Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Thanks for that call out from the 1800s.

 

Yeah. Same abiding earth too.

 

I don't understand your question.

 

I had to look up the word reprobate, the only person I've ever heard use it was that Steven Anderson clown.

The meaning I found was archaic Calvinism meaning sinner predestined for damnation.

All human beings are sinners predestine for damnation.

Romans 3:23.

So all accommodations are accommodations for sinners

 

The first amendment accommodates the only sin Christ said was unforgivable.

Are you against the first amendment?

 

No. What is your point?

 

Any and all accommodations are accommodations for what you would call a reprobate because every human being born is a reprobate.

Romans 3:23

 

Evidence for any of what you just said?

 

That it was and now isn't, like a light gone out, should suffice as evidence.

 

What?

 

The fact that we watch the sun move across the sky should suffice as evidence that the sun moves around the earth.

The "obvious" is not always the truth.

 

And yet it persists. Some things are self evident. I showed you the evidence you sought. You can close your eyes to it. That's up to you. Eclipses come and go. But the sun, like the truth remains.

 

You have yet to present evidence. You have made claims. You have not supported them. In terms of the parallel, you have not shown which body moves around the other. You have only claimed that it is the sun moving around the earth.

 

No, that's what you said. Essentially I said people used to have values and care. And that they have since ceased to care and have discarded those values. You said I should show evidence. I said that the fact that it was and now isn't, like the turning off of a light, is your evidence. Then you went on about illusions and ego centric views. So I said the truth persists. You say there is no evidence as if the now is all there is, was, or ever will be. To which I now reply, nonsense. Here I will repost my original response to the topic: "Homosexuality is a perverse violation of conscience. Consequently, same sex marriage supposes to legitimize the illegitimate and hold it equal to the sanctity of traditional marriage. It is a horrible example for all, especially for children. People who don't see the wrongness or harm in it have already been blinded and deadened in conscience by it and by other digressions in standards of conduct."

 

Then enlightened us. Why is homosexuality wrong?

 

No it's not what I said, and you never literally said it either. It was a parallel. The rhetoric you are presenting is the equivalent of claiming that the sun moves around the earth because it is "obvious" that the sun is moving.

And they still do. IF they are not the specific ones that you want, then sucks to be you. But people still care and still have values.

That is an opinion, especially since it is based upon subjective values that you prefer.

Actually that was @Maccabee. The only thing that I did was point out that you didn't present any yet. I never asked for any.

First you can't support it as a fact. Second, I didn't present any evidence. I merely pointed out your lack thereof.

Post number where I did so?

With no support behind it. So it's still just a claim, not the truth.

That would be your strawman. I never said anything about the now being the only thing. The past is certainly valid for evidence to support your arguments. But you still are required to present that evidence, not simply claim something is or is not. Subjective cannot be proven because they are specific to each individual and are in the end opinions.

Subjective value. There is no objective value to "perverse". Even "violation" in this context is subjective. Many could easily view your arguments as violations of logic.

On what basis do you claim it to be illegitimate? Your religion? Talk about subjective, especially given that Christianity itself is divided on the issue, not to mention all the various denominations claiming the other denominations are wrong.

Again, subjective view. You are only observing your idea of traditional marriage, and ignoring all of the variations of marriage that have occured throughout the history of mankind.

Opinion statement. No objective evidence to support the claim

Subjective values. Show some kind of objective harm.

 

That is a sad way to justify your own belief without actually justifying anything.

It is like when people ask others for a source and they respond with “do your own research” or justify their religious views with other religious views.

Circular logic

 

The entirety of my post is a factual and observational statement of conscience to which I adhere. It is not a belief. Americans used to know in general that homosexuality was an unconscionable aberration that was best marginalized and hidden. It still is an unconscionable aberration. But the people have changed and they can't see it. Their consciences have darkened. Now they refer to homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle because that's how they cope with the fact that it is a perversion. City life and country life are alternate lifestyles. Children and mockingbirds are gay. There is nothing delightful about perverting the sacredness of sexuality and then proclaiming that it is not a perversion. It is actually an insult to intellect.

 

A rose by any other...! Who cares what it is called? What possible difference could it make? And why is it your business to begin with?

 

Sure thing.

Same sex "marriage" is NOT marriage at all. Marriage is solely between a man and a woman, and to call gay/lesbian relations "marriages" is to render the whole institution of marriage to be completely and utterly irrelevant.

In a heterosexual relationship, procreation (in principle) is always possible. In a homosexual relationship, procreation (in principle) is never possible.

In Matthew 19, the manifested-in-human-form Jesus makes it very clear what marriage is and how it works. He describes that marriage occurs whenever a man (a male) leaves his father (a male) and mother (a female) and becomes one flesh with his wife (a female). --- The spiritual sense of "becoming one flesh" is manifested in human form via procreation, as "two become one"... as two sets of DNA, the parents, join together to form a new DNA, the child.

Thus, it is absurd to claim that homosexual relations are somehow equal to heterosexual relations, as heterosexual relations in principle are fruitful (yield children) and homosexual relations in principle are not fruitful (impossible to yield children). Thus, homosexual relations, in fruitfulness, are nothing more than having a close friendship with someone. To call this sort of relationship a "marriage" is to render the institution of marriage completely and utterly irrelevant.


This is why I oppose same sex "marriage".

 

Would you be opposed to a union legally recognized between two gay people that wasn't called marriage but something else?

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

So it's about the purity of the word marriage?

 

It's about the purity of the institution of marriage.

--- it's also about performing actions that are fruitful, and about being in a proper position to raise children (have a family) rather than aborting them or putting them into the foster care/adoption system. IOW, the health of the nuclear family.