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

[Kondor3]

Oh, look, another in a never-ending parade of Steers-and-Queers threads... yucccchhhh...

 

[Skylar]

(Reader... just open the above discussion and note the GIANT RED POINTS IN WHICH I SPOKE IN SPECIFIC AND DETAILED TERMS to that which Skylars deluded perspective requires DID NOT HAPPEN.

Keyes....typing the word 'homosexuality' doesn't mean that you've consistently used your own standards regarding it.

Do you acknowledge that homosexual behavior is part of natural law per your own standards....as 'observations of nature' are your standard of nature law, and homosexual behavior exists in nature?

You won't touch that question with a 10 foot pole. Nor will you address if infanticide is 'natural law'. Or if the predation of the sick and old are 'natural law'.

You exclude each from your conception of natural law because you don't like them. They make you uncomfortable And you arbitrarily ignoring any 'observation of nature' that conflicts with what you already believe isn't remotely objective.

But hopelessly subjective.

She's literally and truly delusional... which is to say Skylar is suffering an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

I simply don't accept you typing the word 'infanticide' as being the same thing as the consistent application of your own standards. And you won't acknowledge that per your own reasoning, infacide, predatin of the sick and old and homosexual behavior are 'natural law'.

As I said, you only acknowledge 'observations of nature' as defining natural law if nature agrees with what you already believe.

That's Cherry Picking and Confirmation bias. Both logical fallacies. And both the foundation of your relativistic morality.

Try again. This time using some objectivity rather than just arbitrarily ignoring anything that makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Skylar]

Keys ignores nature and says adopted children aren't loved. Maybe he didn't love his adopted child but children know when they are loved and BOTH of my parents loved me as if I were their own, which of course I am.

The author of the book in the original post complained of the secrets and her father's shame and the effect it had on their lives.

The one thing I have noticed about my gay friends since they have achieved full legal rights in Canada is they are more relaxed, less fearful of being outed, of losing their jobs or their homes if anyone found out.

That can only be better not only for gays but for their children as well.

I suspect thay Keys is, entirely, INCAPABLE of love...at least, for anyone but himself.

Don't know, don't care. All I know is that Key's arguments fail when his own reasoning is applied to them...and is based on 3 different fallacies of logic.

No objectively valid morality would be based on logical fallacies. Yet Keys has 3.

 

[HappyJoy]

I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

 

[Skylar]

I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

Exactly. Its an opinion. There are those who were raised by same sex parents who had wonderful experiences. By any rational standard, their perspective on the matter would be as valid as the woman who wrote her book. Writing a book doesn't elevate an opinion as being anything more than an opinion.

But when you're dealing with Keys, he usually makes the mistake of confusing a personal opinion with objective truth. He genuinely can't tell them apart, assuming that anything he believes must be universal truth that defines the lives of everyone. It makes sense that he would make the same blunder regarding an opinion he agreed with.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would like to add the the book quoted in the OP was "self-published" through a fundamentalist publishing house so the book has less than no standing.

Anyone can write anything and pay a fee and publish it. At the end of the piece quoted there is contact information from the publisher in the event the reader had a book they'd like to publish.

 

[Skylar]

I would like to add the the book quoted in the OP was "self-published" through a fundamentalist publishing house so the book has less than no standing.

Anyone can write anything and pay a fee and publish it. At the end of the piece quoted there is contact information from the publisher in the event the reader had a book they'd like to publish.

Well shit. I've got a laser printer. If I printed up my posts and gave them to be people does that make me an author too?

 

[Dragonlady]

It wouldn't make you a published author. You'd have to find a self-publishing house like this woman, pay the fee, and they would give you a number of properly bound books you could sell to your family and friends and you could show it to people who don't know any better to impress them with how smart you are.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Actually it's a false comparison fallacy, and the thread fails accordingly, exhibiting the ignorance and stupidity of the OP.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, Canada, not; hate speech cannot be made 'illegal' in the United States because that would be un-Constitutional. Consequently, obeying the 14th Amendment by allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in would in no way 'erode' any fundamental rights in this country.

