient terminology, then you should be in favor of gay marriage, given that the word "gay" used to mean "joyful" and "bright". Are you for gay marriage, Grafix?

A law always applies to everyone. A law that requires everyone to bow to black people on the streets applies to everyone. A law that only allows everyone to marry people named Rosa Marie applies to everyone. A law that makes everyone bring gifts to my doorstep every Sunday applies to everyone.
Discrimination comes not from laws not applying to everyone, but from laws putting different limitations on different people's actions. If I am prohibited from marrying my male friend, but my female neighbor is not prohibited from that, then the law discriminates against me in this regard.

Grafix

Edited out.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@MayCaesar - Backslider.  Cop out.  Dodger.  Double speak.  I am sooooo sick of it.

Looks like you finally giving up and will soon admitted defeat. Why not try reason?

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

I am arguing what I am arguing. You can look for hidden meanings all you want, but that is not how debating works: you either address what has actually been said, or you are talking to yourself.

LOL!  We were BOTH arguing about the deceptive law which altered the definition of marriage with gay marriage law, Sunshine.  Now you want to pretend we weren't?  Now you want to pretend the modern definition applies to the previous law?  Now you want to pretend that I'm looking for "hidden" meanings.  The only one here "hiding" anything is you Sunshine, pretence oozing all over the page, then its ...

We live today, not in the past, hence the modern terminology should be used. If you want to use ancient terminology, then you should be in favor of gay marriage, given that the word "gay" used to mean "joyful" and "bright". Are you for gay marriage, Grafix?

Irrelevant and nothing to do with our discussion. The discussion is about how the lying Marxist sodomist CHANGED the definition of marriage with their Godawful fake lawmaking and all you want to do is run from that at 100 m.p.h. and pretend we are suddenly discussing progress.  Yeah right.  Progress it ain't.  Slippery slope it is and dirty Liberals put us on it, an inexorable slide into the sewers with their Marxist shite for a platform.

A law always applies to everyone. A law that requires everyone to bow to black people on the streets applies to everyone. A law that only allows everyone to marry people named Rosa Marie applies to everyone. A law that makes everyone bring gifts to my doorstep every Sunday applies to everyone.

A discriminatory law does not  apply to everyone.  That's precisely what makes it discriminatory.  You're clueless.  Your black man worship law excludes other races.   Your Rosa Marie law excludes the Margarets, Janes, Christines, Suzannes, Sophies, etc.  Your sunday gift law excludes all others, who don't get the same privilege.  You're just full of it, buckets of bulldust. Logic on vacation big time.  Next ...

Discrimination comes not from laws not applying to everyone, but from laws putting different limitations on different people's actions. If I am prohibited from marrying my male friend, but my female neighbor is not prohibited from that, then the law discriminates against me in this regard.

So now different limitations on different persons is somehow still - ACCORDING TO YOU - the same law applied to everyone.  No it isn't, Snowflower.  It's a variation that is discriminatory, if it  has different limitations that don't apply to all.  To pretend otherwise is stoopid.  You AND EVERY OTHER MALE CANNOT MARRY HIS MALE FRIEND EITHER, so you are not discriminated against.  The male friend is not the qualifier, Dodo.  The gender is.  Your female neighbour is prohibited from marrying her female friend too.  So too are all other females prohibited from marrying their female friends, so there is no discrimination at all.  Again, the friendship is not the qualifer.  The gender is the qualifer .  Your notions are so dippy and daft, I wonder if you are a sheep short in the top paddock.  Sigh.  

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Nah just fed up with the perfidy and left the keyboard to cool off.  It is backsliding.  It is double speak.  It is duplictous argument.  It is a cop out.  It is dodging the discussion and not confronting my arguments.  All your lousy, small-town, pettifogging mentality is interested in is BEING SEEN to be right.  That's not the same as actually being right.  You know you are all wrong.  All horribly, unspeakably and deceitfully wrong, but that doesn't bother you.  Your only interest is being SEEN to be right.  That's why at every turn, at every opportunity, at every wee chance you jump in with comments like ....

Looks like you finally gave up and admitted defeat. Welcome to reason.

It's unspeakably immature.  It is also very revealing.  All three of you do it.  You, Dee and May.  Too anxious, too eager to do your victory laps. It shows what you are all about - on a mission of Inculcation and paid to do it too.  It is why the three of you post continuously, tirelessly and support each other and appear in every discussion.  It's your bread and butter.  All of you from professional Russian troll farms.  Inculcators MUST win the argument, no matter what.  Well, I've got news for you little precious petal, there is no known way the truth can ever be defeated.  NONE.  I am meticulous in sticking to it when debating because it cannot be taken away.  It cannot be disproved.  It cannot be shot down.  It stands tall into perpetuity.  But when one cuts one's own cloth separately from it, then one has to sleep in it, prickles and all.  You must have a mighty rash by now.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Well then shmuck, how do you think the rest of us feel having to put up with all of your nonsense?

Every time you twist the facts, say something illogical, or for that matter are just ignorant, the rest of us have to spend our time educating you.

You think we know we know we are wrong and are just playing? You seriously think that? Go read some of the conversation between me and MayCaesar on economics. That is what debate is supposed to look like. Even though we disagree, it is civil. I would rather have 1,000 disagreements like this than give in to your narcissistic narrative.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/4800/should-the-government-adopt-net-neutrality-rules
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/4803/strange-political-dichotomy-in-the-first-world
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/4724/on-wealth-and-spending-habits

Seems like everyone who talks to you always ends up in the same flavor of conversation, where you deny the evidence disproving or opposing your position, no matter how logically sound or otherwise convincing.

I mean, you think we are paid to do it, which of course you think that because I told you we were as a test, and I in shock to find out that you ate it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that I won that bet.

You think you stand for the truth but the reality is you stand for ignorance. We have, all, on various occasions corrected your misconceptions, but you cling to your false reality, like a child hiding under his blanket. If you had a single iota of integrity or critical thought, you would be ashamed of yourself.

I know that I am ashamed of you!

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I do not remember talking about the past and making any claims about the state of the law back then, but thank you for putting words in my mouth once again.

