Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[ShackledNation]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

We are already seeing it.

As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage. Those against are probably concentrated in the South.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dr D&G is simply a bot, nothing more.

Used to know a few of them in Center, Tx, what a bunch a loonies

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.

LOL! You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.

His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your opinion is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your opinion is an just an opinion, and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.

So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that I was correct when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?

Fair enough! On THAT, we agree.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

We are already seeing it.

As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let me ask ya. If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Those against are probably concentrated in the South.

Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center. What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .

But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most christian fascists (where r my keys, koshergrl, etc) do believe their opinion is a fact. That's why they almost always fail when attempting to assert it. Such as keys.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes. A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It's pretty simple alright. But as simple as it is, you have 'created' a 'new' meaning of normal; the 'new-normal', which only renders the word MEANINGLESS.

No I haven't. Again, read a dictionary. You are conflating two definitions of the word normal. And apparently you don't even realize it, which just shows the failure of the United States education system.

Read it... and no where in the definition of the normal, does it equate abnormality with normality. And this without regard to your desperate rationalization which needs it to do so.

The great part about this whole thing is that even IF every dictionary on earth defined normal as abnormal, that in no way would render the traits otherwise associated with normal to have any kinship with abnormality.

But that is because nature doesn't give a rip about the subjective needs of the abnormal to BE normal, except of course where they put in the work to comport themselves within the defining traits which truly, in reality... define the natural standards that demonstrate that which is normal.

I realize that you disagree. And that's fine. But the basis of that disagreement is irrational. So, well... you know.

The fact remains you are conflating two definitions of normal. Something can be statistically abnormal but remain normal in the moral or socially acceptable sense (such as red hair). You seem to have a real difficultly in comprehending the reality that in the English language the same word can reference more than one thing.

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Red hair does not deviate from the physiological standard of hair... Snakes-for-hair or Fire-for-hair... THAT would deviate from the physiological standard. That would also be a major genetic modification and NOT a learned behavior, born from environmental stress.

What you're trying to do is to form a: NEW-DEFINITION OF NORMAL. Meaning that your advocacy is to establish a NEW-Normality, based upon social acceptance. Sadly, social acceptance does not equate to 'moral'.

And abnormal is NEVER NORMAL.. accept in certain contravening contexts such as: "Abnormal reasoning is normal among the deviant. This is because deviancy is abnormal." So the normal state of mind among the deviant is abnormality.

As is nearly always the case in every instance, what you're trying desperately NOT TO SAY, is that you are trying to claim that sexual abnormality is normal, because it is said to be 'socially acceptable'.

Sadly, for your argument, a society does not design the human species, thus does not determine sexual normality. Nature determined that when it designed the species... .

See how that works?

 

[ShackledNation]

Your opinion is not supported by a majority of Americans.

In U.S. Record-High Say Gay Lesbian Relations Morally OK

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.

LOL! You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.

His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your opinion is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your opinion is an just an opinion, and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.

So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that I was correct when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?

Fair enough! On THAT, we agree.

No. With all due respect, you have serious reading comprehension problems. Honestly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuality is LEARNED BEHAVIOR... imprinted upon the individual during their earliest stages of development.

Now, where we culturally NORMALIZE homosexuality and where more homosexuals are placed in positions of trust over young children... more homosexuals will be CREATED, through: Caring sexual relationships with loving adults. They're not gang raping children... they 'play' with them.

From an interview with Michael Jackson:

Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was a
great privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life
- when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"

Jackson: "Yes."

Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"

Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."

Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a
bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"

Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."

Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"

Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack the
Ripper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'm
in a sleeping bag on the floor.
"I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took
the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag ?"

Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"

Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children.
"I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little: Kieran
Culkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his
sisters in there...we all would just jam in the bed, you know.
"We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had
the footage. I have all that footage."

Bashir: "But is that right Michael?"

Jackson: "It's very right. It's very loving, that's what the world needs now,
more love more heart ?"

This is a PERSONIFICATION of "THE PROBLEM!".

Now... I ask you... of the pop-culture idiots out there, how many of those who "BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS that 'homosexuality' is perfectly normal... would have a problem with a cultural icon sleeping with their child, at his property dedicated to the 'amusement of children'? Even today... dam' few of 'em.

And the reason is that they are WEAK MINDED PEOPLE... with NO MORAL CORE and less means to reason soundly.

Add another generation of decadence... and NONE OF THEM WILL. And you add a generation to THAT... and the age of consent is GONE.

Now do you want to have kids? Or do ya have kids? Grand Kids?

YOUR foolish attitude is a direct threat to their well being. Believe it, reject it... doesn't change a dam' thing.

Until you wake the hell up... you're a menace to your OWN! And ya best come to grips with that while there is still a CHANCE to check it, then once it is CHECKED... push it back until these freaks are once again SECURELY BACK IN THAT CLOSET, where they are as safe as they'll ever be, for everyone including themselves.

Now... would ya care to offer a guess as to the sexual 'orientation' of Mr. Macauley Culkin?

