A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

Your attempt to make the observation into a concoction is simply you trying to reject the law, by claiming man doesn't have the authority.

I truth, the law is what it is... and you either respect it and prosper as a consequence or reject and suffer as a consequence.

For instance... one can be 'gay'; which is to say merry, festive and sportive... as a consequence of one's pursuit of legitimate endeavors, or one can DEMAND THAT THEY'RE "GAY", because words which accurately describe one's endeavors tend to identify one is illegitimate.

See how that works?

The Former produces the consequence of being happy... while the latter produces unenviable consequences forcing one to PRETEND that they're happy and using illicit measures to mislead others into falsely 'believing' that one is happy; which brings more unenviable consequences... but we do not need to dig all the way through the puss to see the presence of such.

 

[Skylar]

LOL!

NOOooo sweetheart...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Always has been, always will be.

Because that's the way Nature designed humanity.

All you are is an expression of evil, in a temporal rising of evil. History is clear on this... Evil rises and God SLAPS it down.

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

What? Keyes cherry picking 'nature' again? You don't say.

But I thought his argument was that observations of nature define 'natural law' which tells us 'god's law'. Unless Keyes doesn't like that part of nature in which case he arbitrarily ignores it. With Keyes citing keyes being the one to decide what 'observations of nature' define natural law and which don't.

Laughing.....and this his calls 'objective'.

I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

 

[Lilah]

Canada's free speech rights were limited in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms long before gay marriage was made legal.

The US and Canadian legal treatments of speech are not comparable.

So what? Have those rights and freedoms expanded or retracted as a result of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality?

Which simply asks: Can one speak more freely because Homosexuals are finding power Gilligan, or has the things a person can say more limited?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

Your attempt to make the observation into a concoction is simply you trying to reject the law, by claiming man doesn't have the authority.

I truth, the law is what it is... and you either respect it and prosper as a consequence or reject and suffer as a consequence.

For instance... one can be 'gay'; which is to say merry, festive and sportive... as a consequence of one's pursuit of legitimate endeavors, or one can DEMAND THAT THEY'RE "GAY", because words which accurately describe one's endeavors tend to identify one is illegitimate.

See how that works?

The Former produces the consequence of being happy... while the latter produces unenviable consequences forcing one to PRETEND that they're happy and using illicit measures to mislead others into falsely 'believing' that one is happy; which brings more unenviable consequences... but we do not need to dig all the way through the puss to see the presence of such.

What do you suggest be done with those darn gay penguins? And for that matter, all the other gay animals?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

.

No it doesn't. Nature makes human females sexually mature in their early teens - societies very often defy nature in that regard and replace it with moral principle or rule that says human females should not even have sex, much less reproduce, until a much later age.

Morals are nothing more than opinions, with varying degrees of support within various societies or among individuals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Canada's free speech rights were limited in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms long before gay marriage was made legal.

The US and Canadian legal treatments of speech are not comparable.

So what? Have those rights and freedoms expanded or retracted as a result of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality?

Which simply asks: Can one speak more freely because Homosexuals are finding power Gilligan, or has the things a person can say more limited?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

Your attempt to make the observation into a concoction is simply you trying to reject the law, by claiming man doesn't have the authority.

I truth, the law is what it is... and you either respect it and prosper as a consequence or reject and suffer as a consequence.

For instance... one can be 'gay'; which is to say merry, festive and sportive... as a consequence of one's pursuit of legitimate endeavors, or one can DEMAND THAT THEY'RE "GAY", because words which accurately describe one's endeavors tend to identify one is illegitimate.

See how that works?

The Former produces the consequence of being happy... while the latter produces unenviable consequences forcing one to PRETEND that they're happy and using illicit measures to mislead others into falsely 'believing' that one is happy; which brings more unenviable consequences... but we do not need to dig all the way through the puss to see the presence of such.

What do you suggest be done with those darn gay penguins? And for that matter, all the other gay animals?

He has already conceded that humans are vastly different from the other species.