Hate-Speech already IS 'illegal' in the United States. In connection with any other crime, such speech raises the threshold of the charge exponentially... thus the US Federal Government is already, LONG SINCE run into the Rabbit-hole of such subjective nonsense.

The individual who created the infamous Anti-Islam YOU-TUBE Video, which the US Federal Government officially declared, through a litany of DECEIT and FRAUDULENT assertions, tok advantage of the Publics IGNORANCE, was the cause of the Attack on the US Benghazi Mission; the US Government ARRESTED THE CREATOR OF THAT SPEECH, referring to THAT SPEECH AS HATE.

Monica Lewinski's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife, who is the former Secretary of State, the sole Democrat Party Candidate for Peasantpimp... who herself has declared 13 WORDS: HATE-SPEECH.

These are just a tiny fraction of the never ending example of Democrats, the Political Party of the Liberal, Progressive, Socialists in the highest positions of US Governance who have all acted upon HATE-SPEECH, rejecting the authority of the US Constitution; which is typical of these individuals and the Relativist Cult they represent.

But how laughable is it that the Ideological Left comes to inform the Readers of this Board that "THE US HAS A CONSTITUTION", when they're every post is an attack upon that very document and the principles on which it stands.

LOL! This dodge has been considered in several ways; the premise discredited... entirely and irrefutably.

This thread and dozens others are littered with discussions of that pap and they always end the same way; wherein the purveyor of such is found, inevitably trapped behind the time tested 'Nuh-Huh' defense... with nothing else to say and no where else to go.

Sexual Deviancy is BEHAVIOR... Behavior which presents as a consequence of mental disorder.

Viability precludes providing civil protections for the demands stemming from a disordered mind.

Inviability, however, if that is what you're shooting for, is what one should reasonably expect from normalizing insanity. The Ancient Greeks did it. The Romans did it. And any number of long dead cultures did as well... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I would like to add the the book quoted in the OP was "self-published" through a fundamentalist publishing house so the book has less than no standing.

So Fundamentals have no standing?

LOL!

Well it's a rare paragraph that informs the Reader of "The PROBLEM", better than that one.

Reader, let's take a second to consider what the above cited Relativism is expressing:

Fundamental:

forming a necessary base or core; of central importance;

affecting or relating to the essential nature of something or the crucial point about an issue:

a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

Fundamentals are the foundation of the institution, the ideas that such is established upon.

The Institution at issue is sound human life... And by extension a sound human culture.

The opposition, as a collective, have come out against the fundamentals that provide for such.

Rest assured that this is a classic demonstration of the Mental Disorder that presents as Sexual Deviancy.

Understand that THEY FEEL that for them to be counted as legitimate, they need only reject: THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A SOUND LIFE, which are the FUNDAMENTALS REQUIRED FOR A VIABLE CULTURE.

Now, I leave it to you to consider the possible effects of rejecting and setting aside the FUNDAMENTALS.

 

[HappyJoy]

I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I found one person, who was raised by homosexuals, in a homosexual marriage... who literally 'wrote the book' on the issue... .

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

 

[HappyJoy]

Hitler wrote a book, so what?

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So what indeed.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

 

[HappyJoy]

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[HappyJoy]

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I bet the pages in your diary stick together. (you look insane when you post shit like that)

 

[jillian]

Ran across this article which conveys what I have been saying about the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality Cult and what we should expect as a consequence of its effect on our culture, from people who have experienced the effects on theirs.

"Americans need to understand that the endgame of the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms."

"I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope. ... "

The Americans who are concerned about normalizing the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy, should read the entire article, which you can find here:

A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Public Discourse

It's evil... of the Old Testament variety and it will bring the same wrath to our time that it brought to the ancient people, destroying their cultures by the gross.

that's hysterical. luckily normal people know that rightwing "think tanks" generally distort reality.

 

[jillian]

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

is that what the voices in your head are telling you that was?

no rightwingnut has ever shown what aspect of marriage is "eroded" by marriage equality.

if you don't want to get "gay married" don't. and please leave other people alone.

thanks.