Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

No I'm not confused.

 

I thought you meant just gay people, not transgender. Yes, I believe that transgender people are confused, but not gay people.

 

What about other behavior related classes that do not fit the norm? What about compulsive gamblers?....are they confused or were they just born that way? My contention is that you want to take a deviation and paint it as normal. That is precisely why you confuse marriage with same sex unions.

 

Thanks for nothing.

 

I never said they were, obviously. And keep your responses in the threads they belong in.

 

I have zero answers. But because you chose one religion does not discount the other thousands of religions or the people that do not believe in any religion.

 

Aww whats wrong? Can't even defend your own position?
At least you are consistent I guess

 

So you are among those that say you don't stand for anything but then you try to spread your influence thru the back door with out declaring....I get it.

You claim to have the answers for designating same sex partners as the equal to "marriage" WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF FAMILY. You don't get off so easy.

 

Where did I say I do not stand for anything?
I fully believe that there is a higher power but do I doubt a book written by man, edited by kings, and then further translated by man? Absolutely
I am not the one saying others should have to bend to what I believe, people should be free of religious rule unless they willingly embrace it.

As for your definition of marriage being “THE FOUNDATION OF FAMILY”, I agree — I just disagree with you that same sex couples and their children are less than a family than a heterosexual on their fifth childless marriage. It should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law — nothing more, nothing less.

You are the one that is trying to say your personal religious beliefs should directly affect others.

 

Okay, so then how else do people reject God? How about simply not believing in Him?

What does the subject of rejecting God have to do with the question and thread title, why are you against same sex marriage?

 

Your question assumes that I believe that gay people are "born that way." I don't. As far as I understand, the absolute best that science can offer at present is that homosexuality is partly nature and partly nurture. I'm actually not sure if this means that in every case it is partly nature and partly nurture or if in some cases it can be purely nature or purely nurture. According to homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos, born that way is a myth created by the gay lobby. Maybe he's right.

When did I say that it was "normal?"

Interesting that you feel that you can make that judgement given that you ungracefully removed yourself from debate
on the subject! My most recent reply that you were unable to respond to: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-sex-marriage.428344/page-24#post-1071251879

 

Doesn't matter, obviously. What matters is that the only way they can do that and be sure they've excluded God from their lives is either to commit suicide or blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You're welcome.

 

Is this a Biblical argument?

 

They receive the Grace that is afforded all Believers.

 

The answer to that question seemed pretty obvious is probably why I didn't respond. So I gave you the response most Believers would readily understand.

 

And how does that change the MARRIAGE?

 

What, the answer of silence?

 

Is it a biblical argument to claim you can exclude God from your life merely by rejecting Him?

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy, along with continued fallacies that I noted in my prior response to this one.

My consideration of an incestuous couple to be married (by definition) does not mean that I support incest. Those are two distinct positions that you are attempting to equivocate (yet another logical fallacy). Remember, we are discussing the definition of marriage, not my feelings about particular types of relations.

Non sequitur as well as a fallacy fallacy. Whether or not those marriages should be legal has nothing to do with what their definitions are.

 

Technically yes, but it is not in any way a logically valid way of addressing it. Repetition is a logical fallacy, as follows:

[1] Polydectes: A -> B.
[2] gfm7175: C -> !A.
[3] Polydectes: A -> B.

The above is how you are arguing. I gave you a counterargument "C" for why A is not true, yet you respond by repeating A -> B over and over again... That is not addressing my counterargument "C" in any rational manner. That does not advance the discussion at all.

Yup, because you have yet to address it, as diagrammed for you above...

Please stop making up **** about me. I have never expressed any such support for those things, as noted in prior responses. The topic being discussed is the definition of marriage, not my feelings about particular types of relations.

The impasse is a result of your argument by repetition fallacies. Address my counterarguments and then discussion can continue beyond how I have diagrammed it above.

 

No, because a gorilla is not between a male and a female. It involves an entirely different species.

Yes, because it is between a male and a female. Again, this doesn't mean that I support such marriages, but merely that such a relation is technically a marriage, by definition.

No it doesn't. A gorilla is not a female. It is an entirely different species.

 

It's always been about both.

I haven't denied any of it.

It's about procreation even with incestuous couples. I've remained consistent. You're the one jumping around from one thing to the next...

Fallacy Fallacy. There is no paradox on my end.

 

No they aren't, via proof of identity.

Male/Female ≠ Male/Male.

 

well, that is incorrect. 2 men are married in the identical way 1 man and 1 woman are. They are totally equal and have the same benefits and responsibilities. They are identical.

 

You provide a QED of this in a bit...

Okay, so you're a Theist. Got it.

QED from above.

They are not equal, per the proof of identity. My religious beliefs are irrelevant.