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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

With these bizarre summary declarations of victory ...

ROFLMNAO!

Poor Skylar...

 

[Skylar]

Homo-Cult is a compounding of the word "Homo-" which is a colloquial expression used to identify sexual deviancy, wherein the individual obsessively craves sexual gratification through sexual interaction with those of its own gender... and "Cult" which identifies a relatively small group of people having a misplaced, excessive and irrational admiration for a particular thing.

And you made the 'homo cult' up, citing yourself. Remember, your imagination means jack shit objectively. As you generally have no idea what you're talking about.

So lets review:

So... We have 43 pages of the Homo-cult doing everything the author in the OP said they're doin'... even as they deny that it's happening.

Where_r_my_keys

The OP predicts the erosion of 1st amendment freedoms. What first amendment freedoms have you lost in these 43 pages?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no such thing as "Homophobe". Such is a deceitful construct, which fraudulently seeks to cow resistance to the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

In short, it's idiocy being advanced by idiots, to sustain an evil farce.

Says you. The dictionary says otherwise:

homophobe
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly.

LOL!
You're speaking colloquially.

COLLOQUIALISM: a word or phrase that is not formal or literary; not literal; suitable for informal, familiar conversation.

You see, there is no evidence that anyone is afraid is homosexuals... contesting the normalization of such, is not evidence of fear, only the recognition of the unsustainable nature of such.

Now, FWIW: the same holds true for "Gay". Which refers to a happy, festive, carefree attitude. Until such was hijacked by the Homo-cult, it had no relevance to such.

The purpose of the hijacking was a marketing ploy,as a means to misrepresent the homo-cult as something other that what it is.

The use of such is a Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

That the Dictionary states: "gay" is: 1 (of a person, especially a man) homosexual. As the primary meaning of the word, that in now way alters the fact that the etymology of the word has absolutely no association with homosexuals.

The historical etymological definition is listed as the second sense... in the same dictionary.
2 lighthearted and carefree:

Now... proving that Nature has a brilliant sense of humor and that ignoring its law is futile, the nature of the homosexual is coming on strong, in the third defined sense of the word:
3 offensive foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.

And you GOTTA LOVE THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP predicts the erosion of 1st amendment freedoms. What first amendment freedoms have you lost in these 43 pages?

ROFLMNAO!

Setting aside the ludicrous notion that the Author of the Article cited in the OP made any claim about this Thread... it's great that you would ask about infringes upon such freedoms were realized in the process of this discussion, here within our little micro-community...

In point of fact, in the first page of this thread, an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, deleted 7 posts, which conveyed the body of the article, so that the Reader did not need to access the link.

It did so on the basis that to post the article was a violation of the law...

In truth, under no possible circumstances could posting that article be considered a violation of the law, as the article was fully attributed to both the author and the site that published it. The article was published for the purpose of distributing the information to as many people as is possible. My actions were in sync with that purpose.

The posts were deleted because of their content... by an authority of our little community.

So the freedom to post information that contests the Advocacy to Normalization of Sexual Abnormality was infringed by that authority... on the first page of this thread, under the color of law... .


PRECISELY AS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE STATED WAS HER EXPERIENCE.

Does that help?

 

[Skylar]

[
You're speaking colloquially.

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe. That you pretend the word doesn't exist is objectively meaningless.....as your willful ignorance doesn't make reality change.

We've had this dicussion before. Remember when you made up imaginary roots for 'homo', pulled sideways out of your ass....assuring us along the way that your made up nonsense was 'objective'.

Yeah, I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. As you keep using 'objective' to describe any batshit you make up.

The same holds true for "Gay". Which refers to a happy, festive attitude. Until such was hijacked by the Homo-cult, it has no relevance to such.

Again, says you. The dictionary contradicts you, citing 'gay' in reference to homosexuals as merely an adjective. And the 1st definition.

Gay
adjective, gayer, gayest.
1. of, relating to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex; homosexual:
a gay couple.

