That's very clearly what you said; maybe not so much what you meant.
Actually, no. Let's look at the quotes in question:
Should we stop eating hamburgers because we're killing something conscious?
Some people think we should so that was kind of a dumb point.
Some people think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, so arguments against it are dumb points.
Some people think abortion shouldn't be allowed, so arguments against it are dumb points.
Some people think religion tied with government shouldn't be allowed, so arguments against it are dumb points.
The first quote is straightforward. The next two are important. In the second, VPLJ "that" refers to your first point, ie. Quote #1. In Quote #3, you're using this structure:
Some people think x shouldn't be allowed, so arguments against it [not allowing x, ie. arguments for allowing it] are dumb points.
This is not the same thing that VPLJ said in Quote #2, however. Leaving aside that no one mention not being
allowed to it hamburgers, but merely not eating them, there is this point. You seem to think VPLJ is saying
Some people think eating hamburgers shouldn't be allowed, therefore arguments against it [arguments
against not eating hamburgers, that is] are dumb.
This only holds, however if the "that" in Quote #2 is an argument
against not eating hamburgers; since it refers to Quote #1 (or, rather, the first part of Quote #2 in which VPLJ states that some people think we should, in reference to Quote #1), this is clearly not the point; indeed, the contrary is true.
There's also the fact that you used terrible examples which aren't equivalent at all, that I suspect VPLJ's initial points referred more to the contrary nature of Quote #1, which seemed to be asking a rhetorical question to which you assumed the answer was "no"; VPLJ merely pointed out that many people would answer "yes". This being the argument on which your statement rested, it was therefore rendered void.
QED.