Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

You admit below that it's not actually about the strength of my argumentation, but rather about you not understanding logic nor the symbols used to denote it. I will attempt to go through it in a very basic manner later on.

Yes, it is. Labeling a fallacy as a fallacy is a counterargument.

No, it means that you are ill equipped to gain knowledge. But I will start at the very absolute basics later on...

Okay, I will give an example. An argument is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion. An example of an argument is: "All girls have XX chromosomes. Julie has XX chromosomes. Therefore, Julie is a girl. The first two sentences are predicates, and the third sentence is the conclusion that follows from the predicates. So, do we agree on what an argument is?

Concerning the logical notation... The above is expressed as A -> B, where A is the set of predicates and B is the conclusion. The "->" symbol means "therefore", and that is just connecting the predicates to the conclusion. In other words, it is saying that Conclusion B follows from Predicate A.

The argument I'm making is not a circular argument, but I will walk through it. It is irrelevant whether male/female relationships are "slightly" different or "vastly" different from same sex relationships, but rather the point is that they ARE different. It is not appropriate to call different things the same thing, per the proof of identity.

Maybe you are considering various different unions to be subsets of marriage? But that's not how it works. Marriage is actually a subset of unions. For example, a friendship is a union. A parent/child relationship is a union. A gay couple is a union. A straight couple is a union. Some unions are for romantic purposes, while other's aren't. By redefining marriage to "two adults, no matter the sex", you are now claiming that all romantic relationships between two adults fall into the subset of marriage, and are all identical in essence, which is simply not true, as male/female romantic relations can (in principle) lead to procreation, while same sex relations cannot. Procreation is essential to the survival of our species. Procreation, in principle, is the essence of male/female romantic relationships. No other type of relationship has this.

 

that was just an example

everybody makes morality decisions on an individual basis at any given time. I was just presenting an objective measure of morality.

 

You can't make it clearer than that. See, here are some homosexual problems. Were they correct, of the 195 nations, the vast majority would include homosexuals in law as able to marry. But only 28 conclude that homosexuals marry. True that a court of law decided that in America, marriage includes the homosexuals, but globally it is a very strange ruling our SC made. It has no actual legal foundation.

You had a nearly split vote among the justices. I know of no justice that is against the 14th amendment. I know of 5 justices out of 9 that are fans of homosexuals. And 4 are still on the Bench of the highest court. So when Kavanaugh took the job ceded by Kennedy, that changes the chances a lot that the right to privacy does not include the slaughter of the yet to be born child.

 

No, an appeal to tradition is arguing that something is correct because that's the way that it's always been done. Simply stating what the history of the word is is not an appeal to tradition, nor have I ever argued that marriage should be defined in the "traditional" sense because it has always been defined that way.

Because you're saying that one is the same as the other. You also have to explain why you are not including incest into this redefinition of the term "marriage"... As you are defining marriage, incest falls right into line with it.

ARF. RAAA.

Did you mean motherly instead of mother?? If so, then I agree, they are being motherly, but being motherly does not make one a mother.

No, the genetic connection is quite literally the essence of what a "father" and a "mother" is. Without it, there is no "father" and no "mother".

I don't speak Liberal; I only speak English.

 

And yes I had a very well ration reason to exclude those people, what you refuse to address because that's what everyone does when they try to draw the comparison between that and same sex marraige.

Now I stand by my position then you're not arguing against it.

S

you have the Supreme Court's ruling was superseded by an amendment. I don't see that happening with marriage.

among us 167 countries that do not we have Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya. if you want to be more like a shithole country why don't you just move to one of those?

I'm sorry America is better than most of the countries in Africa and the middle East. if you want to live in a country like those in the Africa or the middle East, go live there.

Again you ignore the reason.

The reason for excluding couple's closely related people because they inbreed.

That's a better reason than icky

You can keep ignoring the reasoning but I'm going to keep reminding you of it.

Same-sex marriage is not comparable.

 

you falsely called things fallacies

that's false sometimes you don't even type words.

 

I'm not learning your bull **** acronyms if you type them I'm going to mock you for autistic screeching.

there's probably no reason for you to respond to me at all if you're just going to autistically screech.

 

descendants. Homozygosity.

That's false a gay couple has no chance of inbreeding.

 

they aren't human. Are you a vegan or something

if you want to throw out rational morality because people don't share your morality seems like you want things to be your way or burn down society.

That's authoritarianism we don't do that here in the states. You should try Iran.

explain outside of relativism.

 

You seem like an angry person. Do you take blood pressure medication?

 

According to your very own line of reasoning regarding marriages, this "genome issue" is completely irrelevant. You've argued that procreation is not the essence of a marriage, and remember, some heterosexual couples are infertile, right? You've argued that as long as two consenting adults love each other, they can get married. This logic also applies to incestual relationships, yet you are trying to deny them the right to marry.

So you can't make procreation the essence of a marriage for incestual relations and then ignore that fact for homosexual relations.

This is but another one of your multiple paradoxes that you are currently entangled in...

 

The Nations that don't believe in same-sex marriage are in Africa in the middle East if you want to live in a country like those go live there. I'm sure the reason why you haven't moved is because you really like the developed world.

 

no it's not.

I'm sorry these two views aren't in conflict.

Marriage has never been about procreation, I rejected your insistence that it was. Remember?

