Friar Bijou wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You're the guys who start with "we must expand marriage to include homosexuals" and then constructs an argument and rationale to support it.
Huh. Personally, I start with "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please".
Why? Again, that's an end point.
Maximum liberty is an end point?
No. "Maximum liberty", is not. But "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please" is. WTF?
Did you suffer head trauma lately?
I'll ask you the same question. The two things are not the same. You assume that "two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they please" is something that should exist in a state with maximum liberty, but fail to actually bother to take all the steps in between to get there. We can both agree that "maximum liberty" is good while disagreeing on exactly what specific conditions are indicative of that state.
You're skipping ahead. I'm directly staying "start at step one, and then walk one step at a time to the end point". But even after I say this, you keep skipping to the end. Start at the beginning and actually trace your path from the start to the end. When you do this, I think you'd be surprised how many of the things you just assume are intricately tied to a state of liberty actually are not.
I'm not against /*** marriage. I'm against having our government subsidize those marriages. Huge difference.
Really? Are you seriously arguing that if I fail to support a government subsidy for something, this means I must be against that thing? That's... insane. And completely unworkable, since there's an infinite number of things we aren't subsidizing at any given moment. So what you can say I'm "against" is based solely on you proposing that we subsidize it. If you proposed that we subsidize free ice cream for everyone, and I oppose it, by your logic, that means I don't think people should have the freedom to eat ice cream.
I'm not against people owning cats, but if you asked me to provide benefits to cat owners at taxpayer expense, I'd say no. Same deal.
Because owning a cat is just like
being ghey married?
In the context of testing your logic, yes. You are arguing that if we don't subsidize something, then we are against it. I'm using clear examples where this logic doesn't work to show you that your wrong. Now, if you want to base your argument for *** marriage benefits on something other than "but if you oppose them, then you hate *** people!!!", then we might actually get somewhere.