This is just another dodge used to justify your other dodges. If you don't like the presuppositions of the questions, you can argue those as well. But you don't. You provide some sound-bite that contains little original thought then claim the moral high ground because "I don't like your syntax."
Here's a perfect example: John O.: And once again you come out in favor of 'homosexuals' rights but won't define (as I've asked you to previously) what rights they don't have that I have.
tdadams: Point me to a post where I've said I favor special homosexual rights. In fact, I've said just the opposite.
You should go to work for the AP. John O. wasn't asking about special homosexual rights. You inserted that word. In fact, he was asking about just the opposite. He asked what rights homosexuals have that he doesn't have. Unless you're presuming that John has some special rights, you haven't touched his question. You have dodged.
Why should society change? What is the benefit to society? Why should anyone stop fighting to ensure marriage remains between a man and a woman? Why schools be forced to teach that "it's OK to be gay?" And, for heaven's sake, why should we allow the mentally ill to dominate our politics?
Shalom.
By saying I should work for the AP you insinuate that my answer to John O was what? I told him I've never advocated special homosexual rights and that's the truth. I've said so explicitly to you on more than one occasion. I inserted the word special for clarity since it seemed 'special rights' was what he was implying with the quote marks around the word homosexual.
Quit being so captious. It's damn annoying and makes you look petulant.
Why should anyone stop fighting to ensure marriage remains between a man and a woman?
How are you harmed if two people of the same sex want to call themselves married? How are you specifically harmed?
Why schools[sic] be forced to teach that "it's OK to be gay?"
Are schools being forced to teach that or is that the will of the teachers and the teachers unions?
And, for heaven's sake, why should we allow the mentally ill to dominate our politics?
Well, apart from the fact that there are a bunch of mentally ill people already running the government, in which case there would be no change, gays aren't mentally ill. You saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so.