The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

  • Thread starter Thread starter callmeChris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
You complain about the Catholic definition of marriage yet you don’t have your own. You are just throwing a tantrum that you can not defend.
Click to expand...
It’s a tantrum to keep the repeating the same question over and over, as though your ability to keep repeating it makes valid. Yours is not, as I’ve demonstrated numerous times already.
 
ASimon said:
It’s a tantrum to keep the repeating the same question over and over, as though your ability to keep repeating it makes valid. Yours is not, as I’ve demonstrated numerous times already.
Click to expand...
The subject of the thread is the incorrect definition of marriage held by many homosexuals vise the rational ancient definition of marriage held by the Catholic Church. You just want to rant against the Catholic definition without providing your own
 
ASimon said:
It’s a tantrum to keep the repeating the same question over and over, as though your ability to keep repeating it makes valid. Yours is not, as I’ve demonstrated numerous times already.
Click to expand...
It is a tantrum to rant about what you don’t like without giving an alternative. Are you afraid that your alternative is irrational?
 
Stephen168 said:
It is a tantrum to rant about what you don’t like without giving an alternative. Are you afraid that your alternative is irrational?
Click to expand...
Not at all. You clearly fail to understand the contours of this issue. If you had a good argument that your definition was valid and that it was worthy of never being changed, you wouldn’t bother asking for my definition, because it wouldn’t matter. But the fact is, you can’t defend your definition, so you try to deflect from this reality by petulantly demanding that I supply one.

Your problem is that I understand the contours of this issue quite well - enough to know that I don’t need to supply a definition to make my point. And certainly not if you’re only going to take whatever definition I supply and play semantic games. You either don’t realize this point, or are pretending you don’t realize this.
 
ASimon said:
Not at all. You clearly fail to understand the contours of this issue. If you had a good argument that your definition was valid and that it was worthy of never being changed, you wouldn’t bother asking for my definition, because it wouldn’t matter. But the fact is, you can’t defend your definition, so you try to deflect from this reality by petulantly demanding that I supply one.

Your problem is that I understand the contours of this issue quite well - enough to know that I don’t need to supply a definition to make my point. And certainly not if you’re only going to take whatever definition I supply and play semantic games. You either don’t realize this point, or are pretending you don’t realize this.
Click to expand...
Marriage is an organic part of human nature where children are raised. Of course raising children presupposes that children have a very good chance of being created by the participants. This is why same sex unions and pedophile unions are not marriage. Due to the high probability of defective offspring incestous unions are taboo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top