Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mymamamary said:
Same sex marriage is a statement, it has grammar in it, uses english, phonetics and letters. Thus, it is a statement. Just like “I ate a orange” both are statements.
Click to expand...
No, “same-sex marriage” is a concept, not a statement. “Same-sex marriage” isn’t even a complete sentence, unlike like “I ate an orange.”
 
spencelo said:
The right to be treated equally under the law. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is one example of unequal, discriminatory treatment.
Click to expand...
But thats just it, You cannot marry, you can have the cake, the ceremony etc., but thats not marriage. Marriage = One Man and One Woman. Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. Denying same sex couples the right to marry, is no right at all, because for a True marriage to be valid, they have to be opposite genders. Its not discriminatory. Its a truth, that you dont want to accept.
 
spencelo said:
The right to be treated equally under the law. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is one example of unequal, discriminatory treatment.
Click to expand...
Baloney.

The matter of a right isn’t present. You don’t have a male and a female with which to constitute a marriage.

That’s like saying it’s a civil infraction because I can’t adopt the moon as my child, or eat a piano. It’s nonsense.
 
spencelo said:
The right to be treated equally under the law. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is one example of unequal, discriminatory treatment.
Click to expand...
You already have the right of being treated equally under the law. You already have the right to marry anyone you choose of the opposite sex, therefore, no, you are not getting unequal, discriminatory treatment.
 
spencelo said:
No, “same-sex marriage” is a concept, not a statement. “Same-sex marriage” isn’t even a complete sentence, unlike like “I ate an orange.”
Click to expand...
Ok, let me ask you

What fruits come out of SSM?

As far as i’m aware, Bioloically, none.

The only thing I can think of are AIDS and STDS.

Pride Parades with lewdly dressed men, because Steve wanted to be a girl, when there are 9 to 10 year olds around, is disgusting.

Luka Rocca Magnota was gay. Have a look at him. Cannibal, Murderer, yup, the fruits of SSM
 
spencelo said:
That doesn’t even make sense. A lie is, at minimum, a false statement that one utters with knowledge of its falsity. “Same-sex marriage” isn’t even a statement.
Click to expand...
So you are saying it’s the same as saying “flying unicorn”, just a meaningless phrase. Ok then.
 
jenwha said:
You already have the right of being treated equally under the law. You already have the right to marry anyone you choose of the opposite sex, therefore, no, you are not getting unequal, discriminatory treatment.
Click to expand...
Being able to marry anyone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean homosexuals are being treated equally. Unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals are free to marry their partners – which is the right we proponents of marriage equality are seeking. Only when both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are free to marry would be equal treatment under the law.
 
spencelo said:
Civil marriage has a pretty clear referent in law. If you don’t understand what civil marriage is (and how it’s distinct from religious marriage), I suggest you do a quick google search of the term.
Click to expand...
No, YOU need to tell us, so we are on the same page in this civil discussion. What is marriage?
 
livingwordunity said:
So you are saying it’s the same as saying “flying unicorn”, not a lie just a meaningless fantasy word. Ok then.
Click to expand...
Nope – false dichotomy fallacy. Just because “same-sex marriage” isn’t a lie, it doesn’t follow that the concept is a “meaningless fantasy word.”
 
spencelo said:
Being able to marry anyone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean homosexuals are being treated equally. Unlike homosexuals, heterosexuals are free to marry their partners – which is the right we proponents of marriage equality are seeking. Only when both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are free to marry would be equal treatment under the law.
Click to expand...
Why are “gays” suddenly jealous of heterosexual’s ability to marry when they never complained about it in history before?
 
spencelo said:
Being able to marry anyone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean homosexuals are being treated equally.

Uh, yes it does, because opposite sex partners IS the prerequisite for marriage.

YOU want to redefine marriage as something that it is not, never has been, and never will.

Even if secular America gives you the definition of the word marriage, it won’t be and never will. The government will basically define what is truly and intrinsically an abomination with the word marriage on it, but it won’t change that it is a disordered abomination.

Call a dog a turkey all you want, it’s still a dog.
Click to expand...
 
spencelo said:
Nope – false dichotomy fallacy. Just because “same-sex marriage” isn’t a lie, it doesn’t follow that the concept is a “meaningless fantasy word.”
Click to expand...
It’s a meaningless word that gay activists invented so they can get tax benefits for their disordered sexual behavior.
 
spencelo said:
That doesn’t even make sense. A lie is, at minimum, a false statement that one utters with knowledge of its falsity. “Same-sex marriage” isn’t even a statement.
Click to expand...
How can you come to this conclusion when you haven’t told us what definition of marriage you are talking about. In the ancient, reasoned, consistant, natural definition we are using same- sex marriage is a lie. What is your definition of marriage?
 
SSM cannot constitute a marriage. It is not natural. It is a perversion of a beauty that satan is udermining. Two men cannot have kids. Otherwise, let me ask you, what is the point of marriage?
 
spencelo said:
Why?
Click to expand...
There are males and there are females. Got that? Look around you. GOT IT???
There is a reason there are males and females.
So that they can MATE and make small males and females.
But human beings, unlike DOGS, have spiritual needs and a potential for a relationship with the Divine which we call God.
So we don’t just rut in the street like the dogs, we marry like human beings, the point being to unite a MALE and a FEMALE in a blessed relationship under GOD.
Even in the case that the chemistry of life doesn’t cooperate and nothing comes of HETERO mating, this still works this way, BTW, for all kinds of reasons. The point is that it’s a FEMALE-MALE MATING.
This takes care, not only of our ability to MATE, but our religious needs.

This is how it works. I hope you’re not older than 8 years old because I’d hate to think I’m explaining the most basic mechanics of family life to an adult. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

The whole business about getting a marriage license from, the state and all that is recent nonsense that post-dates modernity historically. This is where all the difficulty with definitions comes from. Getting a piece of paper from the government is just that. It means that your insurance works and so on. But it’s NOT REALLY MARRIAGE, and it’s NOT really sacramental. It’s just a piece of paper.

YOu can’t marry someone who’s the same sex as you. It’s a contradiction in terms.
 
spencelo said:
First, the only type of union that can produce children are non-impotent, non-sterile opposite-sex couples. The State does not limit marriage to unions of that type.

Second, you are simply repeating the claim that, because same-sex couples can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, without interacting with my objection that that requirement has never been a requirement for a marriage license. Why should the right to marry for same-sex couples turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? You haven’t answered this question.
Click to expand...
Wow-- my entire explanation apparently flew over your head. Sterile couples CAN get married because their biological makeup is ORDERED toward procreation.
A sterile couple has a DEFECT – their bodies (OK, usually just one of them) lack something that was supposed to be part of their given gender.

Two men who love each other are not missing anything that their gender is supposed to have. Ergo, the issue is that their bodies are not even ordered (or DESIGNED, if you wish) toward procreation. That is the issue!
 
livingwordunity said:
Why are “gays” suddenly jealous of heterosexual’s ability to marry when they never complained about it in history before?
Click to expand...
Jealous? Like everyone else, gays and lesbians are entitled to be treated with equal respect under the law. It’s sad that you still don’t understand this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top