Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

And procreation is, according to YOUR OWN ARGUMENTATION, irrelevant to the essence of a marriage, remember??

Ahhh, and now you're ignoring the argument because you're cornered...

You've argued that homosexuals enter "marriages" to form familial ties with one another. That's why incestual couples want to marry as well. Why deny them the right to marry??

Also, families ("forming familial ties") can only exist as a result of procreation. Given this, how is procreation not the essence of a marriage?

 

that kind of underscores the impasse doesn't it? I've made several. You just invariably deemed them not sensible because you have an antecedently health belief,

I already know that's that's why I'm not here to try and convince you of anything I know that ship left harbor long before I was born.

yeah I still don't see the Supreme Court changing its position.

You would have to prove that same-sex couples getting married somehow interferes with your constitutional rights. And I don't think you have the constitutional right to exclude people from using a word.

 

yes.

There isn't a conflict here. You can't talk one into existence. I'm not that easy to confuse.

I addressed this before and you ignored it.

Closely related couples already have familial ties.

I doubt your claim

when you go to get married you don't have to procreate.

 

Okay, so the "genome issue" is an issue regarding whether or not incestual couples should have the right to marry.

In other words, marriage IS about procreation (in this instance anyway). Gotcha. I will label this as "Argument #1".

Okay, so marriage is NOT about procreation, in any instance. Gotcha. I will label this as Argument #2.

And by doing so, you are locked in paradox between Argument #1 and Argument #2, explained above. You cannot simultaneously advance two conflicting arguments. You MUST completely and utterly dismiss one of those arguments in order to argue rationally again...

It is still procreation all the same. By arguing that incestual marriages should not be allowed due to issues resulting from procreation, you are thus making marriage about procreation (in this particular instance, anyway), as I have been arguing all along. Yet, for your homosexual "marriage", you suddenly don't want marriage to be about procreation since that would mean that you are not actually participating in a marriage, as originally defined.

This is still procreating, all the same.

Irrelevant. It is procreating, all the same.

Because they can't procreate.

Saying that incestual couples cannot marry due to issues with procreating quite literally IS making marriage about procreation. Your paradoxical argumentation is beyond laughable at this point.

Sounds rather contrarian to me.

 

If you would like a subjective view of where I am coming from.....pick up a copy of C.S. Lewis's book "Mere Christianity". He has the best explanation for absolute morality I have ever seen. You may be opposed to reading anything on that subject, but it would help you understand a different frame of reference. I would say it is reasoning, a lot based on common sense. It is not a book with a lot of scripture. C.S. Lewis had a radio show in Britain during WWII. He was trying to reason with" flyers " going up over London knowing that many would never come back. It is a very good read. You can get used copies in paperback on Amazon. If you were here I could give one to you.

 

You sound rather angry, and I'm not sure why.

Below the part of my comment that you quoted (the portion that you didn't quote here), I spelled it out very basically and clearly for you (without using logic notations, and then I also walked you through what the logic notations meant).

I can only conclude that you have no desire to learn about logic and why circular arguments in and of themselves are not fallacies, and why I keep calling out other fallacies that you are regularly committing.

 

I'm not arguing to change the definition. YOU are. This is known as an Inversion Fallacy, otherwise known as "projection". This is when someone attempts to shift things that apply to themselves onto others.

Insult Fallacy. (Insults are not arguments)
False Authority Fallacy. (SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy; they are not above the Constitution).
Argument of the Stone Fallacy. (You rejected my argument without providing any counterargument to it).

Acronyms ARE English... shorthand English. It beats typing out the same long words over and over again. They ARE learnable. I have told you what they mean. It's not my problem that you refuse to learn them.

Yes, there needs to be a biological connection in order to be a mother. That is the very definition of what a mother is. A mother is 1/2 of where the chromosomes of the child come from. A father is the other 1/2. Here, you are rejecting both logic and science.

Someone else can "play mother". They can be "motherly". They cannot BE the mother, however, since they did not birth the child nor did they contribute any DNA towards it.

That's because you wish to speak Liberal rather than English. In Liberal, word meanings can change at any given moment without notice, even within the same sentence.

ARF. RAAA.

Inversion Fallacy. (ie, "projection")

 

Precisely correct!!!

 

Yes

no denying closely related couples marriage is about inbreeding.

You are making a straw man fallacy.

correct denial of closely related couples being allowed to marry is about inbreeding

false your straw man fallacies are locked in a paradox I didn't make the arguments you said I may be best represented them to fabricate a straw man and you pretended that it's my position.

That's dishonest.

yes that's why I'm not. Your strawman is not my argument.

I'm not concerned about your strawman

No it's not the same one is inbreeding and one is breeding the different spelling and pronunciation should have clued you in.

