Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

How about we treat everyone equally and with kindness and let whatever divinity exists sort it all out?

Noticed you didn’t answer the question though, why not?
Kinda destroys your entire narrative doesn’t it?

 

How about none. How about we just base it on empiricism? Whatever causes harm with no real benefit is considered immoral everybody keep their religion or lack there of how they wish.

 

and we accomplish this by both of you being the judge of what is that perfect set of values. You both are the judge of right and wrong. I get it. Only we have over 2 billion judges that could all dictate what is right in their own eyes.

 

some of the people decided that it can't include same-sex couples.

You can disagree but you can't dictate definition.

Conspiracy or not, I'm saying that they ARE undermining it in many of their rulings.

I'm not mischaraterizing anything. You're just playing semantic games, likely because you have lost context of this discussion. There's nothing TO drop.

You said it. See post #54... You said, and I quote, "I understand the importance of marriage for family building the thing I don't understand is why you think that should be exclusive to families of heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples can build families too they do. Me [Homosexuals] either adopt kids or have kids from previous relationships.

Should those kids be taken away from the parents?"

I then responded by saying "those kids have already been taken away from their parents". The whole point is that you're considering the homosexuals to be their parents, while I am noting that the biologicals are their parents.

I've already explained the reasoning numerous times.

 

How is treating everyone equally “dictating right and wrong” but what you are wanting to do is not?

 

I already did. I gave you the logic notation of a circular argument [A -> A] versus a circular argument fallacy [(A -> A) -> A].

A circular argument on its own is not a fallacy. It is simply an argument of faith. It uses its own conclusion as the predicate. This is logically valid since the conclusion [A] follows from the predicate [A]. An example of such an argument is "God exists, therefore God exists". In other words, a circular argument is valid via the proof of identity [?A -> A] , since if the argument is presented, then the argument exists.

A circular argument fallacy, on the other hand, is when one attempts to use the conclusion of a circular argument as proof that the conclusion is True... (ie, using the conclusion "God exists" as a proof that "God exists" is True). This is not valid logic. Hopefully that helps.

 

The same as it is without legal recognition. Legal recognition has no effect on the purpose of joining into a union with someone, whether that be a civil union or a marriage. The purpose of legal recognition is to receive the legal benefits.

Yes, they are both able to procreate in principle. They ARE indeed a male and a female, correct?. They are simply not able to procreate in actuality due to their infertility, but that doesn't invalidate the principle of male and female being able to procreate with one another, correct? Now, can we finally move beyond conflating principle with actuality, or is that all the argumentation that you have?

No white flag... You simply keep conflating terminology and repeating the same tired arguments over and over. Those are fallacies, you know. You need to respond to the arguments being made, not to distortions of those arguments, and not by repeating your initial argumentation.

They are ignoring the following portions of the Constitution regarding the gay marriage ruling:

** Article I Section VIII. (Congress has no enumerated power to legislate about marriage).
** Article V. (Neither Congress nor SCOTUS can amend the US Constitution; only the States (collectively) can do so).
** Article VII & Amendment X. (Powers not given to the Federal Government, nor relinquished by the States to the Federal Government, are reserved to the States. The States ratified the Constitution. The States (collectively) own the Constitution).

Yes, I do feel that way.

No white flag from my end. Simply fallacies from yours. I will continue to point them out, too.

 

Nope.

 

No I don't buy into moral relativism. Morality is based on a very objective measure regardless of your religion. This is how we can judge religions to be immoral.

 

so you can explain it any better?

Okay, so I'm going to dismiss your rationalization as being less than convincing.

Thanks for trying though.

 

so it seems that it can mean two things at once which is a lot of work to do.

you can't say that it doesn't mean one of the things that people think it means because you don't get to dictate definition.

Present a list of rulings that have been undermined please

when you see children has been taken away from their parents that means they have been taken away from their parents if they haven't been they haven't words have meanings when you speak you need to speak clearly.

Using language in a way that the people can understand is not semantics. You can squawk all day about that but you're wrong.

wow you wasted a lot of time. I never argued that their biological parents weren't their biological parents.

Biological connection to a child does not give you any special ability to be a good parent.

Let's look for instance at child abuse a vast majority of it is committed by the biological parents.

