Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I don’t have to. You’ve failed to counter the argument placed before the SCOTUS.

 

Learn to walk in the Spirit and you will overcome the lusts of the flesh. I've seen it. That's all I can or want to tell you.

 

What lusts?

You have to show me that it's lust and not love.

 

I call it Scientific evidence of the "Haughtiness of Mankind".

 

I’m sorry, could you explain those for me?

 

English is a vary limited language. It became that way due to things like what we discuss here....generalizing the term marriage to accompany same sex unions.
In the Greek there were many words to describe Love. Phileo means "brotherly love. Eros is "erotic or sexual love". Agape is a Godly or "unconditional love". We also understand there is a "tough love" that tells things for our own good we don't necessarily want to hear. I don't have to show you anything. You already know.

 

I think you mislabeling it, it is a humble endeavor.

 

You said lust.

Yes I know you're mistaken.

 

It can be pursued as a humble endeavor, but it is often a useful tool for deceitful means.

 

lust is interchangeable with "desire". Don't know if you have that definition.

 

What are you talking about?

 

They are different in the same way that an apple is not a peach. They have different traits. They have a different composition. They are not identical. This is what the proof of identity (?A -> A) is all about. Another way to phrase the proof of identity is "I think, therefore I am".

Circular reasoning (A -> A) by itself is not a fallacy, you know... Using a circular argument as a proof ( (A -> A) -> A ) is what the fallacy actually is.

It's fundamental because of the proof of identity. Heterosexual relations and homosexual relations are not identical things, since one can procreate in principle and the other cannot. Thus, while they both can be "unions", they both cannot be "marriages", as a "marriage" is a specific type of union, as I have described.

Taking a word that previously meant one thing and then assigning it a new meaning is redefining the word.

 

You cannot honestly say that you have personal knowledge the sun will not extinguish 48 hrs. from now. Don't kid yourself.....you take it on faith.

 

How so?

 

I know what lust means thank you.

But you have no idea about whether or not my relationship is based on lust.

 

That's right. And you can also have unconditional love for the same sex without jumping in the sack with them.

 

I take it on demonstrable scientific evidence. Must be a scary world where you’re not sure the sun will still be there the day after tomorrow.

 

Yup, same with people deciding that marriage does not include homosexual couples.

I already addressed their argument, and I referenced the Constitutional language that refutes their argument.

Yes, and you've since been playing semantic games about whether its "children taken away from parents" or "parents taken away from children" (which changes depending upon how you choose to frame it), but in the end, the child is not being raised by its parents. That's the point being made. Remember how this discussion initially begun, as you seem to have lost all context of how it began... You initially claimed that, if children were taken away from homosexuals, that those children were being taken away from their parents. I then claimed that those children you were referring to had already been taken away from their parents. Those children are already not being raised by their parents. THAT'S the point.

No goalpost shifting on my end. YOU are the one who started bickering over semantics instead of addressing my point.

 

A peach and an apple are different because they come from two different species of tree.

homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships do not come from a different species.

Whether we call both a peach and then apple fruit.

they're different because they're different species. people in heterosexual relationships in people and homosexual relationships are not a different species so your analogy fails

okay you're a reasoning is still poor.

Explain why this is fundamental?

Wyatt's procreation principal Paramount explained

Arbitrarily picking a definition and saying that that is the only definition and me disagreeing with that is not redefining a word.

 

I didn't move goalposts, as explained, and circular reasoning in and of itself is NOT a logical fallacy. It is the attempt to use itself to prove itself that is the fallacy. A -> A is not a fallacy, but (A -> A) -> A is a fallacy.

I've presented my arguments already. If one responds to my arguments in a fallacious manner, I will call out those fallacies. Fallacies are logic errors.

I've rationalized them already. Stop making fallacies and I will stop calling them out.

 

some of the people decided that it can include same-sex couples.

You can disagree but you can't dictate definition.

supreme court has it conspiracy to undermine the Constitution?

that's not semantics words have meaning. you are trying to mischaracterized something and I am giving you resistance.

you can boo-hoo all day long about semantics but I will never drop this.

you will have to quote me saying that children are taken away from their parents because I don't believe I said that.

You're in tire position is based on semantics you're the one saying the marriage can't mean what it means because some reason you can't explain you just bark about fallacies and cry about semantics.

 

show me that circular reasoning is not a fallacy explain it better or more thoroughly.

So far your explanation is not convincing.

Par for the course.

I guess it wouldn't help to ask you once again to better explain your arguments is that a fallacy too?

anytime I've asked you to further explain you refused so that's not rationalizing that's evasion.

 

They weren't denied the ability to form civil unions. They've always been able to form civil unions. They were instead denied legal recognition of civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

I've never had a problem with the word civil unions. I'm using it right now.

Heterosexual couples are able to procreate in principle. Homosexual couples are not able to do so.

Any further attempts to conflate "in actuality" with "in principle" from you will be responded to with "RDCF", which stands for "Repetitious Distortions and Contextomy Fallacies", as you are distorting what my argument is to make it easier to respond to. Whether a particular heterosexual couple happens to be infertile or elderly is irrelevant to my argumentation. All that is relevant is that heterosexual couples CAN procreate IN PRINCIPLE, and that this ability is a difference in identity when compared to homosexual couples who cannot do so in principle.

Irrelevant. They are ignoring the Constitution also.

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

 

Having sex with somebody is an expression of love. And I know this because I've never done it with someone I didn't love.

So true you couldn't marry a wife and never have sex with her if you do you are giving into lust just the same as I would be.

 

I take a lot of things on "faith". Perhaps tomorrow I might not get hit by a bus. I don't have it all laid out like those that worship at the alter of pseudo science. Still want to hear how you know the sun won't turn off in 48 hrs. Did someone tell you?