ROFL... Ray, I think it's wrong for you to concede for JB. I understand that you're frustrated; shoot... if I were unable to support a single one of my most closely held beliefs, as you and the comrades are, I'd be frustrated too; but you've no right to concede for JB; despite your point that he can't possibly win being stunningly correct. (Congrats by the way, what a wonderful change of pace for you... did you buy yourself a lotto ticket?)

Hey no offense taken Ray, I've seen worse rationalizations from the left...

Look this isn't long division here; the ideological left is the ideology for the weaker mind. You people simply lack the intellectual means to reason... You've latched onto a patch work of invalid notions, each one based upon one baseless emotional appeal or another that, despite your desperate need for it to be otherwise, is logically invalid and rests upon the shifting sands any number of the seven human weaknesses: Lust, greed, envy, laziness, deceit, pride and jealousy. << It’s a seven word encapsulation of the ideological left.

For instance Ray, you personally claim as the purest essence of reason that a person cannot be a reasonable open minded proponent of individual liberty if they deny a homosexual the legal benefits set aside for hetero-sexual marriage. There is no sound reasoning to be found within that position Ray. It's a classic logical fallacy; expressed by you, yourself, in both the appeal to pity AND the appeal to popularity. Homosexuality is a sad character defect, which may or may not be brought on by some hormonal reaction, resulting from early childhood imprinting which while regrettable, is no more or less relevant to social status than any other malady and it is simply a function of common sense to not establish policy which elicits the traits common to it as being preferred by the culture; we don't reward behavior that is being discouraged Ray.

Your demand that homosexuals be given special rights to marry within their own gender is as reasonable as your asking that homosexuals be given special rights to build housing on the medians within the US Interstate system. We don't allow anyone to build housing within the US interstate system, but YOU Ray, you demand that we should, because...

Ray: 'EVERYONE ELSE gets to build a house, why can't homosexuals builds houses on the "Innerstate?'

PI: No Ray, first, there is no such thing as an
Innerstate; secondly, no one gets to build housing on the Interstate system, its a safety issue...

Ray:So its a safety issue to build houses near the Innerstate? There's a study written by British sociologist Dr. Dandy Pansypants proving, using a coffee-table book of photo's that shows 5,000 miles of US interstates with businesses and housing within 50' of US interstates, PROVING that the US laws forbidding homosexuals from building houses in Innerstate medians is DISCRIMINATION!


PI: But Ray, just because there are instances wherein the safety of some people's homes is questionable, with regard to the proximity to an interstate, due to any number of circumstantial realizations, each one substantially south of preferred, this IN NO WAY is a sound basis in reasoning to allow people to build their homes in the median's of the US Interstate System! No one is allowed to build a house on the interstate MEDIAN!

If you want to build a house, fine, who cares? You just can't do it in the median of an interstate. We save that area for a buffer, where possible, to provide a measure of safety; we also use it to provide for future expansion. We would lose these critical necessities, if we allowed homosexuals to build houses in the medians of interstates...

Ray: Safety? There are thousands of miles of interstates which have nothing but a concrete wall between opposing lanes of traffic! So to suggest that the open space between lanes is for safety is FALSE!... It's either a safety issue or it is not, you can't claim the innerstate is safe with a buffer then declare it safe when there is no buffer. It's not really a safety issue, safety is a very subjective issue, if we're prepared to accept responsibility, we should beable to do so JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE IN THE COFFEE TABLE BOOK! It's just a matter of law and the law can be changed!

LOL... it works out the same for marriage, Ray... we don't allow mono-gender Marriage because we do not want to encourage people of the same gender to even have SEX with each other, let alone get married; because marriage is a special union BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!

Now CAN homosexuals get married? Oh Heck yeah... But as a man, you must first find a woman; second, con her into marrying you; third, do as you're told... Easy peasy...

But to YOU Ray, that incontestable reasoning is just me saying so and your saying otherwise, somehow proves I'm wrong; just as in the above fictitious discussion, wherein you advanced the study based upon a coffee-table book of photos illustrating homes and businesses located directly alongside the interstate... YOU consider that to be FACTUAL PROOF which refutes my position; but it was NOT. It was photos showing a conflict which you felt was relevant, which of course it was not... There is no even potential correlation between houses which exist alongside a roadway for whatever reason and legislation which would provide for a particular group claiming to suffer a given malady the legal right to build housing in the right of way of a federal thoroughfare.

Thus, it is YOU that is wrong BECAUSE YOUR POSITION IS LOGICALLY FLAWED; IT IS SET UPON INVALID REASONING. If you and every other person on this planet felt that your position was right and true Ray, it would not change the fact that it is logically flawed in the slightest. It would simply make it another idiotic law which was passed during an intellectual low tide.

It is the same for this ridiculous notion that National Socialism is right wing, because it rejects a few tenets of the Leftwing International Socialism. Socialism is leftwing in all of its machinations... including fascism.