If I ask for further explanation it means I want more than what you've already provided if you can't do that there's no reason to continue to post.

 

Correct. They were forbidden from the legal recognition of it, not from the civil union itself.

See above.

Yup, I have done so.

But gays were not being discriminated against in this instance. Gays have ALWAYS been allowed to marry. They simply choose not to marry because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. That's NOT discrimination. Gays simply aren't marrying by their OWN choice.

They can interpret law arising UNDER the Constitution, but they cannot interpret the Constitution itself. They do not have power OVER the Constitution. See Article III Section II.

Yes, it quite literally is. Nine justices are deciding the "law of the land" based on arbitrary whim, not on the Constitution. They are effectively acting as an Oligarchy. Liberals themselves wish to do away with the Constitution altogether and turn the USA into the SOA (Socialist Oligarchy of America). Here are some examples of how they reject the Constitution. This is by no means an all inclusive list.


** They reject the limits on the legislative powers of Congress. (thus rejecting Article I)

** They reject the executive powers of the President if they happen to not like the President, and they reject the Electoral College. They reject the proper method and reasoning for removing a President from office. They reject the enumerated duties of a President, especially the duties of preserving/defending/protecting the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article II)

** They reject the scope and role of SCOTUS and other inferior courts. They believe that SCOTUS are the sole interpreters of the US Constitution. They believe that SCOTUS are oligarchs. (thus rejecting Article III)

** They reject the Republican form of government that is guaranteed to the States. They reject protecting the States from invasions and domestic violence (especially when relating to immigration). (thus rejecting Article IV)

** They reject the formal amendment process, and instead regularly misuse the court system as a "work-around" to that. They wish to transform the USA into the SOA (Socialist Oligarchy of America). (thus rejecting Article V)

** They reject legislating in pursuance of the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article VI)

** They reject that the States (collectively) are the owners of the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article VII)

** They also reject many of the Amendments to the Constitution, and actively fight against people's inherent rights (such as the right to have and express an opinion, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, due process, etc...)

Could you retype this? I'm not understanding what you are asserting. States are not oligarchies. They are republics just as the USA as a whole is. They are ruled by State Constitutions.

Gotcha. Yes, it is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That Amendment went along with the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves.

No, you can't. Black people WERE being discriminated against based on their skin color. They didn't have the same rights to access public locations, for example, that white people had. Gay people were NOT being discriminated against, however. They had the same right to marry that straight people had.

 

What precisely is this "objective measure" of which you speak?

 

But... but... but DADDY GOVERNMENT tells me it is, so NEENER NEENER BOO BOO...

That's effectively what you are arguing.

 

I did, in the entire section of my comment that you ignored. Here it is again:

I gave you the logic notation of a circular argument [A -> A] versus a circular argument fallacy [(A -> A) -> A].

A circular argument on its own is not a fallacy. It is simply an argument of faith. It uses its own conclusion as the predicate. This is logically valid since the conclusion [A] follows from the predicate [A]. An example of such an argument is "God exists, therefore God exists". In other words, a circular argument is valid via the proof of identity [?A -> A] , since if the argument is presented, then the argument exists.

A circular argument fallacy, on the other hand, is when one attempts to use the conclusion of a circular argument as proof that the conclusion is True... (ie, using the conclusion "God exists" as a proof that "God exists" is True). This is not valid logic. Hopefully that helps.

I'm not sure what else you want, or what seems to be confusing you...

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You are dismissing my argumentation without providing any counter arguments.

This particular "argumentation" of yours is taking the form [A -> B, !A.].. That is not valid, since you have no [C] before it...

Valid counter arguments take the form [A -> B, C -> !A].

 

Legal benefits and protections. Why should gay couples not be allowed to have the protections and benefits of marriage?

So you believe that heterosexuals should be allowed to wed irregardless of their ability to procreate but homosexuals should not be allowed because they cannot procreate together. This makes absolutely zero sense.

Your arguments make no sense.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the constitution reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The SCOTUS did not mandate states wed gay couples, they said they states cannot arbitrarily deny entire groups from it which is completely within their prevue.
If states do not want to apply the legal and civil protections equally they can cease issuing marriage licenses.

You are not, your belief that you have a moral superiority is laughable, but very obvious from your posts.

