I think your general argument was facile enough for everyone in this thread to understand (eg skinning kittens and puppies, two starting sides of a debate have equally valid premises etc).
My "general argument" is the real issue isn't gay marriage, per se, though it obviously factors into the immediate context. Rather, my "general argument" in its unsupported and unqualified form is that with regard to same-sex marriage if not as a general principle
the Supreme Court has power to say what the law is, but it should not have power to say what the law should be.
I've responded to "skinning kittens and puppies" above. Perhaps you confuse this with my actual position, as if I actually think it's a good idea to skin puppies and kittens. If so, then this calls into question your ability to follow "facile" arguments.
I never argued "two starting sides of a debate have equally valid premises." You're putting words into my mouth. Besides, why would I? I'm quite aware it's far from true. For example, it's quite possible for one side or both sides to have an invalid premise at the start; and if so, then one side or both sides will often attack the invalid premise in the course of a debate.
(By the way, I suspect you misspoke and actually meant something like presumptions rather than premises.)
The irony of the overwhelming smugness in your post (could you possibly sound any more condescendingly professorial?)
It's a pity this cuts against my stated intention. But it's your prerogative to read whatever you imagine into what I've said.
combined with the lack of willingness to engage any of the points I pretty concisely laid out previously speaks for itself.
I'll leave aside whether or not your points were actually "concisely laid out". My initial impression is what you wrote was a bit long-winded and haphazard. But be that as it may.
Regarding "the lack of willingness," there's nothing necessarily wrong with not willing to engage someone if there's good reason to avoid engaging them. For example, if they're a scurrilous debater, if they're not in the right frame of mind to debate, etc.
By all means, take your ball and go home if that's more intellectually comforting than confronting some difficult questions.
(1) I'm not sure you had any "difficult questions". Perhaps you're referring to this one:
Do you think it would be reasonable for a legislator who was opposed to interracial marriage to keep the "debate" alive because Freedom?
There are at least a couple of problems with this question:
(a) First off, it sneaks in the hidden assumption that race is analogous to sexual orientation. But that's an argument from analogy minus the argument.
(b) Also, the fact that you think the other side would argue "because Freedom" is itself a "strawman". It doesn't strive to seriously represent the other side, which is precisely what I brought up earlier. Yet it's ironic you said my argument was "facile" because if it was "facile," you evidently cannot even follow "facile" arguments well enough to accurately represent them.
(c) On a related note, your usage of "freedom" is too vague and dependent on several factors which are important to tease out at a minimum but which you've failed to indicate let alone elaborate. As such, it's quite possible one side regards "freedom" differently than another side.
(2) In any debate, one side (usually the losing side) will almost always cry foul against the other side. That's par for the course. No surprise. But irrelevant.
What's relevant is which side has the more reasonable argument(s). That's not up to you or me to decide.
(3) Once again, your response is by and large an emotive response, which is why I suggested you might consider stepping away from this thread for a few days until you calm down a bit.
(4) Welp! That's probably all I have to say to you in this thread.
Differences aside, I do sincerely hope you have a good day.
