To speak on that which is true, or to speak on that which you perceive to be true, is to speak from your personal inclination to that which you believe to be true, or, hope to be true. To speak from truth is to speak from authority is to speak from a judgement seat. One's personal inclination, otherwise known as an opinion, is arbitrarily viewed, by the person speaking, as something far greater than it is in reality.
If you believe that what you say is true, it is true for you in that moment; is it therefore the truth because you say it is?
If someone speaks from truth, one speaks from a position of authority; does what you have to say speak from the weightiness of that position when you declare a thing about someones health, for example, even though you are not his doctor? If you are not his doctor and you speak that which you believe to be true regarding his health, are you speaking life, or death, into the ears of the one whose health you have made yourself the authority over?
Aristotle arrived at the following conclusion:
If, then, it is impossible truthfully to assert and to deny anything at the same time, it is also impossible for contraries to belong to anything at the same time; either both must belong to it only in a way, or one must belong to it in a way, and the other absolutely.Through his proof development he argued his case to this conclusion. And, if it is true that two contraries cannot belong to anything at the same time, how can one speak truth when one vacillates between the ideal and the real?
(The Philosophy of Aristotle, Signet Classics, page 55)
If your presentation of the ideal is delivered as reality in truth, then what you are speaking is only what you hope to be true, but not true at all. Do you understand with the intellect that there is truth and that there is falsehood?
...it is not possible, either, for there to be any intermediate between contradictory assertions; any one thing must be either asserted or denied of any other. This will become clear if we first of all define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false, and to say that what is is, or that what is not is not, is true; so that the man who says that anything either is or is not will be speaking either truly or falsely; but where there is an intermediate assertion, neither what is nor what is not is being said either to be or not to be. (ibid, page 55).Aristotle goes on to say that in order for one to hold a view regarding these things, we must start with a definition and the definition will fit the name, or term, of that which we speak.
If there is a known definition of truth, and a known definition of falsehood, but you do not hold to the asserted definitions, but create your own definition(s) to those terms, or any other terms, there is, therefore the impossibility of argument between the two sides of an opinion, because you have changed the basic foundation of the naming of terms by your re-writing of the definition(s) by your prescribed views.
In this case, your ideal is your perceived real by your classification of your re-defined terms and statements. It then becomes implausible to argue the points because what is is not and what is not is.
This is, perhaps, an explanation of why the reflexive domain of the insurgent and the cult is complimented by its loudness and its largeness, because the ideal dwells in the perception of truth and can make of itself whatever it says it is, whether it is, or is not.
By creating new definitions for terms, such as truth, falsehood, or marriage, the reflexive domain removes the foundation of what is with the flow of change.
Truth is and must remain in a stated foundation of definition just as marriage is and must remain constant rather than having change as the authority in lieu of truth. Perceptions are perceptions and are as a river, ever changing. Truth is what is and is found in Jesus Christ. Marriage is the bond between one man and one woman. It is, has always been, and will always be.