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

[Skylar]

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".

You clearly don't understand what 'gay rights' means. As you try and refute the term by agreeing with it:

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

Exactly. That's what gay rights are. Gays enjoying the same rights as everyone else.

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

Nope. Remember, your ilk are natural chickenshits. There will be no such 'eradication'. As you're not willing to bleed to hurt gays. And we're willing to bleed to protect them.

We win.

Though the gentle embrace of time will largely eradicate your perspective through the attrition of dirt naps. Younger folks generally don't give a shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

ROFLMNAO!

Reader, imagine an irony so sweet that the Relativist simultaneously pleads the infallible sanctity of the dictionary, as it dismisses the relevance of the dictionary.

You CAN NOT MAKE THAT SHIT UP!

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 of 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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

That's what gay rights mean, idiot. Gays getting the same rights as everyone else and not having them denied because they're gay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Jesus died for whatever sins homosexuals may have committed as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nope. Remember, your ilk are natural chickenshits.

Yes... of course. Long standing tolerance and compassion for the mentally ill, is a certain sign of paralyzing fear.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[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.

Jesus died for whatever sins homosexuals may have committed as well.

Yep... and all they need to get the benefit of that good news, is to recognize what he did, thank him for it, accept him as their lord and savior... and repent from that sin.

Or forfeit the gift by their failure to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now we've established that Keys believes that society has nothing to fear from gays, or gay marriage,

and yet he wants to discriminate against them anyway.

Classic, textbook, bigotry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Jesus died for whatever sins homosexuals may have committed as well.

Yep... and all they need to get the benefit of that good news, is to recognize what he did, thank him for it, accept him as their lord and savior... and repent from that sin.

Or forfeit the gift by their failure to do so.

I don't recall any evidence that Christ believed same sex marriage was a sin.

 

[Skylar]

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

Again, how would the term being 'colloquial' be relevant to its meaning, usage or existence?

Laughing....nothing about your label changes the meaning of homophobe in the slightest.

You lose again.

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.

The definition is hate or fear. And there's plenty of evidence that folks hate gays. You yourself have described gays as 'abhorred' and 'despised'. Which aptly communicates hatred. And then there's this bit of panty shitting hysterics:

The problem becomes exponentially worse when the culture normalizes sexual abnormality, by removing boundaries, wherein the already deviated minds are provided access to children in their earliest stages of development, who then trigger the same imprint on greater numbers, but this in a culture which encourages the behavior, as a result of the 'normalization', exponentially increasing the deviancy... which by its very nature is the inherent trigger for the species to destroy whatever culture succumbs to such.

Such literally accomplishes what Thermo-nuclear war, could not... the total annihilation of a culture.

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Homosexuality is worse than thermo-nuclear war? That's elegant evidence of fear of gays. Shitting your pants, quivering in a puddle of warm yellow fear.

Laughing....thank you for once again proving my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now we've established that Keys believes that society has nothing to fear from gays, or gay marriage,

and yet he wants to discriminate against them anyway.

Classic, textbook, bigotry.

On second thought, maybe this isn't classic bigotry.

At least classic bigots try to make an argument that there is something to fear from those they are bigoted against.

Keys has found a different sort of hatred. Purely gratuitous, devoid even of the attempt to justify it.

 

[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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

I have no fear of homosexuals.

I also have no desire to be subjected to the catastrophe that normalizing mental disorder must produce.

So I will contest such, with every fiber of my being.

And being a sexual deviant does not provide you people with any rights beyond anyone else... and no one else has the right to demand their deviant behavior be accepted by others, and that the standards for marriage be removed so that you can feel better about yourselves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Again, how would the term being 'colloquial' be relevant to its meaning, usage or existence?

It's meaning is bogus... it usage deceitful, as a result, it existence is irrelevant.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

I have no fear of homosexuals.

I also have no desire to be subjected to the catastrophe that normalizing mental disorder must produce.

So I will contest such, with every fiber of my being.

And being a sexual deviant does not provide you people with any rights beyond anyone else... and no one else has the right to demand their deviant behavior be accepted by others, and that the standards for marriage be removed so that you can feel better about yourselves.

So-called deviant behavior from which no one need fear harm has every right to exist and be legally accepted in a democratic society.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Jesus died for whatever sins homosexuals may have committed as well.

Yep... and all they need to get the benefit of that good news, is to recognize what he did, thank him for it, accept him as their lord and savior... and repent from that sin.

Or forfeit the gift by their failure to do so.

