Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Carib Gyal]

Link?

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

 

[Skylar]

Link?

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nothing from that says anything about wolves.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Link?

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty Page 11 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nothing from that says anything about wolves.

They've always been out there, sucking cocks and putting cocks in their butts, trolling for more cocks to suck and more cocks to put in their butts, all that.

 

[Katzndogz]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

Among animals homosexual behavior exists only when a male or female is deprived of all members of the opposite sex. A wolf exhibiting homosexual behavior as it attempting to mate with a male is indicating his feeling that no female is available to him. Therefore, that lone wolf must be driven from the pack. Some animals mate for life. When a partner dies, the survivor finds another mate. Wolves mate forever. There is no such thing as till death do us part.

Of course among canines mating behavior, as in an attempt to mount another animals is also an exhibition of dominance. A male canine, wolf or dog, that mounts another male is dominating him. A dog humping your leg is telling you that he or she, females do it too, is alpha dog and you need to know your place. The dog is not telling you he has a romantic interest in your leg.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

And animals exhibiting homosexual behavior have remained part of an existing herd. You can pick what you like from nature, but you're the one doing the picking.

Not nature.

Just as all the subjective value judgments are yours, the responses are yours.

Nature abhors anything that doesn't lend to the survival and perpetuation of each species. Looking to animals for justification of deviant behavior is just sinking to a new low of desperation. If a baby elephant's mother dies, the baby will die too because the other mothers will shun it. Animals are not a wellspring of morality, and they are incapable of rising to the plane of human reasoning and charity. Any time they appear to, it's purely coincidence; humans reading into animal behavior virtues they cannot possibly have. My post wasn't to prove the shunning of homosexuals right (which I don't even agree with) it was to show that animal behavior is ambiguous and neither proves or disproves your argument. It has no bearing on human conduct and to think otherwise is just naïve.

 

[Katzndogz]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

You keep them away from YOU. It's like walking through a mud puddle, you do not have to get dirt on the hem of your clothing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

You keep them away from YOU. It's like walking through a mud puddle, you do not have to get dirt on the hem of your clothing.

So who is going to be your next target of irrational hatred whose civil rights you attempt to deny?

 

[Political Junky]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

Among animals homosexual behavior exists only when a male or female is deprived of all members of the opposite sex. A wolf exhibiting homosexual behavior as it attempting to mate with a male is indicating his feeling that no female is available to him. Therefore, that lone wolf must be driven from the pack. Some animals mate for life. When a partner dies, the survivor finds another mate. Wolves mate forever. There is no such thing as till death do us part.

Of course among canines mating behavior, as in an attempt to mount another animals is also an exhibition of dominance. A male canine, wolf or dog, that mounts another male is dominating him. A dog humping your leg is telling you that he or she, females do it too, is alpha dog and you need to know your place. The dog is not telling you he has a romantic interest in your leg.

Several opinions, but nothing that states wolves are excluded from the pack for homosexual behavior.
The Right figures they can just throw anything against the wall and others on the Right will probably accept it as fact.

 

[Carib Gyal]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

You keep them away from YOU. It's like walking through a mud puddle, you do not have to get dirt on the hem of your clothing.

So who is going to be your next target of irrational hatred whose civil rights you attempt to deny?

The Christians would be a good start.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

You keep them away from YOU. It's like walking through a mud puddle, you do not have to get dirt on the hem of your clothing.

So who is going to be your next target of irrational hatred whose civil rights you attempt to deny?

The Christians would be a good start.

The Christians already have their civil rights. They're just pissed because other people have them as well.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The wolves shunning a homosexual wolf is something I saw in a nature documentary. The internet is not the only form of media available.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The wolves shunning a homosexual wolf is something I saw in a nature documentary. The internet is not the only form of media available.

Acting like a pack of wolves, that would be the American homophobes alright.

 

[hipeter924]

Next up in conspiracy week: Atheists plan to take over America through subliminal messaging in Hollywood movies.

