Matt Walsh Tard Blog:

The zoophiles will have a bit of a higher hurdle because they can’t necessarily prove consent. But when consent is the only argument left in opposition to copulating with Fido, the dam won’t hold forever. Gay activists know this and don’t care, but they won’t admit it yet. 

www.theblaze.com/contributions/yes-gay-marriage-hurts-me-personally/

So I should hold off getting a poodle and stick with my *****?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Matt Walsh Tard Blog:

The zoophiles will have a bit of a higher hurdle because they can’t necessarily prove consent. But when consent is the only argument left in opposition to copulating with Fido, the dam won’t hold forever. Gay activists know this and don’t care, but they won’t admit it yet. 

www.theblaze.com/contributions/yes-gay-marriage-hurts-me-personally/

Slow day?

"Let's see if I can find somebody to argue online with me"?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2015 6:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Matt Walsh Tard Blog:

The zoophiles will have a bit of a higher hurdle because they can’t necessarily prove consent. But when consent is the only argument left in opposition to copulating with Fido, the dam won’t hold forever. Gay activists know this and don’t care, but they won’t admit it yet. 

www.theblaze.com/contributions/yes-gay-marriage-hurts-me-personally/

Slow day?

"Let's see if I can find somebody to argue online with me"?

I don't actually think anyone will argue because allowing gay marriage harms no one.

And feel free to go away if you don't want to be involved in the thread.

ok

"The “it doesn’t affect us” mantra has become one of the more common, and absolutely the most damaging, idea circulating through the ranks of the defeatists. It’s a gross and ridiculous lie, one which accomplishes the impressive feat of being wrong in two different ways. It’s wrong when it says we should only care about things that have an impact on our lives, and it’s wrong when it says gay marriage will have no impact on our lives.

First, since when are we only supposed to care about things that will physically or financially affect us? Don’t we normally condemn a person who fails to act or think or speak simply because he, himself, individually, isn’t yet feeling the effect of it? Don’t we criticize a person who doesn’t care until he’s getting punched in the nose by the problem?

When we’re dealing with moral quandaries — questions of right and wrong, truth and lies — it is not a legitimate argument to say “it doesn’t affect me.” It’s effect on you is irrelevant to the issue. What kind of moral idiot measures the impact of a certain evil on his own life and calibrates his concern accordingly? We might all do this sometimes, but it’s a weakness. It’s shameful. It’s cowardice and self-interest. It’s not good. You shouldn’t be proud of it."

My argument isn't, "it doesn't negatively affect you."

My argument is that it does not have a negative affect on anyone.

is that your argument?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 6:36:00 PM (view original):
My argument isn't, "it doesn't negatively affect you."

My argument is that it does not have a negative affect on anyone.

Matt Walsh disagrees.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2015 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 6:36:00 PM (view original):
My argument isn't, "it doesn't negatively affect you."

My argument is that it does not have a negative affect on anyone.

Matt Walsh disagrees.

Well, he never actually said how it harmed him.

Well….I don't like anybody telling me two men is the same as a man and a woman. 

I told ya I didn't like that.  Then ya went ahead and did it anyways.

That's OK.  You believe your lying eyes.  I got eyes too.  

I see two men and two women and a man and a woman and my eyes tell another story.

I see three couples and not one is exactly alike.  I love all three of them because they are people.

They all get the same respect and law and protection but only one can be a man and woman married.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2015 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2015 6:36:00 PM (view original):
My argument isn't, "it doesn't negatively affect you."

My argument is that it does not have a negative affect on anyone.

Matt Walsh disagrees.

Well, he never actually said how it harmed him.

I didn't read the entire blog.  It seemed to go on for around 850,000 words.  So I don't know if he "actually said how it harmed him".

But based on your track record, even if he did, you would deny it.  That's what you do.