Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

a lot of people say this without experience. Faith isn't enough, there isn't anything to overcome this. I think if there is a God what he would want is for us to accept it because that's your only capacity.

I base this on the idea that only a righteous tree can you grow righteous fruit. Peace Love and happiness if we're operating under the Christian paradigm are only gifts God can give you why did I receive them after acceptance?

it doesn't cause pain trying to overcome it did. Trying to overcome it caused suffering and anger.

What reasoning do you have that people can overcome this?

Trying to overcome this is to throw away hope. I have found happiness peace and love and most importantly hope where I am.

Suggesting that this is something someone must overcome is necessarily suggesting that piece Love & Hope are not what I should be experiencing.

 

You keep appealing to SCOTUS instead of the Constitution itself. This is known as a False Authority Fallacy.

 

This argument doesn’t hold water.
The consenting adult I wanted to marry happened to also be male. Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, I couldn’t do that. Now I can. Incidentally you can also marry the same-sex consenting adult of your choice now. Yay for extra rights and freedoms. Less government oppression of the citizenry is a good thing.
Maybe the states didn’t exercise their right to oppress gay people any further because they didn’t have that right to begin with. As per SCOTUS.

 

...unconstitutionally deemed unconstitutional.

No, I am correct. The Constitution itself backs my argument up. See Article I Section VIII. See Article III Section II. See Article VII. See Amendment X.

 

I appeal to SCOTUS as their word is the only one that matters here.

 

And around we go. See my previous posts for response to this one.

 

And yet constitutional law is a field of study. I’ll trust the word of those who have studied and demonstrated an understanding of the constitution.

 

so basically they're different because they're different. That circular reasoning it's not a good rationalization.

Sorry I reject your premise for being poorly ration and entirely dependent on circular reasoning.

you keep harping on this procreation principal but you can explain why that's fundamental so I dismiss it.

I'm not sure that I'm redefining it explained to me that I am in a way that's rational and then maybe I can explain that.

 

Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder. Foster care does however place children in homes, not in all cases, seeking the government assistance that comes with foster programs and have little interest in the overall wellbeing of the child. A permanent home will always be preferable to foster care.

 

Exactly. There is a word that describes the homosexual relationship, but the homosexual relationship was not legally recognized.

It makes perfect sense.

I'm not upset about civil unions receiving the legal benefits that marriages receive. I'm upset about the word marriage being redefined.

I'm fine with people choosing to enter a civil union (although it is my belief that homosexual relations are immoral). I am not fine with people redefining the word marriage and acting as if a civil union IS a marriage. They are completely different things.

No, it "failed" because SCOTUS thinks they are an Oligarchy.

 

so if people decide that it includes same-sex marriage then it does by definition.

here we are at an impasse they use to the Constitution to show that they're right.

so not only do you have to point to the Constitution, you have to address their argument.

false pointing out inconsistency.

That's not true you've been saying all along that they've been taken away from their parents.

I noticed how you shifted goalposts. That's a fallacy and it's pretty bad for fallacy patrol to make a fallacy when you're accusing other people of doing it to avoid the argument.

 

Yes it does.

You were not choosing to marry. You were choosing to enter into a civil union.

You could choose to marry, even back then. You simply chose not to marry, and instead chose to enter into a civil union, because you are not attracted to the opposite sex.

You've always been able to marry.

Impossible, by definition. You are speaking of a civil union.

RAAA. (Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed)

 

You're being a bit hypocritical. Because you're relying on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy and you keep moving the goalposts which is also a logical fallacy.

Further just squawking fallacy at anyone who makes an argument you can't address while you're making fallacies of your own means you don't really have an argument and you know you don't.

Quit worrying about everyone else's fallacies focus on rationalizing your position and I'm not talking about to your standard of rationale.

 

Okay, so you are rejecting the US Constitution, and our Federated Republic, and wish to instead be ruled by an Oligarchy?

 

Argument by Repetition Fallacy. I have already addressed those posts with this one. You fail to counter my Constitutional argument.

 

Bulverism Fallacy.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
False Authority Fallacy.

 

Gay people attempted to form civil unions but were denied that ability, why should they respect your word when you do not respect theirs?

How is a homosexual couple different from an infertile heterosexual couple? Or an elderly heterosexual couple?

Dozens upon dozens of other courts agreed.
Not just the SCOTUS.

 

no they weren't in many places they were forbade even that.

states do not get to decide if an arbitrary behavior is immoral. If you want that move to Saudi Arabia.

sure but what you said isn't true.

but states are?

So I guess you disagree with the Court's ruling on civil rights.

 

I agree with you it is very easy to read. That's why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.

 

With in the scotus very hard arguments for why it is unconstitutional for States to ban marriage.

What Dave appeals to the Supreme Court he is appealing to the argument regarding the 14th Amendment and the Court's ruling.

If you say that the constitution does not say what the Supreme Court thinks it says you have to argue against the case that convinced them.

And I'm sorry it's a conspiracy of liberals or activists is not an argument.

 

I didn’t seek, nor do I now have a Civil Union. Legal definition of civil union:
Civil Union
Primary tabs
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A relationship available in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont that provides all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage for same-sex couples who register as civil union partners.

What I sought and now have is a marriage. Legal definition of Marriage:
Marriage
Primary tabs
Definition
The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

Your definitions and opinions are not in line with the law.

 

Just as there was plenty of political evidence that HRC would be the next President in 2016, Just like there was plenty of scientific evidence we were headed for an ice age in the early 70's. I see where you put your faith.

 

Insisting that Marriage is civil union despite there being no such thing as civil union in any Court is argumentum ad nauseam.

 

Nope. You’re mistaken.

 

One of the key factors in science is that it's falsifiable. Pointing out that previous science was falsifiable doesn't indicate that it's not Science.