Every single law applies to everyone; that is the basis of the idea of law in the first place. If there is a law that says "People under the age of 18 are not allowed to purchase alcohol", then that law applies to everyone in the following way: everyone's age is checked when they try to purchase alcohol, and if the condition is met, then the purchase is allowed. No one is exempt from this process - what does differ between the individuals is the outcome. This particular law discriminates against people under the age of 18, despite the process being applied to all people regardless of their age.

In my examples, the law applies to everyone. In the black people worship example, everyone has to worship them, regardless of anything. But the law is discriminatory - not because it does not apply to everyone, or even because it does not apply to everyone equally, but because it places different limitations on actions of various groups of people (a black person can compel any stranger walking past him/her to bow down to him/her, but, say, a white person cannot).

I should note that in this discussion I absolutely do not defend any moral or political stances; personally I could not care less about whether homosexual marriages are allowed or not. But you made a factual terminological claim - that a law enforcing heterosexual-only marriages is not discriminatory - and I am telling you that such characterisation is objectively wrong. You are yet to explain what is wrong with my narrative, rather than one of its twisted versions you have conjured throughout this discussion.
Modifying a popular phrase, I should say, "Terminology does not care about your feelings".

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

There is this type of people who debate various subjects not to learn something or to modify their world view to better match the practical implications of the structure of reality, but to stroke their ego and feel better about themselves. Their inability to go past their insecurities and take a higher stance than just defending their personal opinions from criticism results in them refusing to make any concessions, so whenever their position becomes threatened by a strong argument, they seek to undermine that argument in any way possible, no matter how many logical fallacies they have to commit on the way.

I find it very educating to debate such people, as it keeps my language sharp and my arguments thought-provoking: the more stubborn the person is, the more difficult it becomes to get through to them, and overcoming this challenge is fun.
At the same time, I feel sorry for them, as they lack a very basic quality required for virtually any kind of personal improvement: humility. Believing faithfully that they already have all the answers and there is nothing more to learn or question is going to deny them countless opportunities they might otherwise have in life.

Our discussions on economics resulted, I believe, in both of us thinking a lot about potential weaknesses in our beliefs and argumentation, and while I am not sure if any of my fundamental positions have been unseated, I can say that thinking about various criticisms allowed me to go deeper in some topics than I have ever done before and gain a more broad understanding of the discussed topics.
@Grafix, unfortunately, does not find the same benefits in these discussions, because he/she refuses to seriously consider what is being said, approaching every comment he/she disagrees with with, "I know that this comment is wrong and this person is bad. Let me find a way to make them look bad."

I had a very good friend who, unfortunately, had this flaw. I interacted with her closely for a bit over three years, and whenever we disagreed on virtually anything, this flavor of discussions always ensued. All the ways I tried to get through to her ran into the wall of stubborn resistance, and eventually I realised that I am not going to correct parts of her that cause her so much suffering and withdrew from the friendship, having no desire to observe her ruining her own life by keeping extremely impractical psychological dogmas, such as "Everyone hates me because I am not like them".
It is incredible how many people in the world behave like that, refusing to risk a minor temporary discomfort from having the flaws of their thinking exposed in order to secure incredible gains from modifying it to its far better versions.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

**** Seems like everyone who talks to you always ends up in the same flavor of conversation, where you deny the evidence disproving or opposing your position, no matter how logically sound or otherwise convincing.

@Grafix in the past has posted up as defences to his claims links to videos of a long list of assorted quacks and conmen all thouroghly debunked on Rational wiki an excellent source which of course he claimed is a Marxist funded source. 

If you disagree with him on any of his nonsense he will claim you’re a 1:Marxist 2: Satanist 3: paid propagandist or all 3 together , this is always his parting shot when backed into a corner. Recently he was arguing with six different people and not unusually he claimed everyone was a Commie all because they challenged his narrow bigoted world views , the guy suffers from mental illness this is apparent by how paranoid he is and how he labels people who disagree with him , he sounds like Bobby Fisher ranting constantly about Jews the only difference is his illness has him seeing commies and satanists everywhere  

Dee

@MayCaesar

Here is @Grafix totally supporting what I’ve said about him in an earlier post ...... If you disagree with him on any of his nonsense he will claim you’re a 1:Marxist 2: Satanist 3: paid propagandist or all 3 together , this is always his parting shot when backed into a corner.

@Happy_Killbot  @MayCaesar

****It's unspeakably immature.  It is also very revealing.  All three of you do it.  You, Dee and May.  Too anxious, too eager to do your victory laps. It shows what you are all about - on a mission of Inculcation and paid to do it too.  It is why the three of you post continuously, tirelessly and support each other, appear in every discussion.  It's your bread and butter.  All of you from 
professional Russian troll farms.

@Grafix

Back to his usual nonsense as in throwing out unfounded accusations as in all Atheists are commies and paid to spread such , I detest communism but as usual you say someone is something because you cannot debate , you’re hopeless at it ....I can see you in the real world when someone disagrees with you and you burst into tears and screech “ you’re a Commie “ and then rush home and tell your ( allegedly Catholic wife) “ I won a debate again “ and your wife gushing “ but you always win dear” 

**** it is why the three of you post continuously, 


Thats funny you type through the night on any given day non stop and this is an example of your deflection again accusing your opponents of what you do 

BTW myself and @MayCaesar disagree on certain topics , mainly economic , but I respect his arguments and know where he is coming from , I don’t accuse him of being a “paid enemy “ , @Happy_Killbot and I got into a major scrap in the past on a topic but that’s what we are here for ,  we may agree on a lot of subjects but disagree on others , but if he makes a good point I don’t accuse him of being paid

You’re just terribly immature and a pathetic debater despite what your “Catholic “ wife keeps telling you 

Dee

@Grafix

Discrimination is terribly  tricky stuff for members of your cult  it’s seems , let me help......

treating a person or particular group of peopledifferently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skincolour, sex, sexuality, etc.:


You’re a bigot 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You opined ....

@Grafix  -  Well then shmuck, how do you think the rest of us feel having to put up with all of your nonsense?