And please feel free to interject your feelings on the total coincidence wherein Mr. Culkin had the opportunity to sleep over at the home of a caring loving adult, who was SO INTENT upon his well being that the adult literally 'slept' in the same bad with the lucky lil' fella.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

So what you're saying is that the perception of a popular majority, establishes what is 'morally right'?

No, that is not what he was saying. Nobody with a functioning brain would have assumed that was what he was saying.

LOL! You say that... but despite that giving you a PERFECT opportunity to explain what 'he' DID mean... ya CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.

Now... I wonder why you passed on such a great opportunity?

Some would argue that ya passed on it, because ya had needed to deny the position, due to your subjective need for such to not be true, without any understanding of what IS TRUE, where 'truth' equals something akin to your subjective needs.

Pretty cool, huh... how those folks see right through the irrational house of cards you, the intellectually abnormal seem so intent upon building.

His words speak for themselves. But since you need someone to hold your hand in order to understand basic English, let me help you. You have the attitude that your opinion is a fact. You state that by disagreeing with your opinion people are showing a lack of integrity, as if disagreeing with you makes them dishonest. He was pointing out that actually your opinion is an just an opinion, and an opinion most people don't even agree with at that. In other words, your appeals to "integrity" are fallacious and pathetic attempts to pass your baseless opinion off as fact.

So... setting the sweetest of all ironies aside, what you're saying there, is that I was correct when I said that neither you, nor 'he', has any means to sustain the now thoroughly discredited implication... ?

Fair enough! On THAT, we agree.

No. With all due respect, you have serious reading comprehension problems. Honestly.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[ShackledNation]

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.

 

[ShackledNation]

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes. A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?

Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.

Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that to be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.

See how that works?

 

[ShackledNation]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

We are already seeing it.

As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let me ask ya. If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Marriage is a social creation. Gravity is a reality of physics. To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd. If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.

Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center. What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .

But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.

Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.

 

[ShackledNation]

That's because the two definitions are intrinsic to one another, thus they inherently conflate.

Lol...no. That is patently false. Your argument is entirely based on a fallacious equivocation.

Well what ya have there is a subjective conclusion, wherein despite the otherwise incontrovertible evidence to the contrary... you NEED that do be FALSE... evidenced in your inability to show the reasoning which would otherwise DEMONSTRATE IT TO BE FALSE.

See how that works?

Nothing subjective about it. I can objectively classify your argument as an equivocation, as would anyone else who knows what an equivocation is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False... that is NOT only NOT >WHAT< I am arguing, it is not even CLOSE to what I am arguing and there's NOTHING in ANYTHING that I HAVE ARGUED, that could reasonably lead a reasonable person to such an inference. Which is how we can rest assured that your reasoning is invalid and wholly subjective.

Also, I've got no where to be, so I am free to point out that its false, every time you feel the need to repeat it.

Let's try it this way:

normal: conforming to a standard.

abnormal: deviating from what is normal

deviate: depart from usual or accepted standards

perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended by the standard.

rationalization: attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with what is erroneously felt to be logical, plausible reasons, even where such are logically invalid, intellectually unsound and otherwise not true or appropriate.

irrational: not logical or reasonable.• not endowed with the power of reason.

delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder

Which of those 'feels' the most familiar to ya?

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes. A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?

Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.

What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?

I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.

You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms. Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .

 

[ShackledNation]

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

That's exactly what you are arguing, and it is clear to anyone who understands the English language and the logical fallacy of equivocation. You do not.

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes. A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?

Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.

What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?

I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.

Your use of the word normal and abnormal. You point out that homosexuality is abnormal in a statistical sense, and therefore claim it to be abnormal in a moral sense because of that. That is a clear example of an equivocation. Actually, I can't even think of a clearer example.

You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms. Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .

You may not believe in equivocations, but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define equivocations. And your argument is full of equivocations.

You've got a whole lot of baseless assertions and nothing more.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who is "we", tonto? Certainly not the USA, and the millennials will float you out to sea if you try that with them.

Keep running your little dick suckers, we will see at the end of the day what millennial's will say ..............

We are already seeing it.

As a millennial myself, I don't even know a single person my age who is against same-sex marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let me ask ya. If you kids developed the strongly felt obsession that Gravity had it all wrong and that just because a person got on an unstable aircraft, they shouldn't be forced to hurtle back to earth at terminal velocity, do ya feel that this would in, in any way, change nature's position on that natural law?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Marriage is a social creation.

Marriage is the joining of the complimenting genders, designed by nature, for the purpose which nature designed it for.

Gravity is a reality of physics.

"Physics"? You're speaking of the study of the physical aspects of our universe?

Yes... Gravity is a physical law of nature.

To equate the definition of marriage with the reality of gravity is absurd.

Where the two issues equate is in their both being the result of nature's law. One relevant to the physical laws of nature... the other relevant to the laws of nature as they govern human behavior.

If marriage was unchangeable, women would still be considered property to husbands.

How so? Seems like ya just high-sided your argument on a non-sequitur there... .

LOL! You work it out and get back to me.

