SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[Into the Night]

Playing dumb again? We are talking about SSM, not straight marriage.

Buzzword fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok. And, as such, everyone can vote. No issues with limiting their voting options to only one of three actual options, right?

False equivalence fallacy.

Right.

Great. Now, let's stop playing dumb

Inversion fallacy.

and acknowledge that the LARGEST majority of gays who get married do it for exactly the same reason straight people do and not one of your one in a million reasons.

Good!

Not realistic ones. Gay people get married for the same reason straight people to - because of the feelings they have for the person and the desire to have it recognized as a marriage. But, please, keep pretending all your "reasons" are relevant.

It is recognized as a marriage. Circular example.

Nope, want is what matters in marriage just as it does in my comparison to voting.

False equivalence fallacy.

It's dumb to say "Well, everyone can vote, so what's the issue that they can only vote for one of three options regarldess of what they WANT to vote."

Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Want isn't always relevant to the government, but equal protection is. The government can't discriminate, hence SCOTUS ruling regarding same-sex marriage.

There is no such thing as 'same sex marriage'. Buzzword fallacy.

Again, if the voting rules were setup in the same manner as marriage,

Voting isn't marriage.

you'd be losing your shit because it wouldn't fair because you WANT to vote for a Republican and should be able to vote for who you WANT!

Voting isn't marriage.

But, you're more interested in playing word games so you can mark what you see as your "territory" called marriage.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

SCOTUS is not involved.

There's no SCOTUS, period

 

[Into the Night]

Of course federal and state laws prevented gay marriage until 2015.

Never happened.

Before the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, many state constitutions and statutes explicitly banned same‑sex marriage,

There is no such thing as 'same sex marriage'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I just posted source material showing that Yakuda is wrong.

His definition is simply wrong.

Attempted proof by void.

 

[Into the Night]

There's no SCOTUS, period

Why do you think so?

 

[Into the Night]

@IBDaMann I don't think I've ever seen ZenMode flail THIS much before... it's quite remarkable to behold.

I have. This is nothing compared to some of his flailing.

 

[Into the Night]

The problem is that your definition of marriage is not accepted.

He didn't define 'marriage'.

Thank goodness for the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.

Irrelevant.

It is called marriage, wither or not you like it.

It is not marriage.

He doesn't agree with your silly definition.

Irrelevant.

You simply choose to deny English.

 

[AProudLefty]

He didn't define 'marriage'.

Irrelevant.

It is not marriage.

Irrelevant.

You simply choose to deny English.

YARF. LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

By basically making marriage a meaningless enterprise that only means two people in love, it most certainly will. But alas, you lack the intelligence or acumen to comprehend the obvious.

Marriage has a specific definition. No court can change that.
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. The word itself stems from Latin words for 'mother' and 'husband'. It has no other meaning.

What we have here is yet another example of the Liberal language, where words have no meaning.

 

[Into the Night]

You are free to believe what marriage means. You have lost nothing. Families are intact.

Your word games won't work.

 

[ZenMode]

Why do you think so?

Because, I think so and it's true.

 

[ZenMode]

Your word games won't work.

Words can't play games. Void.

 

[Into the Night]

playing dumb

Inversion fallacy.

Thanks to SCOTUS, anyone can marry whoever they want. That's secondary to the discussion which is that you can't explain why a separate name is necessary.

Irrelevance fallacy.

If they're equal, then there's no need for a separate designation.

Buzzword fallacies.

I've shown this with multiple comparisons, including your attempted comparison with fruit which failed miserably.

Strawmen fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Because, I think so and it's true.

Void argument fallacy. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Words can't play games. Void.

Random words. No apparent coherency.
Try English. It works better.

 

[ZenMode]

Void argument fallacy. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

There was no question put to me.

 

[Jake Starkey]

All the yelling don't matter.

It's what SCOTUS says that matters, not you sillies.

 

[Into the Night]

There was no question put to me.

Blatant lie. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.