 

[Skylar]

That is YOUR definition. Times have changed.

LOL! Adorable..

No Scamp... I am just conveying it to you. I got it from nature, who designed the human species, with two distinct, but complimenting Genders. Each, respectively designed to join with the other, physically and emotionally... forming one sustainable body, from two.

Nothing about that changes, with time or anything else.

You see, Natural Law is not subject to antiquity... it does not change at the whimsy of popular opinion.

For instance, if every single person on earth, believed to the core of their very being that if they flapped their arms hard enough that such would establish sufficient lift to allow them to fly... that devotion to that delusion would not lift so much as a single individual.

See how that works?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality. With you citing you being the sole arbiter of which 'observations of nature' define morality and which 'observations of nature' are immoral.....according to you.

Infacide exists in nature. Homosexual behavior exists in nature. The predation of the sick, the old, the young exists in nature.

But you ignore them all. Eliminating 'observations of nature' as your source on morality. Its still just you, citing you, arbitrarily ignoring anything that doesn't match what you already believe.......insisting that your personal opinion is objective truth.

Laughing.....nope.

I truth, the law is what it is... and you either respect it and prosper as a consequence or reject and suffer as a consequence.

In truth, its just you citing yourself. You're expressing your subjective opinion. But you citing you establishes nothing objectively. And your standards of the 'law' are based on an illogical and irrational basis. As you ignore your own source (nature) whenever nature conflicts with what you already believe. That's the Cherrypicking fallacy of logic and the Confirmation Bias fallacy of logic.

Where rationally, any valid basis of objective morality wouldn't be based on logical fallacies. Yet yours is.

No thank you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What government statute has criminalized the use of 13 words about Hillary Clinton?

Oh!

Now aren't you the sharp little bowling ball... LOOK AT YOU GO GILLIGAN!

There you are suffering the inability to rise above the heady complexities of 'cause and effect'. Oh how those two element equations baffle you.

Here's the thing... the 13 forbidden words are forbidden by the Liberal Candidate for the CHIEF Law Enforcement Officer of the US.

The Claim of your Cult, thus of you be extension, is that "Liberals defend Free Speech"... which is to say that your entire argument here, is that because the US has a constitution which protects free speech and Canada being communist 'NEVER HAD FREE SPEECH...' (I think that was you, wasn't it?) and because Liberals DEFEND FREE SPEECH... that it was unreasonable to project that what happened in communist Canukistan, CAN NEVER HAPPEN HERE!

All I did was to offer a few irrefutable examples of US liberals, undermining the right to speak freely, through the illicit use of this communist Canadian notion of "HATE-SPEECH" and in so doing, I demonstrated that such was not only common among the rabble of the common comrade-liberal... but that such was being LEAD BY COMRADE CLINTON herself! The air-head apparent to the thrown of the Peasantpimpery.

Ya see Gilligan, that's the cause... the Effect are the laws, which have yet to come, but which the author of the article in the OP, makes us aware that have come to pass in communist Canada.

I know it's a horrifically complex thing to ask a person like you to understand, but you are the one that got you here, so... it's sorta your job to understand, not my job to teach you, by having to break everything down into the niblets that you can digest.

So try to bring it up a whole bunch of notches, OK??

(Reader, Gilligan will now be taking some time off, as it must now become FASCINATED with anything else, having had it's ass handed to it, once again. Not to worry tho', once this page is set well back from the current, it will be back to pretend that this never happened.

Maybe when you see it again, you can ask it why it failed to respond... and rest assured, it will have little interest in any such discussion.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

But in your defense, as a Relativist of the lowest order, there is NO WAY you could ever understand that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

But in your defense, as a Relativist of the lowest order, there is NO WAY you could ever understand that.

Don't go with nature, she doesn't believe in the bullshit you do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What do you suggest be done with those darn gay penguins? And for that matter, all the other gay animals?

OH LILAH... You haven't heard?

Nature has already decided that for those poor little boogers... They've been dealt out of the gene-pool.