Well, they're only likely to not be living in a population center. What's more, the farther from urban centers (thus the farther from socialist governance) one lives, the less likely a person is to accept sexual abnormality as normal... .

But that serves reason, because the farther from urban environments one lives, the more likely a person is to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the soundly reasoned principles of nature.

Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon, so this whole nature argument of yours is quite meaningless.

So because something is natural, we should embrace it? Even where the natural phenomenon deviates from the natural standards to the extent that it literally rejects the standard itself, threatening the viability of the species?

LOL! ... Are you sure?

Take Ebola, for instance. It's a perfectly natural phenom... . Should we embrace it too?

LOL! BAD EXAMPLE... clearly the Left is already working towards the embracing of Ebola...

Ya know... the more we discuss this, the more clear it becomes that entertaining you people is a literal threat to the very survival of the human species itself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you've chosen DELUSION!

Good for you! (If it helps, that is the one I was sure you'd choose.)

Nope. I've chosen logic and truth and you've chosen fallacy and bigotry.

Yep... you just prefer to ignore the laws of reason comprising the rules of logic and demand that 'truth' is that which you say truth is... despite your 'feelings' having been contradicted by reality and the facts presented through numerous rational arguments; which, as I pointed out earlier, presents typically as a symptom of the mental disorder OKA: DELUSION!

(What's more, the subjective nature of the respondents conclusions also present as the classic traits of relativism; the 'doctrine' which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality can exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and otherwise personal context, and as a result can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes. A thoroughly irrational species of reasoning, which rests as the foundation of socialism, in all of its innumerable facets.)

See how that works?

Equivocations are not rational arguments. They are fallacies. And so far, all you have is one big equivocation. And no, I do not believe in relativism. So nice try at yet another logical fallacy, this time a strawman.

What about my position 'feels' ambiguous to you?

I ask because equivocation requires ambiguity... and my position may be a LOT OF THINGS... ambiguous however, is NOT one of 'em.

Your use of the word normal and abnormal. You point out that homosexuality is abnormal in a statistical sense.

Uh ... Nope. I use normal in the 'sense' that nature designed the species with distinct but complimenting genders; which are DESIGNED for the PURPOSE of procreation... this as a means to perpetuate the species; thus such is in accordance with, constituting, thus establishing the norm, the rule and the principles that define that which conform to the type, standard and regular patten common to the natural occurrences relevant to human physiology.

I then contrast that with the use of the word abnormal where I speak to that which deviates from all that; in this case: Homosexuality, which you and the cult are busy trying to re-define as: THE NEW-NORMAL.

Which it isn't because "New-Normal" is just abnormal with a new shingle. It's sorta like the broad distinctions between socialism... which you re-defined into The New-Normal "Progressivism", which came after you'd worn out all potential legitimacy in the old normal "Liberalism", from which there is zero distinction between any of what those words mean, as you define 'em.

and therefore claim it to be abnormal in a moral sense because of that.

It's immoral in the sense that it perpetuates deceit... . It's abnormal because it deviates from the sexual norm.

This is all VERY simple stuff... and there is no potential reason for you to be struggling so hard to understand it.

So the problem isn't the complexity of the facts... the complexity is in the irrational construct which you've built as a means to defend your subjective needs. Which of course demonstrates the real nature of thar relativism that ya don't believe in. Which is funny, given how its presently kickin' your ass!

A normal person would have figured it out by now.

That is a clear example of an equivocation.

Yes it is... sadly for your argument it is YOUR equivocation.

Actually, I can't even think of a clearer example.

Yep... it's a doozy.

You may not believe in the Sun... but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define the sun, establishing such in real, incontestable terms. Such as those which define the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... and the ambiguous nature of its specious, thus deceitful, fraudulent and eternally ignorant conclusions... .

You may not believe in equivocations, but that doesn't change the facts which otherwise define equivocations. And your argument is full of equivocations.

You've got a whole lot of baseless assertions and nothing more.

Well... now that was just sad.

I'll grant ya a mulligan. Take it back to the drawing board and see if ya can't shape it up into something worthy of consideration... .

 

[Conservative65]

Seems you think a so called right to marriage is unlimited. You would be wrong. No one is denied the right to marry.

From the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

The Lovings were denied the right to marry each other.

Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.
Just as two men are being denied marriage to each other.

The State can restrict the right to marriage- but it must establish a significant state interest that is accomplished by denying that right- and no one has been able to come up with a more significant reason to deny two men from marrying each other that is much beyond "Its icky"

No one is being denied a right to marry. It is being restricted. Seems all the faggots had to do to get a sympathetic, Liberal, queer loving judge to agree with them is whine like the little sissys they are.

You are precious. Please, please, please, keep spewing your bile. The more and more of you folks that shout this nonsense from the rooftops the more people you continue to alienate. The gay community and our allies thank you for your contributions to the cause.

Please keep thinking that the marriage of two of your kind will ever be equivalent to my marriage. You are and always will be nothing more than a dick sucking faggot.

I am sorry, what charm school did you say you attended again?

I am sorry, am I supposed to say things in a manner you like? Like I said, two faggots marrying will never equal to mine.