A Political and Moral dilemma solved: Homosexuality

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Considering it's gays who think that marriage is incomplete without children, I'm surprised you don't see your own hypocrisy in taking that position.

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

Of course not all gay people are the same- only bigots like yourself assume that.

That is why you assume that all lesbians are 'lezbo dykes who are angry and bitter'

'Leftists' like me- whatever the hell that means- because once again you presume that everyone is the same.

Me?

I think that people should be treated the same whether they are gay or straight- and that includes decisions on marriage and on having and raising children.

There's gay people and then there's the militant fag militia. I know you know the difference even if you pretend not to.

 

[Skylar]

What you said was that my opinion of the law does not influence the law... which if equality before the law is true, as you claim it... then that must mean that your opinion of the law does not influence the law.

Thus your opinion that the law supports your opinion, over mine... would be your belief that the law does not equally support my opinion.

Which is YOU... refuting YOU!.

Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It does.

Nullius in verba

Your Re-re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Templar....that's Keyes white flag. What he says when his argument is spent, his claims debunked.

It apparently didn't take you much time at all force his retreat.

It rarely does.

 

[Skylar]

I reject your demand that the argument be premised on an agreed to fact that marriage by definition can only be between one man and one woman.

So what? All you're rejecting is a law of nature and you're basing that upon the idiocy that your rejecting it somehow excludes you from the consequences of rejecting it.

One small problem: rejecting you isn't rejecting nature.

As you're not nature.

Is there anything else to you but the Appeal to Authority fallacy?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Circular reasoning. As your evidence and your conclusion is the same thing.

Circular reason only exists where the PREMISE > is < the evidence of the conclusion... all valid conclusions are the result of sustaining evidence.

"Creation exists, thus evidence of the Creator." The Creator is another term for God... Therefore where the Creator exists, God exists."

(Reader, Anti-theism has many pat rationalizations all of which begin and end with the conclusion "There is no God". Anti-theism is the purest embodiment of Circulus in Probando and Petitio Principii.

But, in fairness... such is no less fallacious than any other notion resting upon he addled drivel common to Relativism.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One small problem: rejecting you isn't rejecting nature.

Just as projecting me to be Nature because I recognize the observable and otherwise irrefutable laws of nature does not negate either.

But, in fairness to you, as a Relativist, whose species of reasoning axiomatically rejects the objectivity essential to truth, there was NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[Skylar]

Circular reasoning. As your evidence and your conclusion is the same thing.

Circular reason only exists where the PREMISE is evidence of the conclusion... all valid conclusions are the result of sustaining evidence.

"God must exist because the universe exists.

The Universe must exist because God exists. "

That's your argument. And it has no corners.

And you can't back any of it factually. As God isn't necessary for a universe per your own reasoning. Only a first mover would be. And a first mover's only characteristic is that it moved first. Not that it be 'god'. Or sentient. Or good. Or all powerful. Or even exist after moving.

All of these additional attributes and characteristics beyond 'moving first' have no basis in your first mover argument. Nor are supported by it. Which you know. But really hope we don't.

Thus, even by your own standards, you have no rational basis for the claim that God created the universe. And as I established logically, its almost certain that you're self deluded.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

One small problem: rejecting you isn't rejecting nature.

Just as projecting me to be Nature because I recognize the observable and otherwise irrefutable laws of nature does not negate either.

No, you cherry pick nature to match what you already believe. Let me demonstrate.

Predation of the sick and old happens all the time in nature. Is preying on the old and sick 'natural law', and thus 'god's law'?

Of course not. Demonstrating undeniably that 'observations of nature' isn't your source. You are your source. As you'll ignore anything in nature that doesn't match your beliefs. Or as we as its also called.....Confirmation Bias.

Thus, rejecting you is merely rejecting your relativistic beliefs and your Confirmation Bias. Not nature.

Laughing....are Appeal Authority fallacies really all you've got?

 

[Syriusly]

Considering you are just making crap up, you shouldn't be surprised when we recognize your BS.

Some homosexuals want to have children.
Some heterosexuals want to have children.
Some homosexuals want to get married.
Some heterosexuals want to get married.
And some couples- whether homosexual or heterosexual want to get married and want to have children.

And others don't.

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

Of course not all gay people are the same- only bigots like yourself assume that.

That is why you assume that all lesbians are 'lezbo dykes who are angry and bitter'

'Leftists' like me- whatever the hell that means- because once again you presume that everyone is the same.

Me?

I think that people should be treated the same whether they are gay or straight- and that includes decisions on marriage and on having and raising children.

There's gay people and then there's the militant fag militia. I know you know the difference even if you pretend not to.

Yeah- just like there are African Americans who 'know their place', and then there are n*ggers.

Bigots use the language of bigots- and that would be you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And some homosexuals who are fertile forgo the natural method for siring children and create a domestic structure that makes having kids impossible yet want to find some way to cheat and suck an innocent child into their whacky world.

'cheat'?

LOL.....how is using artificial insemination 'cheating'?

And all parents suck their innocent children into their whacky world- that is what parents do- normally though we just call it parenting.

Is that what your 'best friends' are doing- and is that why you despise your 'best friends' for being the 'lezbo dykes' because they use artificial insemination......

They don't have kids but they're wonderful aunts to ours. I asked them one time about having kids. They laughed at that and said if they wanted their own kids they would have married men.

Exactly.

It's why I'm confident that Leftists like you don't represent gay people. They're not all like you.

Of course not all gay people are the same- only bigots like yourself assume that.

That is why you assume that all lesbians are 'lezbo dykes who are angry and bitter'

'Leftists' like me- whatever the hell that means- because once again you presume that everyone is the same.

Me?

I think that people should be treated the same whether they are gay or straight- and that includes decisions on marriage and on having and raising children.

There's gay people and then there's the militant fag militia. I know you know the difference even if you pretend not to.

Yeah- just like there are African Americans who 'know their place', and then there are n*ggers.

Bigots use the language of bigots- and that would be you.

You know it in your heart. I didn't call all gay people faggots. Just you. Funny thing is, I know gay people who think assholes like you are faggots too. If you actually knew any gay people you'd know they are firm believers in the distinction between gay people and faggots.

I'm beginning to think you don't know any.