It's actually spelt "schmuck".  I'm not interested in your "feewings"  I'm interested only in revealing the truth here.  You have to call my posts "nonsense", because you can't rebut them.  Now rebut this statement:  How can you claim that a law which applies to EVERYONE is discriminatory?   If no-one were permitted to marry anyone of the same sex, then how is it gays claimed they were discriminated against?  How is it that as they clearly were not, they got a law enacted on the basis that they were?  Who are the liars here?  Answer and rebut these issues.

Every time you twist the facts, say something illogical, or for that matter are just ignorant, the rest of us have to spend our time educating you.

This is textbook Marxist Alinsky, the role reversal psy op, , and you know it is.  Yours is the illogical and ignorant argument, scurrying for cover now and diving into personal attack.  Just argue the issues.

You think we know we know we are wrong and are just playing? You seriously think that? Go read some of the conversation between me and MayCaesar on economics. That is what debate is supposed to look like. Even though we disagree, it is civil. I would rather have 1,000 disagreements like this than give in to your narcissistic narrative.

I don't "think" it.  I already know it, because it is on this page.  No sane person could actually believe what you write, not even yourself.  If you did believe it, then you would have to acknowledge your are insane.  Look at your little scurry-away tactic, now.  Trying to drive me to another discussion and shut this one down.  LOL!  God spare me the dippy daft notions which Liberals hold up as "economics".  Not interested.

Seems like everyone who talks to you always ends up in the same flavor of conversation, where you deny the evidence disproving or opposing your position, no matter how logically sound or otherwise convincing.

If you mean by "everyone" the little trio of Marxists in here, you, Dee and May, then that is not everyone.  I disagree with your trio.  You disagree with me.  Big whoop.  It is you three denying the evidence written in black and white in the Marriage Act.  It is you three denying that a law which EVERYONE must comply with is not discriminatory.  It is you who are denying the facts here, face.  Not me.

I mean, you think we are paid to do it, which of course you think that because I told you we were as a test, and I in shock to find out that you ate it hook line and sinker, despite the fact that I won that bet.

I don't think it only because you told me you were a paid troll,  I also see the factual evidence of it in the hours spent, the diligence with which you cover anti-Marxist topics and not others, etc. It's empirical evidence which supports your own statement.  I see it in the line of argument.  I see it in the style of argument - textbook Marxist Alinskyisms from his Rules for Radicals.  It sticks out like dogs' balls.

You think you stand for the truth but the reality is you stand for ignorance. We have, all, on various occasions corrected your misconceptions, but you cling to your false reality, like a child hiding under his blanket. If you had a single iota of integrity or critical thought, you would be ashamed of yourself.

LOL!  More whining because you can't rebut my arguments, so again, diving into plaintive bleating.  Just rebut my arguments at the top of this post and prove I don't stand for truth.  Prove I am the ignorant one here.  Prove you can correct my statements.  Prove my arguments are a false reality.  Prove why I should be ashamed of myself.  So far, I've proved all of that against you and May.  Off you go. Give it a try.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

I'm not interested in your "feewings"  I'm interested only in revealing the truth here. 

Then why do you think we would be interested in your "feewings" when you wrote:

Nah just fed up with the perfidy and left the keyboard to cool off.

Double standard much?

How can you claim that a law which applies to EVERYONE is discriminatory?   If no-one were permitted to marry anyone of the same sex, then how is it gays claimed they were discriminated against?  How is it that as they clearly were not, they got a law enacted on the basis that they were?  Who are the liars here?  Answer and rebut these issues.

This has already been answered by both me and May. See the first page for details. The TL;DR is "Laws that ban gay marriage don't apply to everyone equally, therefore the discriminate based on sexual orientation"

This is textbook Marxist Alinsky, the role reversal psy op, , and you know it is.  Yours is the illogical and ignorant argument, scurrying for cover now and diving into personal attack.  Just argue the issues.

You know nothing about psy-ops, in order to be effective they are always true. This is a cornerstone of actual psychological warfare. If you make promises, you keep them. If you think this is psyops, it only goes to show that you have no idea what psychological operations are.

I don't "think" it.  I already know it, because it is on this page.  No sane person could actually believe what you write, not even yourself.  If you did believe it, then you would have to acknowledge your are insane.  Look at your little scurry-away tactic, now.  Trying to drive me to another discussion and shut this one down.  LOL!  God spare me the dippy daft notions which Liberals hold up as "economics".  Not interested.

Did you read any of our discussions? It is you who scurries away from the keyboard whenever we put you in your place, which is constantly. You blame us to save face, but deep down you know that what you accuse us of is true of yourself.

If you mean by "everyone" the little trio of Marxists in here, you, Dee and May, then that is not everyone.  I disagree with your trio.  You disagree with me.  Big whoop.  It is you three denying the evidence written in black and white in the Marriage Act.  It is you three denying that a law which EVERYONE must comply with is not discriminatory.  It is you who are denying the facts here, face.  Not me.

First off, May is a proponent of Anarcho-capitalism, which is the polar opposite of Marxism. He is farther right and more libertarian than you are. Don't believe me? Fine then. But it is the truth. What you are denying is that the law doesn't apply to everyone. Sorry, you were proven wrong on page one. Which is why this entire page has been us telling you how much you suck.

I don't think it only because you told me you were a paid troll,  I also see the factual evidence of it in the hours spent, the diligence with which you cover anti-Marxist topics and not others, etc. It's empirical evidence which supports your own statement.  I see it in the line of argument.  I see it in the style of argument - textbook Marxist Alinskyisms from his Rules for Radicals.  It sticks out like dogs' balls.

Gullible fool... I still can't believe you are dumb enough to believe that story, even after I told you I made it up. That is the textbook definition of delusion. If I ask your wife, will she feel she has to excuse your bigotry and bad behavior?

LOL!  More whining because you can't rebut my arguments, so again, diving into plaintive bleating.  Just rebut my arguments at the top of this post and prove I don't stand for truth.  Prove I am the ignorant one here.  Prove you can correct my statements.  Prove my arguments are a false reality.  Prove why I should be ashamed of myself.  So far, I've proved all of that against you and May.  Off you go. Give it a try.