Gay Define Gay at Dictionary.com

With the definition you're citing being number 5. The dictionary is objectively a better source on the meaning of words than you are citing yourself.

The funny part? You do the same silly shit on virtually every topic. You offer us your personal opinion. Label your personal opinion. And then insist that your subjective opinion is now 'objective truth'. Be it morality, religion, nature, or even the meaning of words.

And its still just your subjective opinion. Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.

The purpose of the hijacking was to misrepresent the homo-cult as something other that what it is... which is a Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Says you. And your subjective personal opinion is objectively meaningless.[/QUOTE]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's because you violated board rules, spamming 7 enormous block posts in 4 minutes.

That's hysterical in every sense of the word... from its wholesale rejection of the word spam and the implication that 200 word posts are ENORMOUS!.

BUT! It DOES demonstrate again, what an inveterate liar you are.

And there's never a downside to THAT!

 

[Skylar]

The OP predicts the erosion of 1st amendment freedoms. What first amendment freedoms have you lost in these 43 pages?

Suit yourself...

"Suit yourself'? So you've just completely abandoned your silly claim?

Next time think before you post. Not after.

In point of fact, in the first page of this thread, an Advocate of the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, deleted 7 posts, which conveyed the body of the article, so that the Reader did not need to access the link.

The 1st amendment forbids congress from taking certain actions. Not a moderator on a private message board. You clearly don't know what the 1st amendment is or what it entails.

Read it. You'll find you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, and your first 7 posts were deleted because you violated board rules, spamming 7 enormous block posts in under 4 minutes. Which, of course, you know. But really hope we don't.

 

[Skylar]

That's because you violated board rules, spamming 7 enormous block posts in 4 minutes.

That's hysterical in every sense of the word... from its wholesale rejection of the word spam and the implication that 200 word posts are ENORMOUS!.

BUT! It DOES demonstrate again, what an inveterate liar you are.

And there's never a downside to THAT!

Then show us all the other posters who have spammed 7 block posts in under 4 minutes to open their thread.....and not had their posts trimmed down by a moderator.

If you were trimmed because of the content of your post then there will be all sorts of similar 7 post splurges opening a thread that were untouched by a moderator who agreed with them.

If you're talking out of your ass and had your post trimmed because you violated board rules, you'll have no such examples to draw on.

And you have nothing. Remember, Keyes......you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even understand what the 1st amendment is. Making your babble about it mere meaningless noise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe.

There is a colloquial word which informally conveys a throughly specious, utterly deceitful concept, that is commonly used in familiar settings, but is only used in formal settings by children and fools, as there is no underlying, formal evidence of anyone being 'afraid' of homosexuals, as the very notion is foolish beyond measure.

Use it in a formal debate and see how it works out for you. And please, if you ever intend to do so, LOL! be sure to give me some notice, I'd love to hire someone to videotape that train-wreck.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 1st amendment forbids congress from taking certain actions. Not a moderator on a private message board. You clearly don't know what the 1st amendment is or what it entails.

LOL!

Now that's just pitiful.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then show us all the other posters who have spammed 7 block posts in under 4 minutes

Oh my.. down to opening with full-blown non sequiturs?

Tisk tisk.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe.

There is a colloquial word which informally conveys a throughly specious, utterly deceitful concept, that is commonly used in familiar settings, but is only used in formal settings by children and fools, as there is no underlying, formal evidence of anyone being 'afraid' of homosexuals, as the very notion is foolish beyond measure.

Use it in a formal debate and see how it works out for you. And please, if you ever intend to do so, LOL! be sure to give me some notice, I'd love to hire someone to videotape that train-wreck.

Rubio expressed indisputable fear of homosexuals when he called gay marriage a danger.

 

[Skylar]

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe.

