I understand his argument completely and it's rooted in relativism and I've explained the fundamental difference in how he thinks vs I. My argument is actually pretty strong and neither of you have proved it wrong from a historical perspective but continue to nip at my heels.

No, it isn't. Insurance, by definition, is to cover unforeseen circumstances. Life insurance doesn't pay out while you're living. Car insurance doesn't pay out when you need an oil change. Medical has perverted the term. Healthcare is not equivalent to health insurance.

I agree. The term that should be used is catastrophic health insurance.

If he wants to ask for charity that's fine. And it's your right to pay up or to say fuck you. That's the beauty of a system that makes no demands.

Your agument is that it has always existed this way.

There's several problems to your argument.

One being that it hasn't always existed this way, even if we ignore the whole transgender issue, there have been plenty of polygamous and property-oriented marriage cultures which are significant in human history.

Two being that even if it has always existed that way it's the naturalistic fallacy to think it then should remain that way.

Those are just the most obvious, but they are both utterly damning for your position.


There are also major aspects of Skinned's argument that are flying so far above your head you don't even see it happening.



You're speaking in archaic terms. Modern health insurance is for every day needs, which is why I pay a co-pay when I see a doctor.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 23 2017 02:23pm

People just don't like things shoved in their face.

That's why not everyone's username on forums is different versions of "straightWhiteMaleGamerThatLivesWithHisMomWhoIsAlsoAConservativeInCollegeAndLikesPizzaNowPleaseMentionAndDiscussTheseThingsWheneverYouTalkToMe"



This post was edited by FroggyG on Sep 23 2017 04:16pm

You seem pretty serious about that

If things are so absolute, then why is slavery no longer legal and why do we allow divorce? Slavery isn't "immoral" as it's laid out in the Bible, while divorce is something we should probably (at the very least) throw people in prison for.

Your "objective reality" doesn't mean shit. Emperor Nero of Rome was married to a man (and later a young boy). Native Americans had "two-spirit" people who were intersex or trans and would marry. I mean, I could post links, but you wouldn't bother reading them. Instead, you'd act like a pigeon playing 64-D Chess (i.e. shit and dance all over the board acting like you've won).



You don't even know what this means. Logic is considered valid if the premises are true. The logic is considered sound if the all premises are true. So consider:

If A = B and B = C,
then A = C

These statements are true statements, followed by true conclusions based on those true statements.

Your argument is neither valid nor sound:

Premise: Marriage historically has always been between cisgender, heterosexuals.
Conclusion: Marriage should only be between cisgender, heterosexuals because it's how it's always been done.

Your conclusion may be true (that marriage should only be between cisgender, heterosexuals), but your initial premise is false (that marriage has always been between cisgender, heterosexual couples). That's because we have actual historical and current examples that contradict your statement.



Clearly lol.

Once again with these tangents. My definition didn't specify polygamy vs monogamy or the equality of marriage partners. The only definition was union between man and women.



My premise is correct. Many people lived on this earth since the beginning of time, finding a few outliers and pretending that those outliers somehow represent what was normal and acceptable during that day or somehow changes the meaning of what marriage meant for 99.99% of the total population is dumb AF.

Slavery is absolute in the sense that the word has essentially the same meaning it had 100, 500 or 2000 years ago. Same would be true of the word marriage and it's perception throughout history if it wasn't recently changed to appease gays.



I wonder why the boy loving Romans that were some of the most sexually liberated to ever exist would define it the way i am?

You guys can keep pretending we were always at war with Eastasia but that doesn't make it so.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 23 2017 06:23pm

Your lack of support for polygamy damns your position that what has been for a majority of history should remain that way.

If you are just going to cherry pick "man and woman" but not literally every other aspect, then you're not using a historical basis for your opinion. You're forming and opinion and cherry-picking to justify it. Either way, it's a damning counter-example to your argument that completely invalidates your position.