We have already solidly rebutted and disproved your arguments. I already did prove you wrong, May already proved you wrong, when you live at the right pole, all other directions point left don't they?

Here is your quote showing that we proved you wrong:

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot -  You quoted me here ...

Grafix said:  I'm not interested in your "feewings"  I'm interested only in revealing the truth here. 

Then you said: 

 Then why do you think we would be interested in your "feewings" when you wrote:
You then quote me :  "Nah just fed up with the perfidy and left the keyboard to cool off."

You now claim: 

Double standard much?  

But I didn't introduce my 'feewings' into the topic.  You did,  making projections about them, so I corrected your inaccurate projections. Is all your doing, mate, to drive the discussion away from the topic.

Then you quote me - Grafix said:  How can you claim that a law which applies to EVERYONE is discriminatory?   If no-one were permitted to marry anyone of the same sex, then how is it gays claimed they were discriminated against?  How is it that as they clearly were not, they got a law enacted on the basis that they were?  Who are the liars here?  Answer and rebut these issues.

You now claim you rebutted that with this: 

This has already been answered by both me and May. See the first page for details. The TLDR is "Laws that ban gay marriage don't apply to everyone equally, therefore the discriminate based on sexual orientation" . 

AND I rebutted that, which you have subsequently failed to counter-rebut, instead running down this rabbit hole that we are currently in.  I rebutted it stating that marriage bans apply to every  man and woman equally, with no exceptions.  I also explained that proclivities are not people.  That words such as "homosexual", "paedophile", "polygamy"  are descriptors and behind every one of them is a male or female who ARE  included in The Marriage Act and are therefore allowed to marry like everyone else is, on the same equal basis. The fact that a demographic's  proclivities are among the marriage bans is not discrimination against any man or woman.  It is a discrimination against the proclivity and not against the person. 

The marriage law just does not permit a proclivity to be a legal basis upon which to apply for a marriage licence.  The law excludes all proclivities as any foundation for marriage, while not excluding the person, in the same way it excludes paedophilia and polygamous relationships as a foundation for marriage.  These proclivities are in the marriage bans, but they do not prevent any of the people who engage in them from marrying.  Everyone  is prohibited from using them as a claim to be entitled to marry, the reason there is no discrimination here. The proclivity of homosexuality was on a par with these other proclivities, banned as a reason to obtain a Marriage Licence.  Instead, a bunch of crooked lawyers made homos the exception, as "the preciousness" and all based on the lie of "discrimination" when there was none. Next ..

You know nothing about psy-ops, in order to be effective they are always true. This is a cornerstone of actual psychological warfare. If you make promises, you keep them. If you think this is psyops, it only goes to show that you have no idea what psychological operations are.

More evidence of your Marxist approach.  Psychological warfare is the primary weapon of Marxism.  Reverse psy ops are its most frequently used tactic in argument - accusing opponents of what oneself is actually waging against opponents.  Thanks for yet another confirmation.  The fact that you have successfully diverted the discussion right away from the topic into this drivel, is just further evidence of your Marxist modus operandi and is well expounded in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  It's Marxist modus operandi right on this page, right here in front of us, for all to see.  Then you claim this ....

Here is your quote showing that we proved you wrong:

I don't see any proof in that comment which supports your argument at all.  I see only that the third gender - neutral gender - excludes human beings.  You were claiming there were more than two genders in the human species, other than male and female.  This neutral gender does not apply to people at all.  So, No.  I do not think you proved me wrong at all.  If you agree with this statement, which you obviously do, now quoting it to support your own argument, then you must agree with what it says, namely that the neuter gender is not applicable to humans.  The statement doesn't support your argument.  It supports mine, namely that there have only ever been two biologicail genders for humans recognized by science.  Failed again, , and still have yet to prove how a law applicable to everyone, is a discriminatory law.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix , let it go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk

I rebutted it stating that marriage bans apply to every  man and woman equally, with no exceptions.

Doesn't include man-man and woman-woman. Discriminatory. Done. Proven.

More evidence of your Marxist approach.  Psychological warfare is the primary weapon of Marxism.  Reverse psy ops are its most frequently used tactic in argument - accusing opponents of what oneself is actually waging against opponents.  Thanks for yet another confirmation.  The fact that you have successfully diverted the discussion right away from the topic into this drivel, is just further evidence of your Marxist modus operandi and is well expounded in Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  It's Marxist modus operandi right on this page, right here in front of us, for all to see.  Then you claim this ....

Go ahead and wright me a book on what you think psy-ops is. 

I don't see any proof in that comment which supports you argument at all.  I see only that the third gender - neutral gender - excludes human beings.  You were claiming there were more than two genders in the human species, other than male and female.  This neutral gender does not apply to people at all.  So, No.  I do not think you proved me wrong at all.  If you agree with this statement, which you obviously do, now quoting it to support your own argument, then you must agree with what it says, namely that neutral gender is not applicable to humans.  The statement doesn't support your argument.  It supports mine, namely that there have only ever been two biologicl genders for humans recognized by science.  Faled agin and still have yet to prove how a law applicable to everyone, is a discriminatory law.

Putting words in my mouth, you don't know what anyone else's argument is because you have a small mind.

Gender still refers to noun modifiers, and for that matter, you are an "it" because I don't know which gender you are.

Dee

@Grafix

***** If you mean by "everyone" the little trio of Marxists in here, you, Dee and @MayCaesar @Happy_Killbot  then that is not everyone.  I disagree with your trio.  You disagree with me.  Big whoop.  It is you three denying the evidence written in black and white in the Marriage Act.  It is you three denying that a law which EVERYONE must comply with is not discriminatory.  It is you who are denying the facts here, face.  Not me.

Ha , Ha ,there it is again the big childish retort “ you’re a Marxist” all because you refuse to acknowledge your bigotry.

You stated ****   If no-one were permitted to marry anyone of the same sex, then how is it gays claimed they were discriminated against?

