This guy does such a perfect job of illustrating how Leftist indoctrination and NPC regurgitation works.
Its in those little phrases he keeps peppering in over and over.
'and natural' 'and good and beneficial' 'simply cruel' 'which is certain' 'and from life itself'
These are designed specifically to emotionally manipulate you as you read. They thought kill you into not arguing specific points by preemptively addressing them, and by arousing certain emotions in you to not even want to acknowledge them. Every sentence he writes is designed to set up those little barbs. Which is given the most power with:
I could get into these if you want
Which is a challenge, a taunt. Its him flexing that he thinks himself an expert and is ready to school you if you question him. He already knows every response he will give and will puke it back in a nearly practiced response.
Its also built upon a singular stance that has no biblical basis. Which is "harm is bad." The Bible is filled with stories of harming for good, including out of love. Its a complete Modern Day Leftist position to think "harm prevention" is the end all be all of all thoughts, which is the cornerstone of all pro-gay and other pro-X activism.
Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.
This guy does such a perfect job of illustrating how Leftist indoctrination and NPC regurgitation works.
Its in those little phrases he keeps peppering in over and over.
These are designed specifically to emotionally manipulate you as you read. They thought kill you into not arguing specific points by preemptively addressing them, and by arousing certain emotions in you to not even want to acknowledge them. Every sentence he writes is designed to set up those little barbs. Which is given the most power with:
Which is a challenge, a taunt. Its him flexing that he thinks himself an expert and is ready to school you if you question him. He already knows every response he will give and will puke it back in a nearly practiced response.
Its also built upon a singular stance that has no biblical basis. Which is "harm is bad." The Bible is filled with stories of harming for good, including out of love. Its a complete Modern Day Leftist position to think "harm prevention" is the end all be all of all thoughts, which is the cornerstone of all pro-gay and other pro-X activism.
Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
And, well... here we are...
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.