Reading Leeds to homozygosity breeding does not. So very different.

no I'm not and by you insisting that I am despite the fact that I know I'm not you are attempting to gaslight what is a dishonest tactic.

I must question why you are engaging in such a dishonest tactic.

gaslighting will not work on me I am onto you.

gaslighting is dishonest

gaslighting is dishonest

so you are pro inbreeding because incest can lead to procreation.

by saying that procreation is the only important factor you are necessarily supporting polygamy and incest

so do you believe polygamists should be allowed to marry as many wives or husbands is that want? how about a 45 year old man in his thirteen-year-old daughter they can procreate that's a marriage and you're definition.

 

No more than anybody else naturally has it. Plus, they might want to expand upon it.

Procreation is necessary for any of this to be possible.

There would be no human species in existence today without procreation.

See above.

No, that's not. That was your own argumentation.

 

It is not possible for humans to continue existing as a species without procreating. This is logic. This is science. Both of which you deny.

Same with incestual couples, so why are you denying them the right to marry?

 

I would consider morality based on religion to be moral relativism.

not opposed at all I rather like philosophy

believe it or not I don't dispute biblical sources as a basis for morality. Much of the morality found there is common sense weather it is anachronistic or applies to present day.

It is sound moral reasoning for the most part.

I look for a digital copy on Amazon

 

How are you hearing me?

Honestly I bore of your explanations they don't seem to deliver any new information they just seem to be harping on something you've already said and I've already read it so thanks.

 

will largely the reason people procreate is because sex feel good not because of marriage, further season 6 couples being allowed to marry doesn't mean that the opposite sex couples are forbidden.

Still, inbreeding

 

Opposed to the redefining of marriage under the law? What's wrong with that?

 

You are free to spend the millions of dollars and thousands of man hours that it took to fight the laws prohibiting same sex marriage if you would like to marry your sister.

And humans can procreate in exactly the same way as they have for eons, marriage has absolutely no impact on the act of procreation - it's purely a legal state of cohabitation, not a license for sex.

 

I'm sorry did people have been allowed to get married for almost two years. you are arguing to change the definition back to where states are allowed to ban that.

That is incorrect the definition already changed you are arguing to change it back.

I do apologize I did not intend for the word princess to be put in there that was a mistake. I meant for that to say incest.

I apologize for not proofreading and I apologize for any insult I caused that was not my intent

Also I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is an oligarchy I'm saying it has the ability to interpret the constitutionality of the arguments in cases brought before it.

I think I made it clear I'm not interested in learning your acronyms.

okay in order for this to be acceptable you must show that all other definitions of the word mother are incorrect.

Otherwise you're just asserting something that I disagree with.

so I guess all the dictionaries are written in liberal and not English because they seem to indicate there is more than one definition.

it seems like you're not only rejecting any sensible argument you are rejecting reality.

I'm sorry I reject your language policing interesting you keep referring to me as liberal that seems to be a left-wing thing to language police.

I can't make sense of autistic screeching.

It is not an inversion fallacy to reject your dictatorship over the English language.

 

marriage doesn't expand a punnett marriage is relationship by affinity.

but marriage is not.

yes but there still would be without inbreeding and without marriage.

You see above.

Sorry to doubt your psychic powers but I know my argument better than you do.

 

No sir that's what you are doing.

The only defining characteristic you have placed on marriage is a procreation principle. So you are pro incestuous marriage because they can procreate, you are also pro polygamy, you are also pro bestiality so long as the two species can procreate.

You set the standard of procreation in principle define marriage so if two people related to one another can procreate you are being logically inconsistent to deny that marriage. Further if a man can procreate with 36 women your principle suggests that is a legitimate marriage.

Are there still if a man can procreate with a sheep that means you're standard so therefore a man in a sheep are legitimately married based on the procreation principle.

 

No doubt you find that a convenient perception. After all, with any luck, I'd be fool enough to be angered by the accusation.

lol

 

I appreciate your response. The reason I responded with "Mere Christianity" was that your relating to me the appendectomy scenario reminded me of a litany of scenarios that Lewis uses in the 1st Chapter of his book. What is interesting is how it developes.

 

We have the "Covenant Marriage." a legal covenant in several states between 1 man and 1 women.

 

And also one man and one man, as well as one woman and one woman. In all 50 states.

 

Wrong....that is a Marriage Contract, made to be broken . A Covenant is entirely different. Guess you'll go on the attack on it now. Gays just can't leave it alone! Inferiority complex I guess.

 

Nope. Marriage is a legal construct. You acknowledged this in the post I quoted. Marriage does not mean just 1 man and 1 woman. It also means 1 man and 1 man, as well as 1 woman and 1 woman.