I guess my effort to talk of this topic is like your Jet Airplane. It carries passengers including the pilot. However flying in the Jet does not mean the passengers are pilots. Marriage was once unique. Now it seems anybody gets to claim they got married. Wait, not those rejected by homosexuals of course.
Well I don't foresee that occurring. The only entity losing constitutional rights is the state but I think the Constitution should favor the individual.
no need marriage is sufficient I understand what you're saying it's not that complicated I just disagree with anybody who says that certain people can't appropriate their culture. I tend to reject social justice. I think that white people can have dreadlocks black people can cook Mexican food and yes gay people can get married. For you to complain about that term being appropriated you have to first think that you have a proprietary claim on it. Like certain social justice warriors think they have a proprietary Clement black people having dreadlocks. I'm sorry I fundamentally disagree with social justice.
What do you mean like a brother and sister getting married I've already argued that point. There is a reason more than just a proprietary claim or an appeal to tradition to forbid such marraiges. I think you should go look up some information on inbreeding. See how that causes trouble in the genome.
MacKenzie Phillips loved the sex she had with her father of Papa and Mama fame. They had no children. He wanted to marry his daughter. But it simply never happened. Ten years of passionate sex. But you see it as wrong. Then you want homosexuals to be married. What for?
of course the appendicitis case you just put out there. No, for morality to be up to every individual at anytime to decide. Does this morality coincide with your own at this particular time? 6-year-olds-forced-to-write-gay-love-letter-to-teach-accepti?fbclid=IwAR2_bExMNUuNPHpgKaWTvNTahzR_Dvinjgqq51yxAl-b5LpG_g2TPaLgOgE
Stop committing fallacies, and I will stop calling them out. I even explained each fallacy for you this time around.
Those are acronyms. They stand for "Argument by Repetition Fallacy. Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed". I see no reason to keep typing out the same counterargument to your same initial argument.
Okay then... Who does incest harm and how so? It's simply two people who love each other... two people who, according to your very own line of reasoning, are being unconstitutionally discriminated against per the 14th Amendment. Per this, and per your redefinition of marriage, Billy Bob and his cousin Mary Lou should be just as able to marry as any gay couple and any straight couple...
I've already presented it. You chose to repeat your initial argument instead of countering my counter to it. That is a fallacy.
Why not? Anything... more money, more power, more possessions, more food, more water, you name it... Why?? Altruism IS a part of morality...
They are arguments. An argument is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion. An argument takes the logical form: A -> B. Not a fallacy, an argument, as defined above. A fallacy is an error of logic, either formal or informal.
I accept your concession. I have no idea why you think throwing out logical fallacy terms, which you have no idea what they mean, is in any way an argument.
I believe he understands that is our argument. If marriage is for heterosexuals, it is for their exclusive use. Marriage however is the exclusive domain when the parties are one adult non family member to one other opposite sex adult non family member. It is in fact a tool to protect the children of them vs the tool for the woman. This tool in much of the world is still held operative. The fact is that only 28 countries include homosexuals in marriage. And that means much of the world does not claim marriage is for homosexuals. Search Results Web results Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Same-sex_marriage Same-sex marriage is the marriage of two people of the same sex or gender, entered into in a ... Today, it is available in 28 countries. Same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized (nationwide or in some ..... science, which shows that sexual orientation is not a choice and that homosexuality is natural and normal. Terminology · Debate · Studies · Public opinion
The hole they live in is a crater. 28 nations believe in homosexual marriage out of 195. They want to pour water uphill. That is not natural.
Here is a huge problem for YOU! You have excluded people from marriage. Yet you only fight for the right of a very tiny splinter group to get married. Sure the Court ruled on the basis of the 14th amendment. I recall when the SC also ruled that slavery is legal. 28 countries on this planet agree with you. 167 countries do not accept homosexual marriage. That is a huge number of countries that find your calling for an illegal act to be granted legality. A crater that is larger than the grand canyon is what you want to use for shelter. When you yourself exclude, do not find fault with others who also exclude.