If no one were permitted to marry anyone of the opposite sex , then how could heterosexuals claim to be discriminated against? 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - The paper moon, the paper man, eh?   Steers the discussion to challenge another on a personal level making inaccurate projections, so opponent fights back and now same instigator wants to "let it go".  Gotta love the paper agument.  

The marriage ban of man+man or women+woman is already reflected in the very law itself - "... between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others ...".  What part of that don't you understand?

LOL!  Asking me to write a book now on psy ops?  Attempting to drive the discussion down that rabbit hole too, are we?   It's not necessary to have any in-depth knowledge of all of the various psy-ops engaged to be awake politically, because the Marxist playbook, Alinsky's Rules For Radicals and the Marxist Manifesto already reveal these.  Reading the politic's explicitly expounded methodology deployed to inculcate and influence peddle, more than arms one sufficiently well enough to identify a Marxist or a Marxist strategy.  That's all that's needed.

Explaining what my own  statement revealed is now putting words in your  mouth?  Yeah right.  LOL.  Delusional beyond belief.

I'm only an "it" in the literary sense for a temporal purpose, until the subject may be identified.   In the tough reality of living though, I am not an "it" at all and neither are you or any other person on this planet.  Got it? 

When are you going to rebut the outstanding arguments I have asked you to rebut?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

What are we talking about here? Are laws which ban homosexual marriage discriminatory or not?

We have provided ample proof that this is the case, because they don't give the same rights to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples. You are wrong, let it go.

It's funny you keep complaining about Marxism when you are clearly a fascist.

Explaining what my own  statement revealed is now putting words in your  mouth?  Yeah right.  LOL.  Delusional beyond belief.

Prove to me you know what my argument is. That should do it.

I'm only an "it" in the literary sense for a temporal purpose, until the subject may be identified.   In the tough reality of living though, I am not an "it" at all and neither are you or any other person on this planet.  Got it? 

No you are still an "it" you will always be an "it" unless you expose yourself as being anything but an "it" if you ask to be called on specific gender, I might refer to you using those pronouns because that is polite, but until then, you are gender neutral.

When are you going to rebut the outstanding arguments I have asked you to rebut?

Already done. Read what I wrote. Everything is already rebutted, most things more than once. You just don't know it because you fail to consider anything you disagree with, because either you are an irrational thinker or simply lack the creativity to think outside the box.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You asked ....

@Grafix  -  Are laws which ban homosexual marriage discriminatory or not?

Yes.  I have already stated that the mariiage law IS  discriminatory against PROCLIVITIES, but is not discriminatory against people, because it applies to EVERY person.  Homosexuality is a proclivity.  It is not a person.  What part of that don't you understand?

We have provided ample proof that this is the case, because they don't give the same rights to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples. You are wrong, let it go.

You've only proved that gay marriage law is in response to a big fat whine by "the little precious" of our society, who whined that marriage banned a particular proclivity in which they engaged.  You have not proven
that the law was discriminatory at all, because it equally applied to every person, male or female.  As homosexuals are males, then the law also applied to them as it also applied to every other male and female, no matter their proclivities. 

Proclivities cannot be permitted to define marriage, but this is precisely what has been permitted to occur, subsequent to gay marriage law.  It does precisely that - re-defines the definition of marriage on the basis of a proclivity and not on the basis of gender.  Marriage is defined ONLY on the basis of gender, but now we have a demographic which thinks it is lawful to redefine legal institutions on the basis of a proclivity and all because a bunch of corrupt Marxist lawmakers, funded by a multi-billion dollar influence-peddling campaign to inculcate public opinion, claimed it could.  It is fake law.  Junk law.  A hoax.

Prove to me you know what my argument is. That should do it.   

Your argument is that the previous marriage law was discriminatory against homosexuals, because it banned homosexual marriages.  I've already rebutted that for about six times and again above. 

No you are still an "it" you will always be an "it" unless you expose yourself as being anything but an "it" if you ask to be called on specific gender, I might refer to you using those pronouns because that is polite, but until then, you are gender neutral.

And here we see again the fake argument, ignoring reality.  The usual wordsmithing.  Yours is merely an "academic" argument which ignores the realityl.  No person is gender neutral.  None.  Got that? 

L  E  T        T  H  A  T        S  I  N  K        I  N

Grafix said:  When are you going to rebut the outstanding arguments I have asked you to rebut?

Happy HA HA's response:

Already done. Read what I wrote. Everything is already rebutted, most things more than once. You just don't know it because you fail to consider anything you disagree with, because either you are an irrational thinker or simply lack the creativity to think outside the box.

Except that I have already rebutted those arguments and you fail to counter-rebut.  You just plead the same, same, same doubling down on your original and already rebutted argument, claiming that a proclivity is a gender, when it is not.  Claiming that marriag law which does not allow a proclivity is discriminatory against people, when it is not.  It's discriminatory against proclivities.  You have not rebutted that.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Sexual orientation is a description of a person which might be homosexual. Therefore, the laws are still discriminating against people based on sexual orientation. Whether it is a proclivity or a physical characteristic is irrelevant. That being said, if you think it is a proclivity, maybe you can prove it by having sex with someone who you are not inclined to prefer. If you will not, then that is strong evidence it is a physical characteristic.

You've only proved that gay marriage law is in response to a big fat whine by 'the little precious" of our society who whined that marriage banned a particular proclivity in which they engaged.  You have not proven at all that the law was discriminatory at all, because it equally applied to every person, male or female.  As homosexuals are males, then the law also applied to them as it also applied to every other male and female, no matter their proclivities.  Proclivities cannot be permitted to define marriage, but this is precisely what has been permitted to occur, subsequent to gay marriage law.  It does precisely that - re-defines the definition of marriage on the basis of a proclivity and not on the basis of gender.  Marriage is defined ONLY on the basis of gender, but now we have a demographic which thinks it is lawful to redefine legal institutions on the basis of a proclivity and all because a bunch of corrupt Marxist lawmakers, funded by a multi-billion dollar influence-peddling campaign to inculcate public opinion, claimed it could.  It is fake law.  Junk law.  A hoax.