There is a colloquial word which informally conveys a throughly specious, utterly deceitful concept, that is commonly used in familiar settings, but is only used in formal settings by children and fools, as there is no underlying, formal evidence of anyone being 'afraid' of homosexuals, as the very notion is foolish beyond measure.

Says you. And you telling us your subjective personal opinion on the term doesn't magically make it disappear. The dictionary still trumps whatever subjective nonsense you make up;

Homophobe
noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Homophobe Define Homophobe at Dictionary.com

The dictionary wins every time. As you citing you means jackshit. You couldn't even get the origin of the word right, offering us inane babble about how 'homo' means 'self'. Which was just useless idiocy.

The dictionary corrects your hapless misconceptions yet again.

Origin of homophobe

homo(sexual) + -phobe
Homophobe Define Homophobe at Dictionary.com

You've made up a different definition. Um....who gives a shit. The inane nonsense you make up is objectively meaningless. Just like it is when you pretend you speak for God. Or Nature. Or the law.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe.

There is a colloquial word which informally conveys a throughly specious, utterly deceitful concept, that is commonly used in familiar settings, but is only used in formal settings by children and fools, as there is no underlying, formal evidence of anyone being 'afraid' of homosexuals, as the very notion is foolish beyond measure.

Use it in a formal debate and see how it works out for you. And please, if you ever intend to do so, LOL! be sure to give me some notice, I'd love to hire someone to videotape that train-wreck.

Rubio expressed indisputable fear of homosexuals when he called gay marriage a danger.

LOL! Did he Gilligan?

Cite the specific words, in the specific speech, in which Rubio expressed fear of sexual deviancy.

Recognizing the Normalization of the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is not expressing fear... it is expressing the unenviable consequences of foolish public policy.

But hey... In fairness to you Gilligan, as a person if severely insufficient intellect, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[Skylar]

Then show us all the other posters who have spammed 7 block posts in under 4 minutes

Oh my.. down to opening with full-blown non sequiturs?

Tisk tisk.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I'm pointing out how you can't back your claims with jack shit in terms of evidence. As there's not a single example of the mods allowing the kind of board rule violation you committed. Regardless of content.

Once again demonstrating how objectively useless you citing you is. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Laughing......and you still haven't figured out that the 1st amendment is about laws created by congress. Not board rules on a private message board. As I said, you know next to nothing about the law.

Which might explain why you're already giving us your tell.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cool a Canadian homophobe site. Who'd a guessed they had one too!

There is no such thing as "Homophobe".

Such is a deceitful construct, which fraudulently seeks to cow resistance to the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality, through the illicit influence of the ignorant.

In short, it's idiocy being advanced by idiots, to sustain an evil farce.

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

It works as well in person as it does here.

The only difference is that face to face, this discussion would have resulted in a homo-riot.

Which is about the funniest dam' thing you've ever seen. You have GOT to try it. It is hysterical...

The most entertaining aspect of your rants is that you've already lost this debate and don't realize it. Gay rights will prevail,

and not even imagining that Jesus will someday descend from skies to preside over the end of the world is going to change that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm quoting the dictionary. There is such thing as a homophobe.

There is a colloquial word which informally conveys a throughly specious, utterly deceitful concept, that is commonly used in familiar settings, but is only used in formal settings by children and fools, as there is no underlying, formal evidence of anyone being 'afraid' of homosexuals, as the very notion is foolish beyond measure.

Use it in a formal debate and see how it works out for you. And please, if you ever intend to do so, LOL! be sure to give me some notice, I'd love to hire someone to videotape that train-wreck.

Rubio expressed indisputable fear of homosexuals when he called gay marriage a danger.

LOL! Did he Gilligan?

Cite the specific words, in the specific speech, in which Rubio expressed fear of sexual deviancy.

Recognizing the Normalization of the Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, is not expressing fear... it is expressing the unenviable consequences of foolish public policy.

But hey... In fairness to you Gilligan, as a person if severely insufficient intellect, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

So you don't believe Rubio expressed any fear?

