What does βloveβ mean in this context? Certainly not a marriage love which can only exist between complementary entities/a man and a woman. Like all simplistic catchphrases, it can mean whatever one wants it to. One of the common placards weβve seen at rallies is βLove is loveβ implying that all love is the same. The quality of love, however, depends on what is loved. One can love evil as surely as one can love good. One can love foolishly as surely as one can love wisely. A foolish love is one that is based solely on how one feels at the time. It does not look at the rightness or wrongness. It does not look at or care about the consequences. True love is love that syncs with/cooperates with the wisdom of God.
My catchphrase for this situation (US capitulation) would be
The false equivalence David, is that being able to marry the person you love who is the same gender as you are is equivalent to any of the following: marrying your brother, making soup with anything you want to put into it, that two woman cold marry one man Whilst i do like Penelope’s feistiness), having your love for a tree recognised as legitimate, allowing Eustace to have 4 wives, that a mother might want to marry her own daughter, that 3 women cold marry one another, that 47 people could all marry each other. None of those things is equivalent to the arguments of #equalmarriage or #lovewins and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that the one will naturally lead to, or is the equivalent of, the other.
I see you have no argument with which to address my comment…I have explained to you what I meant by false equivalence, you did not ask me why I do not think the two are the same – you obviously do however, so how about we start there; why are the list of things I think are not the same as ma sex marriage actually the same ?
aaaah, I see what has happened here. In your rush to outrage you’ve not paused long enough to actually understand the argument being raised which is simply that the principle of #lovewins is entirely inconsistently applied. It should be #somelovewins but not #alllovewins.
Any #lovewins advocate that opposes polyamory, incest and the rest of it is entirely inconsistent and, dare we say it, displays an irrational bigotry and phobia towards those relationships they cannot, in their narrow-minded prejudice, understand. Such a knee-jerk revulsion for perfectly legitimate loving relationships is surely unworthy of our enlightened and open society.
Or is it the case that, after all, #lovewins isn’t entirely true? If not, then the various cartoons should not be a problem for you at all.
I agree David. I believe the “#lovewins and βequalityβ arguments” are based entirely on emotion. Logic and common sense have completely flown out the window and the ‘reason’, which properly should be used to discover and highlight the truth of the matter, is being used as a tool of the wants/what one feels will make them happy. It may in the very short term or superficially but because it is at odds with God’s order of life, it has no potential for lasting fulfilment or eternal happiness. One can sort of understand an atheist, who by definition does not believe in eternal life, being fooled but even they should be capable of seeing the illogic and lack of common-sense involved. If we all just lived out our feelings, whims and fancies (many of which stem from our fallen nature) what a horrible world it would be. There is a real purpose for genuine reason.
I think it’s a mistake to think about this issue in terms of people being “gay or straight”. IMO no one is born ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. These are just terms to show that some people are affected by feelings of same-sex sexual attraction and some are not, just as some feel attracted to other’s spouses and some to children. Feelings alone do not define who or what we are or become. It is our choices that define us. A same-sex attracted person has a harder choice but it is still a choice – to encourage and affirm those feelings, or not. Some may be so badly affected that they find it impossible to rise above such feelings so we need to be tolerant and compassionate even as we want others to be compassionate towards us on account of the various problems that we face. (‘Do as you would be done by’).
I find these little snippets a legitimate satirical way of demonstrating the incongruity of the claims being made.
Loading...
Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rulesCancel reply
#lovewins
What does βloveβ mean in this context? Certainly not a marriage love which can only exist between complementary entities/a man and a woman. Like all simplistic catchphrases, it can mean whatever one wants it to. One of the common placards weβve seen at rallies is βLove is loveβ implying that all love is the same. The quality of love, however, depends on what is loved. One can love evil as surely as one can love good. One can love foolishly as surely as one can love wisely. A foolish love is one that is based solely on how one feels at the time. It does not look at the rightness or wrongness. It does not look at or care about the consequences. True love is love that syncs with/cooperates with the wisdom of God.
My catchphrase for this situation (US capitulation) would be
#βloveβwins:marriageloses .
This is absolutely disgusting. You call yourself a Christian, and yet you poke fun at gay people. Not very impressed.
Noone here is making fun of gay people.
What I am, however, making fun of is the utter inconsistency of those who use the #lovewins and “equality” arguments. Whether they’re gay or straight.
No, you’re disingenuously using false equivalence and touting it as logical conclusion, when in all reality, it is merely logical fallacy
What’s the false equivalence, Greg?
Yes, where is the false equivalence?
The false equivalence David, is that being able to marry the person you love who is the same gender as you are is equivalent to any of the following: marrying your brother, making soup with anything you want to put into it, that two woman cold marry one man Whilst i do like Penelope’s feistiness), having your love for a tree recognised as legitimate, allowing Eustace to have 4 wives, that a mother might want to marry her own daughter, that 3 women cold marry one another, that 47 people could all marry each other. None of those things is equivalent to the arguments of #equalmarriage or #lovewins and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that the one will naturally lead to, or is the equivalent of, the other.
I see. So in a nutshell your argument is that it’s false equivalence just because it is. Repeating your assertion doesn’t demonstrate it.
I see you have no argument with which to address my comment…I have explained to you what I meant by false equivalence, you did not ask me why I do not think the two are the same – you obviously do however, so how about we start there; why are the list of things I think are not the same as ma sex marriage actually the same ?
aaaah, I see what has happened here. In your rush to outrage you’ve not paused long enough to actually understand the argument being raised which is simply that the principle of #lovewins is entirely inconsistently applied. It should be #somelovewins but not #alllovewins.
Any #lovewins advocate that opposes polyamory, incest and the rest of it is entirely inconsistent and, dare we say it, displays an irrational bigotry and phobia towards those relationships they cannot, in their narrow-minded prejudice, understand. Such a knee-jerk revulsion for perfectly legitimate loving relationships is surely unworthy of our enlightened and open society.
Or is it the case that, after all, #lovewins isn’t entirely true? If not, then the various cartoons should not be a problem for you at all.
I agree David. I believe the “#lovewins and βequalityβ arguments” are based entirely on emotion. Logic and common sense have completely flown out the window and the ‘reason’, which properly should be used to discover and highlight the truth of the matter, is being used as a tool of the wants/what one feels will make them happy. It may in the very short term or superficially but because it is at odds with God’s order of life, it has no potential for lasting fulfilment or eternal happiness. One can sort of understand an atheist, who by definition does not believe in eternal life, being fooled but even they should be capable of seeing the illogic and lack of common-sense involved. If we all just lived out our feelings, whims and fancies (many of which stem from our fallen nature) what a horrible world it would be. There is a real purpose for genuine reason.
I think it’s a mistake to think about this issue in terms of people being “gay or straight”. IMO no one is born ‘gay’ or ‘straight’. These are just terms to show that some people are affected by feelings of same-sex sexual attraction and some are not, just as some feel attracted to other’s spouses and some to children. Feelings alone do not define who or what we are or become. It is our choices that define us. A same-sex attracted person has a harder choice but it is still a choice – to encourage and affirm those feelings, or not. Some may be so badly affected that they find it impossible to rise above such feelings so we need to be tolerant and compassionate even as we want others to be compassionate towards us on account of the various problems that we face. (‘Do as you would be done by’).
I find these little snippets a legitimate satirical way of demonstrating the incongruity of the claims being made.