But it doesn't apply to people based on sexual orientation, and in that way it is discriminatory. You are grasping at straws here.

Your argument is that the previous marriage law was discriminatory against homosexuals, because it banned homosexual marriages.  I've already rebutted that for about six times and again above. 

No, my argument is that any law which unfairly privileges a certain sect of society is discriminatory. i.e, giving some people the right to marriage based on sexual orientation. There is a little more to it than you think, because once again your mind is very small.

And here we see again the fake argument, ignoring reality.  The usual wordsmithing.  Yours is merely an "academic" argument which ignores the realityl.  No person is gender neutral.  None.  Got that? 

You are gender neutral. I am gender neutral, suppose you find out that I am just a complex algorithm. Which gender is that? You are still an "it" until shown otherwise.

Except that I have already rebutted those arguments and you fail to counter-rebut.  You just plead the same, same, same doubling down on your original and already rebutted argument, claiming that a proclivity is a gender, when it is not.  Claiming that marriag law which does not allow a proclivity is discriminatory against people, when it is not.  It's discriminatory against proclivities.  You have not rebutted that.

But did you counter the counter to the counter-counter rebut? No, you just sort of denied that any of it was true.

Here is the thing you don't know:

Sexual orientation is not the same as paraphillia. sexual orientation is sort of like direction on a map, lets say north and south, and paraphillia is like country. 

Consider these:

• Homosexual - attracted to the same gender
• Heterosexual - attraction to the opposite gender
• Asexual - no sexual attraction to any gender
• Bisexual - attraction to both genders
• transexual - a personal identification with the opposite gender
• pansexual - an attraction to all genders

The above are all sexual orientations. They are something which is inherent to the individual according to all scientific accounts and do not change over time, meaning they are something you are born with.

Now consider these:

• Pedophillia - attraction to children
• Necrophillia - the attraction to the dead
• Zoophillia - attraction to animals
• Podophillia - attraction to feet
• objectophillia - attraction to specific inanimate objects
• Macrophillia - attraction to people larger than oneself
• microphillia - attraction to people smaller than oneself
• asphyphillia - enjoyment of being choked

These are paraphillias and they can be combined with a sexual orientation. Unlike gender orientation, these can change and develop over time, and treatment for them is possible if they are debilitating in some way. This distinction between paraphillias and sexual orientation is what makes them different in terms of discrimination, which is why say, no one can marry someone who is dead. Now before you say "well what about age? Don't we discriminate based on age in marriage? to which the answer is sort of. In the US, it is legal for someone to marry a child in some places already, in fact much of these have been deregulated centuries before homosexual marriage was allowed. Places which enforce age restrictions on marriage is not really like homosexuality anyways, because age changes, and eventually someone will be old enough to marry someone older, but sexual orientation is forever.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ...

@Grafix - I do not remember talking about the past and making any claims about the state of the law back then, but thank you for putting words in my mouth once again.

Really?  A selective memory methinks.  We're arguing about the marriage law altered by gay marriage law aren't we?.  What exactly do you think we're arguing about?  How to put lipstick on a pig?  Next ...

everyone's age is checked when they try to purchase alcohol, and if the condition is met, then the purchase is allowed. No one is exempt from this process - what does differ between the individuals is the outcome. This particular law discriminates against people under the age of 18, despite the process being applied to all people regardless of their age.

Yes, correct.  It does discriminate against juniors under the age of 18, applicable to all juniors and no adults, so it is a discriminatory law.  So?  How does that support the argument that the marriage law is discriminatory?  The two are unrelated.  What's your point?  Because other laws are discriminatory that somehow validates the claim that marriage law is too? I don't think so.   Hardly good logic, because it isn't.

The legal discrimination between minors and adults exists mostly to protect children, not to protect adults, so just because it makes that discrimination, are you saying it must be repealed, that we should let kids do what adults do?  Have twelve year olds legally able to  marry and have kids, legally able to work and drive buses and trains, legally getting drunk or legally prostituting themselves, etc. ?  Lefties have been inculcated to believe that ALL  discrimination is bad .  It's a dumb attitude and simply produces warped thinking, as just illustrated.   

Healthy discriminations are G O O D,  such as discriminating between right and wrong, between poor quality and good quality, between dirty clothes and clean clothes, bad hygiene and good hygience, between poisonous food and non-poisonous.  At the end of the day your arguments are not relevant to the claim that a proclivity is a legal reason to marry and that a law which prohibits that is somehow discriminatory against gays, although it applies to everyone.  It's a discrimination against a proclivity and NOT against any person. You're way off topic.  Just as the next argument is totally off-topic and irrelevant.

In my examples, the law applies to everyone. In the black people worship example, everyone has to worship them, regardless of anything. But the law is discriminatory - not because it does not apply to everyone, or even because it does not apply to everyone equally, but because it places different limitations on actions of various groups of people (a black person can compel any stranger walking past him/her to bow down to him/her, but, say, a white person cannot).

I agreed all of your examples would be discriminatory laws, so what's your point?  Any law which does not apply to the whole of the population or discriminates against a sector is discriminatory law.  I never claimed we don't have any.  I never claimed that they must be bad.  I have only claimed that where a law does not apply to all, then it is discriminatory and when it does apply to all then it is not discriminatory and you wander off into the woods barking up trees where the possum is not even at home.  Next ....

Modifying a popular phrase, I should say, "Terminology does not care about your feelings".

Just to get that claim off the page.  I've never expressed my "feewings" to you.  Being critical of what you represent, of what your game is, rebutting your arguments and calling them "dumb" has nothing to do with "feewings", but everything to do with calling you out.  Then you try to defend your argument with this ....

But you made a factual terminological claim - that a law enforcing heterosexual-only marriages is not discriminatory - and I am telling you that such characterisation is objectively wrong. You are yet to explain what is wrong with my narrative, rather than one of its twisted versions you have conjured throughout this discussion.

