"Another reason that homosexual activists don't want a referendum on "gay""marriage"
and another victory for the people and decency:"
-Proxy

Hmmm, no proper logical form there. And I only skimmed through the link, but I couldn't find it there either.

So I guess you're just not that clever.

<<With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil;
but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.>>

People who "behave well" are by definition "good people".
People who "do evil" are by definition "bad people".
With or without religion.

Your oft-quoted truism is a falsism.

Proxy,

Thought that would prick the very little bit of conscience they have left your with.

David

Who are you to say that "they" have left me with very little conscience and on what basis?
And who are they?
Why are you apparently incapable of addressing an issue and seemingly only capable of insulting your betters?

Proxy,

Apparently, but only to you.

David

Proxy, you seem to be struggling with this logical argument business, so I thought I'd give you an example to help you out.

(1) Proxy can only put forward a deductively valid argument against gay marriage if he can formulate such an argument, or if he can borrow one formulated by somebody else.
(P v Q) -> R
(2) Proxy can formulate a deductively valid argument against gay marriage, or he cannot.
P v ~P
(3) Proxy can borrow a deductively valid argument formulated by somebody else, or he cannot.
Q v ~Q
(4) Proxy cannot put forward a deductively valid argument.
~R

Therefore: Proxy cannot formulate a valid argument or borrow one that somebody else has formulated.
~(P v Q), from (1) and (4) (modus tollens)

Quod erat demonstrandum.

And that, Proxy, is how you formulate a deductively valid (and so far, sound) argument. Now, is that really so hard? Logic is easier than long division. Can you do long division, Proxy?