Man SLAYS Piers Morgan and Suze Orman on Gay Marriage debate

[Boarder Patrol]

Gay marriage should be legal for sure, but he wins the argument here by a landslide. They just go straight to the typical audience pandering, personal insults and hyperbole.

[Myth]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.

[Myth]

Gay marriage should be legal for sure, but he wins the argument here by a landslide. They just go straight to the typical audience pandering, personal insults and hyperbole.

Agreed. Luckily, being a better debater doesn't make you right.

[kNIOKAS]

Ugh Piers Morgan bottomline ugly. Trying to make it all a dirt contest, trying to offend on personal level, etc.

The guy did a good job laying down the argument.

[russwest0]

I don't even agree with his viewpoint but if I was neutral it'd be clear to me which one was "winning" the debate and who I'd more likely side with.

A man trying to rationalize the subject and view it from a logical standpoint vs a woman getting all emotional, name calling, and trying to act like being in the minority = wrong.

[Milbuck]

Agreed on the premise of the thread..it's not about the actual substance of the debate, it's just another example of Piers supporting a position he just "feels" is fundamentally right by clinging to arguments he hasn't made nor is he capable of making. He'll always be the pseudo-intellectual that gets routinely cooked by genuine intellectuals. Watch his debate with Shapiro. If you can get over Shapiro's voice, it's another amusing demolition of Piers.

[NumberSix]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.

He actually didn't deflect at all. His explanation obviously just flew over your head.

I'll simplify it for the children.....


There are bad tax laws. Instead of relying on creating loopholes for exemptions, like loopholes afforded to married people, just do away with the bad tax laws in the first place. Then you don't need to rely on qualifying for loopholes.

[NumberSix]

I don't even agree with his viewpoint but if I was neutral it'd be clear to me which one was "winning" the debate and who I'd more likely side with.

A man trying to rationalize the subject and view it from a logical standpoint vs a woman getting all emotional, name calling, and trying to act like being in the minority = wrong.

People on the left generally value emotion over logic.

[Balla_Status]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.

Pretty sure you missed a couple of his points man and I'm sure if he was given more time and not being interrupted by Suze Orman he could've explain it more clearly. He wanted gay couples to have those things without redefining marriage.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about what he has to say.

[bagelred]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??

Exactly! Geez, somebody finally gets it!

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

Finally, somebody understands. Thanks Patrick Chewing.

[russwest0]

Agreed on the premise of the thread..it's not about the actual substance of the debate, it's just another example of Piers supporting a position he just "feels" is fundamentally right by clinging to arguments he hasn't made nor is he capable of making. He'll always be the pseudo-intellectual that gets routinely cooked by genuine intellectuals. Watch his debate with Shapiro. If you can get over Shapiro's voice, it's another amusing demolition of Piers.

Lol yes, I have seen that debate with Shapiro and it was epic because Shapiro COOKED him.

[kNIOKAS]

Exactly! Geez, somebody finally gets it!

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

Finally, somebody understands. Thanks Patrick Chewing.

What a straw strawman.

[bagelred]

What a straw strawman.

Not a strawman argument at all. Quite equal actually.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.

[kNIOKAS]

Not a strawman argument at all. Quite equal actually.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.

Quite another strawman.


What are you trying to achieve here?

[bagelred]

Quite another strawman.


What are you trying to achieve here?

Not at all, right to drive, right to vote, right to marriage....these are all on same level. Just because you say "strawman" doesn't mean it's accurate or dismisses it. You'd have to show how these 3 rights are different.