AJ Phillips:

Why do you insist on linking to Wikipedia pages on the theory of arguments and then proceed to tell me what is wrong with my argument? I really only need one or the other.

“So because millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together in a defacto relationship, that invalidates any value that same-sex couples see in marriage?”

Well it might do exactly that. It depends on the value you have in mind. Could you give me an example?

“The obvious answer to your question is that they see value in it, but you have fallaciously appealed to popular opinion in an attempt to discount that as a possibility.”

I have not appealed to popular opinion I have appealed to the popular behaviour of millions of people. Why do they behave in such a way that is so different from the way that same-sex couples want to behave in regards to marriage?

Toni Lavis:

We all know the legality of it. Pursuing your legal rights when there is nothing to gain from it but causing trouble is the sign of someone insecure in their own views.

and the lesbian judge who refused to sanction normal weddings. No jail, no fine but no doubt justified by the regressives.

ttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206196796333790&set=a.1145010980386.2023248.1080864852&type=1&fref=nf

phanto,

I can quit with the links if you’d prefer, but they save time and are handy for those who might want to know more about what I’m referring to.

<<Well [millions of heterosexual couples telling us that they are quite content to live together in defacto relationships] might [invalidate any value that same-sex couples see in marriage].>>

No, it would never do that. That’s the whole point. That’s why your claim is fallacious. Clearly continuing with the links wouldn’t hurt.

If one of my kids draws a picture for me, it doesn’t matter if the whole world disagrees with me that there is value in it. It still has value to me. That doesn’t change with popular opinion. My feelings don’t become invalid because many others disagree with me.

<<I have not appealed to popular opinion…>>

Yes, you have. Once again:

“Same-sex couples give many reasons why they want a marriage licence and yet none of those have any credibility when you consider that millions of heterosexual couples tell us that they are quite content to live together without a licence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6993#213892)

Either way, the following makes no difference…

<<…I have appealed to the popular behaviour of millions of people.>>

The reasoning is still fallacious. Tinkering with the wording doesn’t change that.

<<Why do they behave in such a way that is so different from the way that same-sex couples want to behave in regards to marriage?>>

That would be different for each individual couple. Either way, there are still plenty of heterosexual couples getting married. The trend in marriage may be on the decline, but a large part of that is because there is no longer a stigma surrounding defacto partnerships. Their children, for example, are no longer “bastards”.

"What kind of human being would willing pursue something that causes stress for a great many people when there is nothing to be gained by doing so? Unless it is a form of bullying in which the only way they can feel good about themselves is to cause pain for others."

You are talking about Kim Davis, correct?

So it is someone who does not respect the rule of law. Someone who ignores the oath they took in accepting their office. Someone who will not abide the decision to not hear their invalid stay appeal and is guilty of contempt of court. Someone who is a seditionist by ignoring the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Someone whose religious claims are in no way affected if she were to legally do her job.

That she is a fornicator, adulteress (X3), judging of others and a liar are irrelevent except as reflections on her life as a Baptist before joining the Solid Rock Apostolic Church in the, ironically named, town of Morehead. That she holds any authority over males is very difficult to reconcile with her pretense of believing a strictly literal interpretation of Christian pentacostalism.

No, the only bullying in this instance is by Kim Davis.

//We all know the legality of it. Pursuing your legal rights when there is nothing to gain from it but causing trouble is the sign of someone insecure in their own views.//

Apparently you don't. Contempt charges are levelled by the court, and they do have something to gain from it besides 'causing trouble': it helps maintain the rule of law, without which we'd all be stuffed. And they're definitely not insecure in their own views: courts have frowned on contempt for many, many moons and have never shown any signs of wavering.

//Its all about 'love'. Only a fool would believe that.//

Runner, isn't that exactly what the Bible teaches? That it is all about love?

Are people who follow the Bible foolish?