Quote:
|
Quote by: tinybear A very common debate technique (and one which I do not personally endorse) is to put forward a premise which is untenable, claim that is what your opponent is advocating and then proceed to shoot it down (in the process calling your opponent an idiot, hypocrite or loser). *Sigh*
I said the scope and extent of rights affecting the recognition of a social institution such as marriage can be understood differently at different times in history and from time to time when it is perceived by some that the scope of that right ought to be extended because the community at large thinks it should, then I say let's ask the community what it thinks. That's all I'm saying. I never said that a person's life can be put to a vote. |
And I said that rights should never be up for a vote. All you are saying is that in the past people did thing they probably should not have done. So therefore we should continue doing it. This is not an argument but just a request to maintain the status quo because that is what the majority will want.
And you accuse me of exactly what you are doing. You suggested that it be put to a vote and I have been arguing that this is not what should be done and have provided reasons and arguments for why that is. You don't like it because your remedy would make you a hypocrite and well, people don't like being called hypocrites. Well tough. When you advocate an action for another group that you would not want for yourself then that is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It would be one thing if you could show that homosexuality was some sort of a threat to all of us, but you have not even tried to do that. Instead you continue with the lame vote thing. I continue to explain why it is not the proper action under our American system and you come back with this bull shit. You have lost this particular argument and it appears that you are a very sore looser.
Starboy