You keep considering your opinion as fact, and repeating what I say to you like a parrot. Approaches don't think, so an approach can't think anything is logical. Given that you show no logic, by your thinking that your opinion is fact and you inability to little more than make strawman arguments, it is no surprise that you have reached the limit of what you can fathom.

Actually, you were the one who interjected the word truth, I just showed your hypocrisy in how you were doing exactly what you were accusing me of.

Thus foundit demonstrates he does not understand what he reads.

You believe that disagreeing with you is a violation of your rights.

You think illogically and you debate dishonestly. You copy my identification in the lack of your logic and repeat it back to me like a parrot would do. The fact that you would label an OPINION to be "wrong" shows that you do consider your opinion to be the truth. Unless someone's opinion is an opinion on the quantity, degree or details of a fact, then an opinion cannot be right or wrong.

You opinion is just an opinion, not the truth, nor a fact, nor right, just an opinion.

What you are doing now is another dirty debate trick called "weasel word." I am talking about opinion in the most common meaning of the word. You are now trying to disprove what I'm saying about your opinions by using a different definition of the word.

OK, then gays not being eligible for gay marriage is also a legal form of discrimination (as you use the term).

WRT SCOTUS rulings, it's too bad that you apparently didn't understand what you were reading, since you obviously can only say that the SCOTUS has tests, and you fail to actually show that there any of these tests prove your point.

You're obviously lying again and attacking me personally, since you are incapable of mustering an argument based on logic, law or principle. Analogies are not proof.

I have pointed out your misrepresentations of my argument every step along the way. If your reading comprehension is too feeble to see that and you will not invest the effort to read it when I point it out for you, then that is your problem.

Again, you accuse me of the failing that you had. You said that I used the foundation of an argument to avoid its superstructure. That makes absolutely no sense. You criticized me for bringing up qualifications to ignore that (according to you) qualifications are discriminatory. That's basically like saying that you brought up X, so that you could avoid X then Y. You can't discuss X then Y without first bringing up X. Again demonstrating your failure to use logic.

The opinion Loving V Virginia rejected miscegenation laws due to a violation of the 14th Amendment. I saw no mention of state interest.

If your ability to form intelligent thoughts was just half of your over-confidence, you would not rush to such over-simplified conclusions. Democracy is a state's interest. You imply that democracy must always come into conflict with the Constitution. It does not. Do I really have to break that down for you?

It treats our two beliefs as equal by assigning each of our beliefs one vote, which is then used in a popular referendum. That is treating beliefs equally. All beliefs that are constitutional have an equal chance at the ballot box.

You continue to lie because I do not agree with your gay marriage talking points. Here again, you conflate your opinion with facts. You also enable that with bad assumptions. It is your opinion that democracy must conflict with the Constitution. It does not. We regularly pass laws, we regularly have elections, we regularly create new policies. None of that would be possible if your belief of the irreconcilability of democracy and the Constitution were true.

You use talking points, you hypocritically accuse me of making the mistakes in method that you make, and you childishly repeat back to me what I have just told to you.

There is no retort for your mistaken assumption as to what I was arguing. You can either admit that you used a strawman tactic to say that I believe that gay marriage is a right, or you can be dishonest about it by not admitting your mistake and talking about a different disagreement we have. You have chosen the latter course.

You also state your opinion as facts by saying that I must "recognize" your opinion as a fact.

Your rephrasing of my words to describe what you believe is false. You have said that you believe gay rights and democracy are competing with each other, so for you to say that "You made a false assumption, namely that I believe two rights are competing with each other (gay rights vs democracy)" is false. You are saying that you did not argue what you are arguing. I think you proved your disavowal of logic again.

Analogies are not logical propositions on the subject. Anyone can make an analogy about anything. It has no value for determining truth. You have no idea what my reply means because you merely repeat talking points rather than logically thinking about if your methods in any way prove your conclusions.

Exactly. Again, if you actually could see one inch past your nose, you would see that not only does my little historical reference make no sense, it's just as irrelevant to the topic as yours.

You substitute your opinion for facts again. I made a number of inflammatory remarks about gays after such remarks were made about me. I even provided you a link with all of the personal attacks made by Jason. Your claim that no offense was present proves how I said that you are not capable of objective debate on this subject because you need gay marriage to be accepted so that you can sustain your self-esteem. You need this thing to break your way so desperately that you cannot be objective about it.