I don't recall any evidence that Christ believed same sex marriage was a sin.

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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

I have no fear of homosexuals.

Uh-huh.

The problem becomes exponentially worse when the culture normalizes sexual abnormality, by removing boundaries, wherein the already deviated minds are provided access to children in their earliest stages of development, who then trigger the same imprint on greater numbers, but this in a culture which encourages the behavior, as a result of the 'normalization', exponentially increasing the deviancy... which by its very nature is the inherent trigger for the species to destroy whatever culture succumbs to such.

Such literally accomplishes what Thermo-nuclear war, could not... the total annihilation of a culture.

Homosexuality is worse than thermo-nuclear war....but you're not afraid of gays, huh?

I'll leave that to the objective reader to decide.

So I will contest such, with every fiber of my being.

And you'll lose. Because you're wrong. And your arguments are baseless melodramatic hysterics.

 

[Faun]

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

ROFLMNAO!

Reader, imagine an irony so sweet that the Relativist simultaneously pleads the infallible sanctity of the dictionary, as it dismisses the relevance of the dictionary.

You CAN NOT MAKE THAT SHIT UP!

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 of 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.

Sounds like you really want the word, "gay," back.

Ok, you can have it back. From now on, you'll be gaykeys. You know ... as in happy, festive, keys.

Happy? I mean, gay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

I have no fear of homosexuals.

I also have no desire to be subjected to the catastrophe that normalizing mental disorder must produce.

A catastrophe that is not fearful? lol

No rational person should fear same sex marriage, but same sex marriage is a fearful catastrophe.

Quite the pretzel you got going there, Jim Bob.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Jesus died for whatever sins homosexuals may have committed as well.

Yep... and all they need to get the benefit of that good news, is to recognize what he did, thank him for it, accept him as their lord and savior... and repent from that sin.

Or forfeit the gift by their failure to do so.

I don't recall any evidence that Christ believed same sex marriage was a sin.

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.

If you have nothing to fear from homosexuals, then you have no legitimate reason to deny them equal rights in a democratic society.

I have no fear of homosexuals.

Uh-huh.

The problem becomes exponentially worse when the culture normalizes sexual abnormality, by removing boundaries, wherein the already deviated minds are provided access to children in their earliest stages of development, who then trigger the same imprint on greater numbers, but this in a culture which encourages the behavior, as a result of the 'normalization', exponentially increasing the deviancy... which by its very nature is the inherent trigger for the species to destroy whatever culture succumbs to such.

Such literally accomplishes what Thermo-nuclear war, could not... the total annihilation of a culture.

Homosexuality is worse than thermo-nuclear war? You're oozing fear of gays in the above statement. Every time you deny it, I just quote you.


I also have no desire to be subjected to the catastrophe that normalizing mental disorder must produce.

So I will contest such, with every fiber of my being.

And being a sexual deviant does not provide you people with any rights beyond anyone else... and no one else has the right to demand their deviant behavior be accepted by others, and that the standards for marriage be removed so that you can feel better about yourselves.

[/QUOTE]

Are we being too mean to him? lolol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now we've established that Keys believes that society has nothing to fear from gays, or gay marriage,

and yet he wants to discriminate against them anyway.

Classic, textbook, bigotry.

On second thought, maybe this isn't classic bigotry.

At least classic bigots try to make an argument that there is something to fear from those they are bigoted against.

Keys has found a different sort of hatred. Purely gratuitous, devoid even of the attempt to justify it.

Oh don't hurt yourself trying to figure this out Gilligan, you're a classic bigot.

And we know this by your chronic use of the word 'Bigot', which by definition is classic bigotry.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

ROFLMNAO!

Reader, imagine an irony so sweet that the Relativist simultaneously pleads the infallible sanctity of the dictionary, as it dismisses the relevance of the dictionary.

You CAN NOT MAKE THAT SHIT UP!

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 of 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.

Sounds like you really want the word, "gay," back.

Ok, you can have it back. From now on, you'll be gaykeys. You know ... as in happy, festive, keys.

Happy? I mean, gay?

I have taken full ownership of "Gay".

I have a t-shirt that I wear regularly that has "GAY!" in big Red, White and Blue Letters on the front.

On the back it has the International Sign for no with a couple of generic 'euro-males' engaged in sodomy on the back.

It gets a TON of attention... which gives me a chance to engage a lot of people face to face to discuss the issue.

Guess which one's threaten to scratch my eyes out?