I'm not. I'm making homozygosity the reason you don't allow incest.

Homozygosity is different than procreated without causing homozygosity.

It's funny how I can keep it straight.

Maybe you're confused.

So I will explain. Incest leads to inbreeding. Inbreeding causes something called homozygosity. Two people getting married that are closely related have no possibility of creating that condition nor do homosexuals.

That isn't making marriage about procreation. No matter how many times you insist I'm going to insist otherwise.

 

that is your poor ability to communicate, and your stubbornness.

I just don't want to read through your b******* again I don't care about your symbols I don't care about your acronyms I'm not learning this crap.

If you can't communicate in a way that it's clear you're just trying to hidebehind needlessly complex explanations.

 

You have to learn this. My brother Jim died due to excessive use of alcohol. A problem you shared you also had. Jim moved away from CA as a kid. Well just out of high school. Can I tell you he lived a wonderful life? From my observation his life sucked. I did not ask him his wages when he worked on Wall St. He worked not as a stock trader, but at a lower paying job similar to a clerk. Why move to NY City? He wanted fame. He went there to act. And he fancied himself as a singer. I never heard him sing any song. I do not know where he sung, but it was not around the family. I did not mention Mike. Mike appeared to me to have some affinity to homosexuals. At least at the homosexual bar we sat in to wait for our brother to show up, they seemed more stirred by him than one can imagine. In my case I did not notice homosexuals flirting with me.Mike seemed to enjoy that attention. To me it was as you displayed, this icky you commented on. Each poster can only relate to other posters vis a vis the ability of each poster to be listened to, which I have listened to you, and the ability to modify an outlook. I see no change at all when it comes to this issue from you. In my case, I lived with a homosexual from 1941 until 1961. I gave Jim his last paycheck he earned in CA. I had hired him and frankly he did well.

So where was Jim's familial tie? Did I tell you how much Jim loathed our own mother?

Mom was a democrat. Mom always put the interests of her children ahead of her own. She in effect was a great mom. So why did Jim call a friend of Mom's from NY City to her home in CA to tell her tearfully Mom was dead? She was sorrowful for him. She truly believed his bull pucky. Even in your story you bring to the forum a sadness. If you are one happy married person, you did not mention it.

 

good so you're arguing against changing it is void.

good luck fighting for your rights <Rule 2> appeal it to the court I wish you luck.

<Rule 2/3>

yes I understand your viewpoint, I disagree with it. A mother does not have to have a biological connection.

I reject your rigid definitions of these words to.

<Rule 2/3>

 

A couple of issues here...

[1] Incestual relationships wish to "form familial ties" as well. Why are you denying them the right to marriage but granting homosexuals and other heterosexuals the right to marriage?

[2] How does one "form familial ties" without the involvement of procreation at some point?? In order to form a family, procreation MUST be involved. Procreation is an essential component to "forming familial ties", thus procreation is the very essence of marriage, as I have argued all along. Your very own argumentation presented here leads to this very conclusion.

hahahahahahahahahahaha this is great!!

 

Sadly homosexuals actually promote incest. Then deny they do that.

There are far more countries that allow incest than allow homosexual unions.

 

you can tell me anything you want but he died of alcoholism. People that abuse substances don't do that because they have a great life.

You're every bit as unwilling to change your views.

I am not posting here to try and get you to change your views I believe you have the right to your view.

I think that's the major difference between you and I probably why this argument it's so frustrating for you. I'm not playing to win hearts and minds playing to keep my own.

We could agree to disagree. But you're not happy with that. Everyone must agree with you. In this case you are a social justice warrior.

I'm sorry that stories of trial strife and eventual peace make you sad. I feel pretty good about it.

Maybe you would be the kind of guy that would just jump off a cliff if you were gay. That to me is sad. And it's really sad because normally people do that because they don't fit in with a social group. I'm the one that will fight. I like that about me.

but you can get sad just FYI the only reason that I think that you think it's sad is because you think homosexuality is wrong. You don't see it as a triumph for me to accept who I am, you see it as surrender.

For that I'm sad for you.

 

Yes, I would make some woman very happy.

 

if they are related they already have that

there are two types of family ties sanguinity and affinity. You are related to your stepchild through affinity you are related to your spouse via affinity. You are related to your parents through sanguinity.

this is a baseless assertion that you have made repeatedly that I dismiss

same baseless assertion and I will continue to dismiss it

that's a straw man fallacy.

 

You keep saying this but you keep being wrong. I'm not promoting incest. Same-sex marriage is not the same as incest. I have explained why and I will be happy to do it again.




The ones that deny same-sex unions are countries in Africa and in the middle East.

Some of these places tonight you the right to free speech or to practice your religion.

If these countries are such a model of morality for you to why don't you live there?

 

Acronyms ARE words... shorthand words. I have already defined to you what each of my acronyms mean.

 

I'm still going to call it autistic screeching. I refuse to learn your idiotic acronyms. we are too lazy to type out a word you're too lazy to go into detail why something's a logical fallacy you're just barking.


I've already said this.

 

If I see you make a sensible claim, I shall reply to said point. Same sex "marriage" is not marriage. That why it is futile for you to compare that to the historical definition of marriage. If you lost the support of the Supreme court, your argument is shown to be bogus.