Actually you did claim people had tuned me out: "It isn't me that people have tuned out..." post #204

You're lying again. I didn't refuse your request, and it's a request not a challenge. I didn't see your request, as it is was packaged among some of your less intelligent remarks. I deny your request. I have no interest in reading any more of your posts than I have to. They have less intellectual content than a TV guide. Your behavior on this thread is trollish. That is sufficient.

Go and find it yourself. Your so-called "challenges" are stupid and thus they are the perfect job for you and you alone. You lie when you say I made stuff up. You chronically lie in discussions on gays.

It's painfully true, Mr. Chairman.

You have stated one fool calling me a troll. That is you calling me a troll.

Perhaps, the topic is too dumb to warrant further attention. Indulge yourself.

You have lied repeatedly.

Again, you employ your standards (and when I use that word, understand that having no standards is also a standard) selectively. When I mount reprisals, you take offense. When others mount reprisals, then you say that reprisals are acceptable if they are reciprocal. Again, you are not capable of being objective or showing any class.

You use strawman tactics again. The fact that people will lose some freedom of belief will not ruin my life (as having the government not assist you, would ruin yours). The fact that I would be fine does not mean that I dropped any arguments.

It is totally accurate. You continue to tell lies, make personal attacks and behave rudely. You employ filter out insults made by other Westboro bigots when discussing insults. You and your boys are motivated to insult since this issue is everything to you.

Find it yourself. You are quite bold in asserting your laziness and incompetence in observing a thread that you speak authoritatively on, but that does not mean I will comply.

I did not change the subject, you are making more personal attacks.

You - your comments, you are mincing words to dodge how you lied by omission.

You feign ignorance as to your own comments. I will not waste time quoting what you pretend to not know. You continually lie and your childish challenges merely show your inability to defend your opinions on this subject.

Again, you demonstrate considerable idiocy, failing to see that my use of the "truth" concept is the same as your use of the concept on me. Since you are merely regurgitating talking points, you fail to see that you are debunking your own argument.

Your claim is disingenuous. You either would like to see children influenced to accept gay marriage or you do not care. That does not make the matter less important. Many parents want their children to have their values. By having the state call domestic partnerships "marriage" it affects the beliefs of children against their parents wishes and without even their input through a vote.

Your comment on Massachusetts is another strawman argument.

That's exactly what it is.

The First Commandment governs individuals, not societies. An individual can follow the First Commandment with our Constitution. There is no conflict there.

You claim victimization so you CAN victimize others.

You dishonestly act rudely and then pretend that you are not. You ask me to waste my time proving to you, that which you know. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

You first. You can't.

Prove it.

Yep, no doubt. Too bad you don't see the pattern of attack, counterattack. If your IQ was half the size of your ego you'd see it.

No, I believe you are lying again. I believe that I asked you, if I looked would I find you calling Jyoshu a bigot. In any case, prove that I accused you with no evidence to back my claim.

Again, WRT dozens of more times, you are merely lying again.

Provide proof.

Elaborate.

If you cannot see your own insults, then you are incredibly dishonest or incredibly deluded. Either way, that's your problem, not mine.

I wish I could get a moratorium on your dishonesty, strawman arguments, positing your opinion as facts and you accusing me of what you do. We can all dream.

Well that's you substituting your opinion for facts again, saying that qualification = discrimination.

Provide proof of your explanation.

As for you so-called challenge, it's not a challenge and I refuse, since you demonstrate your emotional instability by making a smarmy remark after your request. Maybe if I don't answer, it might upset you a bit more.

That is your methodology. Sure I can explain why analogies are weak arguments. I already did. Either you have a short memory or you did not read my explanation. I am sure you will also ask me to compensate for your problems as well as your sloth by asking me to go back and repeat the comments for you. You can do that yourself.

Well that's your dishonest assertion. You on the otherhand would just state that you are right and others are wrong. You would also misrepresent the other person's argument provide an analogy which proves nothing, throw in some insults and demonstrate a lack of class with rude remarks for good measure.

Sure they can. Actually, if you were literate you would see that I mentioned to you that I could make up any old analogy as well, which shows how worthless an analogy is, since you can just make up any random analogy.

It proves that you make insults and behave with little class, and then disavow knowledge of your behavior. This proves something about you and your claims: you are tiresome and there is no substance or logic to back up your opinions.