LESSONS IN LOGIC: Logical Extension As Applied To ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling

Last week, the oligarchy we once called The Supreme Court asserted the pretense that they could redefine marriage by decreeing a ‘right’ to ‘gay’ marriage in the Constitution.  Setting aside the fact that none of this is true, I find myself presented with an excellent opportunity to illustrate some truths that I have tried to explain since I started blogging.  In this particular case, I had an acquaintance and FaceBook ‘friend’ decide he could not longer be my ‘friend.’  I say he because he was born male, but had surgery to change his body so that it appears female.  Now, until last week, we got along.  He knew I did not agree with him, but I did not attack him.  In fact, I cannot remember doing anything that a reasonable person would see as judging him.  But I posted something last week that caused him to tell me I had ‘crossed the line’ and, because I posted this news story — a story actually in the news — I was no longer his friend.  The reason he decided I am no longer his friend, and the way he reacted is the perfect illustration of ‘logical extension,’ as well as clear evidence that morality is either universal or does not exist at all.

OK, let’s start with this claim we are seeing in response to this attempt to change Natural Law: ‘Love is love.’

This attempt to redefine marriage has nothing to do with love or trying to tell people who they can and cannot love.  It has everything to do with trying to force people to believe man can change Natural Law simply by changing the meaning of words.  This is an absolute absurdity, and those who believe it are suffering from mental delusions bordering on true insanity.  My experience with this former ‘friend’ proves it.

First, he is a man.  I say this because — by definition — his ‘xy’ chromosome arrangement defines him as a male.  No amount of surgery, belief or assertions can change this.  So he is a male.  But he claims to be a woman who was ‘accidentally’ born into a male body.  Again, bu definition, this is not possible without first admitting that there is something other than our physical body that constitutes our conscious will (i.e. man has a soul).  If this is admitted, then we need to write an entirely different post to deal with this issue because it creates a whole new set of problems for LGBT agenda.  So we have another impossibility (a woman being born into a male body) be asserted as a ‘truth.’  But this man, surgically turned in to a ‘woman,’ then married another man who had surgically turned himself into a ‘woman.’  This means both of them want us to believe they are lesbians born into male bodies.  There is no logical argument that can be made to support this assertion without creating an absurdity, which means this is an absurdity — period!  The truth here is that these two people are suffering from very real psychological disorders.  But they still want to claim that this is all about love.

OK, let us accept their claim for the sake of evaluating the logical extension that results.  Then we will ask ourselves whether or not we want to accept this claim as a justification for accepting ‘gay’ marriage.  We will do so by asking ourselves how the gay agenda’s arguments for why they should be allowed to marry is any different from the claims in this story:

Now That Gay Marriage Is Legal, Guess What’s Next? Yup. Polygamy!

There can be no objection to polygamy.  If we take all the arguments from the gay agenda and simply insert polygamy, we will have the same logical argument.  Polygamists can claim to be born this way.  They can argue they are not harming anyone.  Their sex lives are their business.  They have a right to love whoever they want to love.  Logically, there simply is no argument against polygamy — not now.  But there is another argument that also applies now, and the reason my ‘friend’ told me I crossed the line is because I posted this story:

University Academics Say Pedophilia Is ‘Natural, And Normal For Males To Be Aroused By Children’

Now, I understand the objection here will be that a child cannot give consent.  But I would ask you why a child — of any age — can consent to have an abortion without their parents being involved, or even a guardian ad litem?  Or how can we claim children cannot consent when the government — through the schools — have provided legal protection for children to have sex by handing our condoms and teaching them how to have sex as young as the age of 5?  You cannot!

But here, we are not talking about a child’s right to consent to having sex, we are talking about love.  Are you going to tell me that I cannot tell a gay person who they can love, but the gay person can turn around and tell the child who they can love?  You see, this is exactly why my ‘friend’ told me I went too far.  He sees a moral difference between his life and pedophilia.  But he also feels he has the authority to tell the whole nation we must accept his definition of what is and is not moral and only his definition.  He told me as long as I lived according to his rules, he would be my ‘friend,’ but when I posted a story that says ‘gay’ marriage is equivalent to pedophilia, well, then he said I had gone too far.  Well, I am sorry for my friend, but he does not get to have his cake and eat it, too.  If he is going to tell the country that ‘gay’ marriage is morally equivalent to marriage based on ‘love,’ then he has no rational grounds to object to a pedophile making the same claim — based on love.  Especially when we have ‘experts’ in the universities telling us pedophiles are born this way and that this is ‘natural.’

This is why I say morality has to be universal or it does not exist.  My ‘friend’ cannot tell me his life style is moral and then tell a pedophile their lifestyle is immoral.  I say this because the same arguments my friend uses to defend his life style apply to the pedophile.  So, for my friend to say the pedophile is immoral, my friend must also admit his lifestyle is immoral.  If he tries to split hairs, he does so arbitrarily, and that is fallacious reasoning.  That means he is making a mistake of logic.  This matters because, if you cannot make a logical argument for why something is moral, it is not moral!  But, if you have to create an argument where your lifestyle is OK, but mine is not, even though I can use the same exact argument you use for your lifestyle, then you are creating a contradiction.  A contradiction is worse than a fallacy.  You can commit a fallacy and still be correct, but if you create a contradiction, everyone is right — and wrong!  You see, logic tells us that, from a contradiction, all things follow.

THIS IS THE POINT!  The GLBT agenda rests on contradictions, and from a contradiction, ALL things follow!

In other words, forcing society to accept ‘gay’ marriage is actually forcing society to accept a contradiction.  This will destroy any sense of morality in our society.  Since morality is the glue that binds a society together, what we are really being forced to accept is the destruction of our society.  And we are doing it all in the name of ‘love.’

Now, I ask you, how is it ‘love’ if it forces me to accept the destruction of civilization?