Obama, an illegal alien from another galaxy. His plan for global conquest revealed.

Obamacare. Healthcare or a communist plot to undermine America? The doctors who saw the mind altering agent reveal all.

 

[Skylar]

Nature abhors anything that doesn't lend to the survival and perpetuation of each species.

I think you're mistaking 'survival and perpetuation of the species' with a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. It doesn't have much to say with sexual activity that doesn't produce offspring.

Following your logic, then blowjobs would be as abhorrent as homosexuality? How about celibacy? Masterbation? How about grandma and granpa getting it on....a vile anathema?

And since you're bizarrely applying value judgments to sexual activity, does it work both ways? If sexual activity that doesn't produce children is 'abhorred' and 'wrong', does that mean that sexual activity that does produce children is 'loved' and 'right'?

Would that mean that rape, adultery, sex with any child biologically able to reproduce would be 'loved' and 'right'? After all, it satisfies all of 'Nature's' requirements. And if nature is your basis of morality, then such horrible acts would presumably be moral under your standards.

If no, why not?

Looking to animals for justification of deviant behavior is just sinking to a new low of desperation.

Its a rather elegant demonstration of the holes of the 'nature' theory. As it shows that your value judgments don't actually apply to nature. Nor can you give us any consistent standard for applying those judgments.

You cherry pick. Flagrantly and quite spectacularly. And ignore anything you wish. Showing us exactly how personal and subjective your standards are.

If a baby elephant's mother dies, the baby will die too because the other mothers will shun it. Animals are not a wellspring of morality, and they are incapable of rising to the plane of human reasoning and charity.

The behavior of animals is certainly 'natural'. Either the 'nature' standard works or it doesn't. And as you just admitted, it doesn't.

You'll need a rational reason for your value judgments. And you don't have one. Which is exactly my point.

 

[Carib Gyal]

What are you people going to do when nobody cares about the little married faggots next door? Who will be your next Profound Evil, the girl scouts?

You keep them away from YOU. It's like walking through a mud puddle, you do not have to get dirt on the hem of your clothing.

So who is going to be your next target of irrational hatred whose civil rights you attempt to deny?

The Christians would be a good start.

The Christians already have their civil rights. They're just pissed because other people have them as well.

I meant the irrational hate factor. You know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

Among animals homosexual behavior exists only when a male or female is deprived of all members of the opposite sex. A wolf exhibiting homosexual behavior as it attempting to mate with a male is indicating his feeling that no female is available to him. Therefore, that lone wolf must be driven from the pack. Some animals mate for life. When a partner dies, the survivor finds another mate. Wolves mate forever. There is no such thing as till death do us part.

Of course among canines mating behavior, as in an attempt to mount another animals is also an exhibition of dominance. A male canine, wolf or dog, that mounts another male is dominating him. A dog humping your leg is telling you that he or she, females do it too, is alpha dog and you need to know your place. The dog is not telling you he has a romantic interest in your leg.

LOL so true...

Personally, I guess I will never tire of watching the Left advocate for sub-human reasoning, declaring such to be PERFECTLY NORMAL!

As pitiful as it is, it is just ADORABLE!

It sorta reminds me, I guess, of a pup I used to own, which would walk on its hind legs when I walked him. He clearly felt that this was what separated him from the other critters being walked. HE... was like his master.

Leftists are a lot like that, when they try to reason. It's just so darn cute.

The problem only comes along when they're taken seriously... and that's how things got so fucked up. People actually started to believe that the idiots are PEOPLE!

A leftist is no more a human being than a jackass.

 

[Skylar]

That homosexuality 'occurs', without regard to what species it occurs in, is not at contest, neither is it at issue, as it is an irrefutable fact. That it occurs is no more relevant than that any other deviation from the established norm, which occurs.

The problem you run into is your value judgments regarding the 'deviation from a standard norm'. You've called it 'despicable', 'evil', ' loathsome' and even spoken approvingly of the founders in their execution of gays.