So you believe he was right?

So you concede that America has nothing to fear from legal same sex marriage.

Your concession is noted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The dictionary wins every time.

Yes... it does and that winning streak is NEVER more consistent than where the individual using it, understands what the dictionary is saying.

To wit:

There is no such thing as "Homophobe". Such is a deceitful construct, which fraudulently seeks to cow resistance to the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

In short, it's idiocy being advanced by idiots, to sustain an evil farce.

Says you. The dictionary says otherwise:

homophobe
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly.

LOL!

You're speaking colloquially.

COLLOQUIALISM: a word or phrase that is not formal or literary; not literal; suitable for informal, familiar conversation.

You see, there is no evidence that anyone is afraid is homosexuals... contesting the normalization of such, is not evidence of fear, only the recognition of the unsustainable nature of such.

Now, FWIW: the same holds true for "Gay". Which refers to a happy, festive, carefree attitude. Until such was hijacked by the Homo-cult, it had no relevance to such.

The purpose of the hijacking was a marketing ploy,as a means to misrepresent the homo-cult as something other that what it is.

The use of such is a Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

That the Dictionary states: "gay" is:

1 (of a person, especially a man) homosexual. It lists this sense the primary colloquial meaning of the word, that in no way alters the fact that the etymology of the word has absolutely no association with homosexuals.

The historical etymological definition is listed as the second sense... in the same dictionary.
2 lighthearted and carefree:

Now... proving that Nature has a brilliant sense of humor and that ignoring its law is futile, the nature of the homosexual is coming on strong, in the third defined sense of the word:

#3 Gay: offensively foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.

And you GOTTA LOVE THAT!

And with that... your final concession of the night is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary wins every time.

Yes... it does and that winning streak is NEVER more consistent than where the individual using it, understands what the dictionary is saying.

To wit:

There is no such thing as "Homophobe". Such is a deceitful construct, which fraudulently seeks to cow resistance to the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality.

In short, it's idiocy being advanced by idiots, to sustain an evil farce.

Says you. The dictionary says otherwise:

homophobe
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly.

LOL!

You're speaking colloquially.

COLLOQUIALISM: a word or phrase that is not formal or literary; not literal; suitable for informal, familiar conversation.

The label of 'colloquial' is irrelevant to the meaning, use or existence of the word you've dismissed as not existing.

You're simply ignoring the dictionary. And then making up whatever you'd like.

Um, so what? The subjective nonsense you tell yourself is objectively meaningless. No one gives a shit.

You see, there is no evidence that anyone is afraid is homosexuals... contesting the normalization of such, is not evidence of fear, only the recognition of the unsustainable nature of such.

Actually, the definition says hate or fear. And there's plenty of evidence some folks hate gay people.

Killing your silly argument again. Laughing....has ignoring the dictionary on the meaning of words EVER worked for you? Or has it merely proven, again and again, how you'll ignore anything that doesn't ape what you want to believe.

Nature, the law, the dictionary.....anything. As your only standard is you. And your source sucks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The most entertaining aspect of your rants is that you've already lost this debate and don't realize it. Gay rights will prevail,

There is no such thing as "Gay Rights".

Homosexual rights are limited to the same rights as everyone else.

What the militancy of the homo-cult will lead to, is the eradication of the homosexual.

In my personal experience with homosexuals, they've been courteous, decent people who reject the notion that they are suitable for marriage. And they resent to the core of their being, the radical mouthy nonsense common to the cult on this and most other message boards.

and not even imagining that Jesus will someday descend from skies to preside over the end of the world is going to change that.

Well Gilligan, when Jesus does return, you're not going to care much for how that works out for you... given that everything you think you know about Christ, defines him as a door mat, who forgives everyone for everything.

That wasn't who he was, nor was it why he came to earth. He died for your sins... to give you a chance to avoid the consequences for those sins. You've passed on that offer. And at that Gilligan, is a very bad place to be.