I have rebutted your arguments more than ONCE.  How is a law which defines marriage as a heterosexual institution discriminatory?  Who does it discriminate against?  It does not say that homosexuals cannot marry.  It does not say that lesbians cannot marry.  It says marriage is open to every man and every woman.  It says that marriage is defined by gender and not by proclivities.  That's all it says.  You can still get married to anyone of the opposite gender, no matter your proclivity.  That is not discriminating against any person.  It is discriminatory against proclivities only.   L E T    T H A T    S I N K    I N.

You are either naive or part of the Marxist push.  The next push will be for the next proclivity to challenge the law in the same way gays did - scream discrimination.   Muslims can now claim the proclivity of polygamy must be also permitted as a reason to be granted a Marriage Licence.  Next it will be a push to recognize marriages in paedophilia relationships, then incestuous relationships.  This bad lawmaking has put us on the slippery slope of no-return, unless it is repealed.  

Setting dangerous precedents at law which open watersheds, leave the judiciary powerless to rule against such challenges because a denial of a Marriage Licence to any one of those other proclivities by any Judge can now be in itself a discriminatory decision against the applicants, solely due to the now existing precedent set by gay marriage law.  Why can't you understand this?  What is wrong with you?   This is precisely why it is dangerous law to redefine marriage, with no legal basis for doing so, with no legitimate argument for doing so, no actual presence of any discrimination, instead all conjured up only on the basis of a proclivity and not on the basis of gender or any discrimination.  They lied to us.  Let that sink in.  Their legal arses were on fire the whole bloody time and they knew it.  Marriage has never been defined on the basis of any proclivity,  until now and it therefore means that every proclivity can now challenge their exclusion from marriage.  Anyone who cannot understand this is as thick as two planks.

.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Terminology doesn't care about your feelings!

Grafix

So why did you waste a whole post on your feewings, Einstein?  LOL!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Terminology doesn't care about your feelings!

This just says it all...

Grafix

So?  What's your point?  The law doesn't care about warped interpretations which cater to warped proclivities, claiming fake discrimination.  One day this law must be overturned or we will be legalising paedophilia, rape of children in marriage, just as the Islamic law allows and seeing polygamous marriage legalized.  Goodbye to our Western culture.  The law doesn't care about dumbness which cannot see this, either.
.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

, child marriage is already legal in the US, mostly for religious reasons. Christians enforce that children who are impregnated are better off married to the father even if there is a huge age difference. This was legal long before homosexual marriage was on the table.



There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults marrying, who cares about there sexual orientation? It is discriminatory to prevent marriage based on sexual orientation because the semantics language we use to convey the term "discrimination" includes sexual orientation as a potential difference.

Terminology doesn't care about your feelings!

Grafix

That's precisely why the Marxist Democrats fought to change the marriage age to 15.  If that had not been pushed through the legislature then these children could not marry and would be forced to stay at home.  It is also why the Marxist Agenda of "free love" descended upon our Western culture in the sixties and young people of the different sexes began sharing condominiums and apartments who were of working age.  Everything is connected and don't think it isn't.  Even so, if the marriage law stupidly enacted by Democrats, says you are an "adult" at age 15, although other laws do not say that, then it is to allow someone who is still a minor in the prison system to be of the legal marriage age.  It is a demonstration of the warped thinking of Democrat leftie loons.  Thanks for the confirmation.

Not one conservative, not one Christian agreed with the lowering of the legal marrige age.  Only dippy daft Democrats did.  It says it all - good little foot soldiers of the Marxist Agenda.  It is all connected and the aim is to destroy our culture.  Mark my words, it won't stop at 15 year olds.  They will push for child bride marriages.  The filthy cover for filthy paedophilia and you, mate and the rest of your mates are to blame.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

What source told you that the DNC wants the marriage age to be 15? Most are fighting to keep it at 18 and are trying to end child marriage loopholes last I checked. If this is something from 50+ years ago, needless to say it is no longer relevant.

Child marriage proponents in the US are predominantly evangelicals in the GOP, such as former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is Republican and is a single example of a conservative and Christian.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-child-marriage-religious-freedom-end-female-liberty-a7742196.html

Why don't you google/duckduckgo this stuff first? You could save yourself the embarrassment.

MayCaesar

@Grafix ;

My only argument from which this whole conversation started is this: "Heterosexual-only marriage laws are discriminatory by definition". I have not argued anything else, and all further comments merely supported this argument with various examples.

You just agreed that my examples which applied to everyone are discriminatory, yet here you go again with the same claim in the same comment: that the heterosexual-only marriage laws are not discriminatory, because they apply to everyone. You have agreed that if A, then not necessarily B, and here you again say that since A, it follows that B. All of your comments are full of things like this.

Heterosexual-only marriage laws discriminate against men by not allowing them to marry men, and against women by not allowing them to marry women. They do not, strictly speaking, discriminate against people based on their sexuality - only on their gender.
They do discriminate against couples based on their practical sexuality, but that is a less direct discrimination, because, strictly speaking, people forming a homosexual couple do not have to be homosexual. This is an instance of implicit discrimination, but I will leave that argument to @Happy_Killbot who has already made their case on this.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot -The empirical evidence shows it.  Politicians pay lip service to many things but do nothing.  Most of the action to raise the marriage age is coming from Conservative politicians.   Examples below show New Hampshire has been a Democrat stronghold for decades.  It now has finally a Republican Governor, who has just raised the minimum age (requiring parental consent),  from 13 years to 16 years, still two years below the Statutory age without consent, which is 18 years.  The map below does not show the legal Statutory Age which in most States is 18 years.  What it shows is the States which have actually legislated a minimum legal age for marriage permitted with parental or judiciary consent.  This only comes into play in exceptional circumstances, such as an unplanned pregnancy of a minor, a rape victim, for example.. 

Note the lowest ages so far legislated in that circumstance are still in Democrat stronghold States.  Another Republican is pushing through Legislation in the Democrat stronghold of Virginia to raise the minimum marriage age.  Of course, we can't overlook the reason the stats are so high, correlates with opening our doors to Middle Eastern immigrants, reflecting dirty old men bringing in their child brides.  U.S. law does not over-rule existing  marriages of immigrants at the time of migration, respecting the nation of origin marriage law in that context.  See the last article below on that.