None of which is supported by a mere 'deviation'. Nature doesn't have a value judgment. You do. Nature doesn't mandate any particular action in response to deviation from the norm. You do. And in a predictable and rather tired Appeal to Authority, you try to use your fallacy of logic of 'Nature says' to support your personal value judgments.

Its a piss poor argument, as its based on nested fallacies and useless degrees of subjectivity. And we're not going to be killing people or depriving them of rights based on your subjective opinion.

Marriage is not a contract, it is the natural design of the species, which joins of one man to one woman

Marriage obviously is a contract. As all the law surrounding it demonstrates elegantly. Marriage doesn't exist in nature. Copulating does. Pairs raising children does. Pairs not raising children exists. Harems of females kept by one male exists. Rape exists. Homosexuality exists. Celibacy exists. Masturbation exists. Nature is quite diverse.

Marriage is our creation. It is what we say it is. Nature doesn't have a say, as Nature has all sorts of coupling strategies, many of which have nothing to do with 'one man, one woman'.

You're again using your subjective and spectacularly cherry picked interpretations of 'nature' to justify your personal opinion. And neither your opinion, your cherry picking, nor your subjectivity mandate any particualar action regarding marriage. As marriage is whatever we decide it is.

Now I realize that all the debate, suggests otherwise, but in reality, its truly not a debatable point and, this with the pretenses to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Obvious nonsense. As you don't define nature, morality, objective truth, or any of the obtuse appeals to authority you claim to speak for. Its just you offering us your subjective opinion....and your opinion doesn't define our laws.

Nor should. Which might explain the wild disparity between what you claim things should be....and the way things actually are.

Wolf packs have been known to drive homosexuals from their midst for the survival of the pack.

Among animals homosexual behavior exists only when a male or female is deprived of all members of the opposite sex. A wolf exhibiting homosexual behavior as it attempting to mate with a male is indicating his feeling that no female is available to him. Therefore, that lone wolf must be driven from the pack. Some animals mate for life. When a partner dies, the survivor finds another mate. Wolves mate forever. There is no such thing as till death do us part.

Of course among canines mating behavior, as in an attempt to mount another animals is also an exhibition of dominance. A male canine, wolf or dog, that mounts another male is dominating him. A dog humping your leg is telling you that he or she, females do it too, is alpha dog and you need to know your place. The dog is not telling you he has a romantic interest in your leg.

LOL so true...

Personally, I guess I will never tire of watching the Left advocate for sub-human reasoning, declaring such to be PERFECTLY NORMAL!

As pitiful as it is, it is just ADORABLE!

It sorta reminds me, I guess, of a pup I used to own, which would walk on its hind legs when I walked him. He clearly felt that this was what separated him from the other critters being walked. HE... was like his master.

Leftists are a lot like that, when they try to reason. It's just so darn cute.

The problem only comes along when they're taken seriously... and that's how things got so fucked up. People actually started to believe that the idiots are PEOPLE!

Wow. 5 paragraphs of insults. But not a single rational reason how your reasoning could possibly work, or even an attempt to shore up the truck sized holes in your logic.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to retreat to insults.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A leftist is no more a human being than a jackass.

An actual human being can deal with reality, that others might be different which is perfectly normal, instead of screaming Mommy, that's icky, I don't like it so pass a law against it.

A small percentage of people have red hair. A small percentage are left handed. And a small percentage fall in love with and fuck the same sex. Grow up and get over it.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Wrong again penis breath - Marriage is the initiation of a family -a bond that permeates generations - not just 2 people getting their rocks off. If perverts such as yourself and your phallic fellowhood and sushi sisterhood choose to cohabitate - and mockingly call it a marriage -LMAO - go for it faggot - even perverts have rights - However -when you try to preach your mental illness as normal to the Children of REAL couples you've gone too far.

Wow......its like you peeled back the veil and let us see inside the mentally disturbed mind of a homophobe.