If you're constipated it's relevant.
But I'm not actually constipated, now, am I? That is what figures of speech is all about, isn't it?
2+3=5 therefore 3+2=5, logical and no argument.
Says who?
The formal argument for that equation is:
1. 2 is real number -- Proof: definition of a real number
2. 3 is a real number -- Proof: definition of a real number
3. 5 is a real number -- Proof: definition of a real number
4. If 2+3 = 5, then 3+2=5 -- Proof: commutative property of addition
Did you honestly think that because it is unstated, it isn't an argument?
Duh?
No, of course not, that's why I said that your argument was not proof.
Apparently, I do need to explain simple concepts to you.
Oh yeah, here's what it says: "Ontology, The subject of ontology is the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain. The product of such a study, called an ontology, ..." The emphasis is mine. Because you study something doesn't mean that it exists. Once again you have provided no proof.
Correct. The question you need to ask yourself is -- exactly what domain are you contemplating?
Clearly, we are not talking exclusively of the physical world. Otherwise, mathematics doesn't exist in such a domain.
Duh?
Well, I'm sure the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary got it wrong then.
If you were fastidous in copying and pasting, then it most certainly got it wrong.
Philosophy isn't proof either.
Yikes!
The natural sciences -- previously called natural philosophy -- are philosophical fields of inquiry.
What errors of fact and errors of logic would you come up with next?
One of the problems you have is that you ovethink things and your thinking gets fluffy. No, I never said that ANY kind of sex was a manifestation of love. You apparently whomped that one up all by yourself. Sexual orientation is an innate quality and the sex drive is hormonally powered, that's why you will lose sexual drive and potency as you age and your testosterone levels drop.
Of course you missed the point --
AGAIN.
The question is -- can you relativize conjugal love to include homosexual love?
Clearly, the answer is
NO. Homosexual love cannot be construed as conjugal love because it logically lacks the pro-creative aspect necessary for conjugal love.
Might conjugal love include all heterosexual love? The anwer is again
NO. While heterosexual love may include both unitive and pro-creative aspects, it doesn't always follow that they are the
INTENT.
Do you realize how silly you look attempting to make out that Jesus advocated anal sex? What's with this obsession? Does it get you hot to talk graphically about butt-surfing on the internet? Golly, Nums, you're gettin' way out on the edge here with your accusation about Jesus. It does remind me though that a porno movie was made about Jesus being gay and having sex with all the guys He traveled around with way back when. I always thought that was a pretty stupid kind of movie to make, but I don't know, you might have it in your collection the way you're talking about Jesus now. Does your wife know you are posting this way?
What dishonest nonsense.
Where you not the one trying to peddle the argument that jesus' commandment of love includes homosexuality? As ts garp said -- there's no sex like trans sex!
You have said a lot of things, why in the last paragraph you went crazy about Jesus and gay sex. I don't know how you got that with logic and facts though. Nor do I know how you can be an apologist for the Pope's riches.
Hmmm.
Is that not the consequence of your context-less commandment of love -- that gay sex may still conform with jesus' commandment?
And your robin hood economics is no less absurd than that.
Duh?
Well you certainly make a lot of comments about something you have no interest in. My guess is that you don't want to admit your prurient interests, most Christians are taught from an early age to suppress and deny their sexual urges.
And what comments might those be, hmmm?
Oh, and christians don't deny their sexual urges. They simply put them in their proper -- you guessed it --
CONTEXT.
Whoa! First it's gay sex and now you're accusing Jesus of promoting masochism? You are one sick puppy, Nums, does your wife know? She's in it with you, isn't she? High black boots, a riding crop, you naked on your hands and knees, ball-gag in your mouth, a$$ red from the crop hitting it... Does she wear a corset too, stockings and a garter belt? You have spent so much time fantasizing about my sex life and Jesus' sex life that I think it's only fair that we get to fantasize about yours. A dog collar, I bet she makes you wear a dog collar too, doesn't she? Does she make you paint her toenails too?
Don't work yourself up to a sexual frenzy. Its all in your head