               

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Seriously, use google, stop making yourself look dumb. New Hampshire changed it's minimum age barrier thanks to tireless efforts of Rep. Cassandra Levesque, who is a democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Levesque

Not the GOP, the DNC, that is who is fighting against child marriage. The conservatives want child marriage laws to stay the way they are, which allows children to marry.

Even in the case of Virginia, which raised it's child marriage laws in 2016, the governor was Terry McAuliffe, another Democrat! Surprise!

It is empirically true that the GOP on average supports child marriage, and the DNC on average opposes it.

Since you oppose child marriage, guess what that makes you?

A Leftist!

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

This isn't really relevant to our current discussion, but I just cam across this from just over a week ago and thought it was funny. She can't even keep her own marriage together, what makes you think she can give you any useful help on any others?

Breaking: Activist Mommy Getting a Divorce

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/13/breaking-activist-mommy-getting-a-divorce/

Elizabeth Johnston, better known as the Activist Mommy, a staunch advocate for life and the welfare of children and the family has announced that she is getting a divorce amid repeated unfaithfulness to her by her husband.

The wife and mother of ten children made the announcement earlier on Facebook stating that it was “not an announcement I ever hoped to make.”

“My husband and the father of my ten children, has been repeatedly unfaithful to me,” she said, “as well as psychologically and emotionally abusive, bringing an end to our marriage of 22 years.”

In the announcement, she said she has repeatedly covered for him, taken him back, and forgiven him and preserving his reputation for committing adultery, pornography and sexual immorality, which began 16 years ago.

“I have suffered for many years in order to prevent divorce, trusting God to bring the change needed and doing my best to keep my family together. There have been countless meetings with pastors and therapists, sanctions, discipline, a constructive separation period, and so much more. But unfortunately, after much fasting and prayer and consultation with a MULTITUDE of wise counselors, it is clear I have no other choice. “

“Why did I wait this long? I hate divorce,” she said.

As anyone can imagine, a situation like this is heartbreaking. While there are two sides to every story, if what Johnston states is true, and this has been repeatedly happening for 16 years, then we can only imagine the toll that this has taken on the family.

At this time, during the breaking of this news, we’re not opining on the situation but asking everyone to be in prayer for this family. Elizabeth Johnson, aka the Activist Mommy, has been a strong force in exposing the wickedness of pro-abortion movement and we hope and pray that she and her family can ultimately be led to peace and reconciliation.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

The values of various age thresholds do not appear to strongly correlate with how conservative a political group is on the worldwide scale. For example, Japanese society is very conservative by Western standards, yet the federal age of sexual consent there is 13 - however, the age required for marriage is 20 (currently an amendment to the law is considered that would lower it to 18). Interestingly enough, with parental consent, boys can marry starting the age of 18, but girls - starting the age of 16.

The lowest age of marriage seems to be 9, in Iran (in Yemen there is no age of marriage threshold in principle, but in practice a marriage of a little kid will not be approved by the government), an ultra-conservative society. You could say that it is because it is an Islamic society, but then in Colombia and Ecuador, VERY heavily Christian and fairly conservative states, girls can marry at 12 with their guardians' consent.
The highest ages of marriage are found in such states as China, Bangladesh or Congo, that also feature highly conservative societies.

As for New Hampshire, it had been a Republican state forever, up until the last several decades, when it became considered a "swing state". That soon after it became a "swing state" the age of consent was raised does not speak strongly in favor of your little theory.

They have a sweet Free State Project going on in New Hampshire, by the way, where libertarians from all over the country come together to try to recreate the Founding Fathers' design in one little state, hoping to start a new country-wide trend. Will be interesting to see what it will lead to; they already have very juicy discussions going on in their parliament, such as on whether taxation should be considered theft.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot ; - You wrote ...

Seriously, use google, stop making yourself look dumb. New Hampshire changed it's minimum age barrier thanks to tireless efforts of Rep. Cassandra Levesque, who is a democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Levesque

I'm making myself look dumb?  You sure about that now?  LOL!  The Bill put forward which Cassandra Levesque inspired while she was still at school and a Girl Guide Scout failed and was rejected because of certain flaws which Congress felt needed to be overcome.  It was written by the Democrats.   So The Republicans re-wrote it, re-introduced it and it was passed a year later under a first-time Red State in three decades with a Republican Governor.  Then you claim ...

Not the GOP, the DNC, that is who is fighting against child marriage. The conservatives want child marriage laws to stay the way they are, which allows children to marry.

I know that's the crap the leftie news media and Democrats claim, but if you look at the States which have sponsored Bills and which have been successful in raising the minimum age for marriage, there have been more such Bills sponsored by Republicans which have succeeded.   I am not taking anything away from young Cassandra.  Her effort was a sterling effort.  I am condemning the Democrats who wrote the Bill for her.  They knew it would be rejected because of its terms and is precisely why it was rejected.  In other words, they were not really supportive of it.  They just pretended they were and wrote a dud Bill.

Even in the case of Virginia, which raised it's child marriage laws in 2016, the governor was Terry McAuliffe, another Democrat! Surprise! 

Yeah but who sponsored the Bill in the House and who got it passed in both Houses?  HA.  HA.  HA.  Surprise!  You just can't ever get past that elusive point of truth, can you Harry HA HA, 'cos when someone looks a little deeper into your claims they invariably find out they are always half truths  like all of the above.  Now I wonder why that is?  Then you cling to the same lie with this ....

It is empirically true that the GOP on average supports child marriage, and the DNC on average opposes it.  Since you oppose child marriage, guess what that makes you?  

Your first sentence is not supported by the evidence.  it's a lie.  The answer to your question is that it makes me a Conservative, because more Conservatives than Democrats have sponsored the Bills which have successfully raised the minimu age, but you keep on keeping on and believing in your fake media, instead of looking at the Congressional record.  There is nothing like going to the source for the facts.  When will you people ever learn that simple trick, instead of indulging your odd syndrome of needy confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, which you invariably put ahead of any desire for the truth.