Because you cannot debate something does not make it a fallacy.

 

that's why it was taken to the Supreme Court. They weren't being treated equally in the Supreme Court did what it's supposed to do.

so explain why it doesn't apply as it's written.

send text couples were being discriminated against by not being allowed to marry.

yes it was the fourteenth amendment issue.

I'm sorry you feel that way but your feelings are incorrect. The ruling was based on the 14th Amendment

I'm not a liberal in fact I'm less liberal than you are so typing this was a waste of your time and be reading it waste of my time.


** They reject the limits on the legislative powers of Congress. (thus rejecting Article I)

** They reject the executive powers of the President if they happen to not like the President, and they reject the Electoral College. They reject the proper method and reasoning for removing a President from office. They reject the enumerated duties of a President, especially the duties of preserving/defending/protecting the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article II)

** They reject the scope and role of SCOTUS and other inferior courts. They believe that SCOTUS are the sole interpreters of the US Constitution. They believe that SCOTUS are oligarchs. (thus rejecting Article III)

** They reject the Republican form of government that is guaranteed to the States. They reject protecting the States from invasions and domestic violence (especially when relating to immigration). (thus rejecting Article IV)

** They reject the formal amendment process, and instead regularly misuse the court system as a "work-around" to that. They wish to transform the USA into the SOA (Socialist Oligarchy of America). (thus rejecting Article V)

** They reject legislating in pursuance of the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article VI)

** They reject that the States (collectively) are the owners of the US Constitution. (thus rejecting Article VII)

** They also reject many of the Amendments to the Constitution, and actively fight against people's inherent rights (such as the right to have and express an opinion, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, due process, etc...)


Could you retype this? I'm not understanding what you are asserting. States are not oligarchies. They are republics just as the USA as a whole is. They are ruled by State Constitutions.

show me language in the 14th amendment that made it specifically apply to freed slaves and nobody else.

Gay people were being discriminated against because they were being treated differently based on their coupling.

 

Yes, so if both cases are indeed "marriages", then rationalize how homosexual relations are completely identical to heterosexual relations. This is what needs to be done in order to place them both into the identical classification of "marriage".

Yes I do. I am a person.

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are two examples. I already specifically went through how the SSM ruling undermined the Constitution.

I did speak clearly.

No I'm not.

What DID you argue then?

Never said it did.

Or by the re-married spouse of the biological parent. But yes, I agree that child abuse can happen from any set of parents.

 

Government recognition of marriage is strictly a government issue.

 

they don't have to be identical in fact one to heterosexual marriage compared to another heterosexual marriage are not identical.

I'm sorry they are both placed into the classification of marriage. That has already happened.

hate to break this to you but so is everyone else.

not to any convincing extent.

then you spoke incorrectly.

your assertion is not supported.

that adoptive parents our parents hence the term parents.

so all of your arguments about procreation in biology was a waste of time?

Yes but it's most commonly among the biological parents.

 

I didn't ignore what you said just was an inadequate explanation

it's not an adequate explanation.

I dismiss it. I don't want anything from you. You are trying to convince me of your position.

A rationalization is not an argument I'm not here to tell you your rationalization is wrong that's not what I'm doing. I am here to listen to your rationalization and my doubt and it being rational is the argument against it.

It's just that you're lacking the ability or the wherewithal to better speak of your position don't feel like that's a slight against you it's not. If I can't understand your position that's not my fault.

I haven't made, I just dismissed your claim.

If you think that's Stone fallacy then write it off and move along.

Your position is trying to convince me that you are being rational if you think I'm on convincible then don't waste anymore of your time.

 

It's based on harm. If something harms somebody and the necessity to harm them doesn't balance the harm against them that the ACT is immoral.

 

Like your own protest against incest marriages? I suspect that you will tell me how much you also oppose polygamy?

 

My own protest against incest marriage? That doesn't make sense. Incest is mating with someone you're closely related to. Marriage is a legal status.

my argument was that marriage is not for people who are closely related because they are already closely related.

Your argument against same-sex marriage is that it's not for same-sex couples because icky.

My position was rationalized based on actual reality yours is rationalized based on feeling.

As far as polygamy goes I don't care.

 

So your argument is that marriage establishes a close relationship? What difference can that make?