But hey... it's literally, for the best, of which they're not a part.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

But in your defense, as a Relativist of the lowest order, there is NO WAY you could ever understand that.

Don't go with nature, she doesn't believe in the bullshit you do.

No? Huh...

So, you're saying that Nature is a fan of the homosexual?

But.... Paint old man... if that's true, then why is Nature culling the homosexual from the human herd; genetically speaking, of course?

You'd think that if Nature was as you imply, it would be promoting the interests of the homosexual and not presently leading it to its certain destruction... .

Break this down for me, so I can understand what you're saying.

(Reader, best put on your seat belt here... we're may be looking at a series of inexplicable irrational twists and turns. Just get ready, to be on the safe side.)

 

[Skylar]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

You ignoring any part of nature you don't like isn't objective. Its utterly arbitrary. As your sole basis for ignoring any part of nature you see fit.....is that it doesn't match what you already believe. That's the Cherry Picking fallacy of logic and the Confirmation Bias fallacy of logic.

Your entire basis of 'morality' is predicated on a pair of logical fallacies. No objectively valid system of morality would be.

Thank you for again demonstrating why your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively.

 

[Skylar]

So what? Have those rights and freedoms expanded or retracted as a result of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality?

Which simply asks: Can one speak more freely because Homosexuals are finding power Gilligan, or has the things a person can say more limited?

Show where the U.S. government has limited such free speech...

Repeating this with the hope that where_is_my_brain will respond this time ...

Should we break out the ... oh my... How can I say this without being accused of Racism? You know... ( the 'N-Word') ?

Maybe we should take a gander at the only Democrat whose expressed her intention to run for Peasantpimp, regarding "The 13 words you can’t write about Hillary Clinton anymore..."

Do we need to discuss what can and cannot be asked when interviewing individuals for jobs?

Or what Bakers and Photographers can't say when they're taking orders for their services?

That's not how it works. Sex is not solely a reproductive function in humans. It is unnatural to believe it is.

Hammers are not solely used for pounding inanimate objects... that doesn't make such use sound, or morally justified, dumbass.

Oh, I see. Now you want to throw your longtime pal Nature under the bus and shift to man's concoctions of morality as the arbiter of right and wrong.

lol, good one.

Nature defines morality Gilligan, man merely observes the law set by nature.

Your attempt to make the observation into a concoction is simply you trying to reject the law, by claiming man doesn't have the authority.

I truth, the law is what it is... and you either respect it and prosper as a consequence or reject and suffer as a consequence.

For instance... one can be 'gay'; which is to say merry, festive and sportive... as a consequence of one's pursuit of legitimate endeavors, or one can DEMAND THAT THEY'RE "GAY", because words which accurately describe one's endeavors tend to identify one is illegitimate.

See how that works?

The Former produces the consequence of being happy... while the latter produces unenviable consequences forcing one to PRETEND that they're happy and using illicit measures to mislead others into falsely 'believing' that one is happy; which brings more unenviable consequences... but we do not need to dig all the way through the puss to see the presence of such.

What do you suggest be done with those darn gay penguins? And for that matter, all the other gay animals?

He has already conceded that humans are vastly different from the other species.

I once had Keys ignore me for a week because I wouldn't accept his personal faith in God as objective evidence. With Keys insisting that since God defines faith, his faith must be objective.

It was like watching a dog chase its own tail.

 

[Skylar]

What do you suggest be done with those darn gay penguins? And for that matter, all the other gay animals?

OH LILAH... You haven't heard?

Nature has already decided that for those poor little boogers... They've been dealt out of the gene-pool.

But hey... it's literally, for the best, of which they're not a part.

And being 'dealt out of the gene pool' defines immorality?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Infacide exists in nature. Homosexual behavior exists in nature. The predation of the sick, the old, the young exists in nature.

Yes... all those things exist in nature and are all common to the lower species.

Now, within the scope of Humanity, let's examine these lower traits and see if we can find any kinship, by taking them one at a time:

1- Infanticide: In humanity we refer to that as "The Right to Choose".

Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess claims a "RIGHT" to murder the pre-born human life?

And which states that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with rights SO CERTAIN that such are inseparable from one's being, thus contests the notion that such a right is even possible?

What's next? Let's see... OH YES!

2 - Homosexuality...

Hmm... This seems rather obvious, but formalities require we ask: Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promotes Homosexuality, despite such being a presentation of Mental Disorder?

And finally:

3 - The predation of the sick, the old, the young.

Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promotes the notion that only the viable are worthy of care, as demonstrated by the routine malfeasance of that OKA: Socialized Medicine?

Which promotes the abuse of programs established to care for the aged, by introducing greater and more egregious authorizations for subsidies to those who must apply through ever declining standards, inherently exhausting the resources of those programs?

Which undermines the standards regarding publicly acceptable thresholds regarding sexual intercourse, rejecting all sense of moral authority relevant to the responsible participation in such, until such time that the parents are living in a committed relationship, in which they intend to raise and care for their YOUNG?

And which recently passed, through illicit means, a series of laws which have now cost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE, by economic policy which pushed the cost of such beyond their means to sustain such policies?

In my specific case, my health insurance premium is over $700/mo... with deductibles and co-pays that cost another $5000, which for the Asians in the group, is $13,400 EVERY FUCKING YEAR! Whether I get sick or NOT.

Now, before Healthcare was fixed, my premium was less than $400 month and co-pay and deductibles were less than $2000. Which I felt was outrageous, before I learned otherwise.

Now... of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promoted THAT BOONDOGGLE MESS that serves a predation upon the young, the sick and the aged?

Don't feel like you need to admit it... as everyone that read it, knew the answer as they were reading it, including YOU... .

(Reader, now... understand, Skylar will now pretend that this argument never happened.

That said, of the two competing sets of ideas and values, which do you find reflects the higher purpose of humanity and which more closely reflects the lower, sub-standard of humanity, OKA: Sub-humanity ?)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I once had Keys ignore me ...

You are on ignore... the only time I see your posts is when I am looking for someone to kick around.

It's a slow week-end and this article was worth checking in with the lowest common denominators.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And being 'dealt out of the gene pool' defines immorality?

It defines the natural order of selecting the best examples of the breed to promote the likelihood of the survival the species. Could not be more objective, thus more moral.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

You ignoring any part of nature you don't like isn't objective.

No.... and those traits of the lower species are wholly objective... as they serve the interests of the WHOLE.

You're only capable of looking at it from the perspective of the sick old dog... you feel that it's not fair that it must be consumed by the panther.

In truth, it is entirely fair. First, it feeds the panther..., second it removes the dog's suffering, third it relieves by one dog, the stress on the available resources.

 

[Skylar]

... Infacide exists in nature. Homosexual behavior exists in nature. The predation of the sick, the old, the young exists in nature.

Yes... all those things exist in nature and are all common to the lower species.

And now we get your arbitrary excuses for why you ignore nature on 'natural law'.

Your arbitrary dismissal of any 'observation of nature' that makes you uncomfortable isn't objective. Its hopelessly subjective. As your basis for dismissal of natural observation is how you feel about it.

Your feelings are not objective evidence.

By any rational standard, if observations of nature told us natural law then any observation of nature would be as authoritive on natural law as any other. By the irrational and logical fallacy laden standards that you use, nature only tell us natural law if nature agrees with you.

Laughing......nope. That's not 'objective'. That's just you citing yourself. As you always do.

 

[Skylar]

I once had Keys ignore me ...

You are on ignore...

Obviously. As demonstrated by all your quotations of my posts and replies to them.

Still trying to argue that your faith in God is 'objective' because 'god defines faith'? Or have you tossed that circular logic on the rhetorical midden heap where it belongs. Your explicit removal of any mention of your logical faux paux from my post seems to indicate you've realized how foolish your argument was.