Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Syriusly]

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.

Humans have been known to attack and murder homosexuals in their midst for sick pleasure.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Humans have been known to attack and murder homosexuals in their midst for sick pleasure.

Homosexuals have been known to rape and murder young boys. Neither would be considered normal.

I've got tons of gay friends. BLACK and gay, which to Americans is either a double whammy or a double win. Americans actually care about that stuff.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Humans have been known to attack and murder homosexuals in their midst for sick pleasure.

Homosexuals have been known to rape and murder young boys. Neither would be considered normal.

I've got tons of gay friends. BLACK and gay, which to Americans is either a double whammy or a double win. Americans actually care about that stuff.

Heterosexuals have been known to rape and murder young boys and girls.

I am not sure what your point is.

 

[Carib Gyal]

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.

Humans have been known to attack and murder homosexuals in their midst for sick pleasure.

Homosexuals have been known to rape and murder young boys. Neither would be considered normal.

I've got tons of gay friends. BLACK and gay, which to Americans is either a double whammy or a double win. Americans actually care about that stuff.

Heterosexuals have been known to rape and murder young boys and girls.

I am not sure what your point is.

I told you, and it's still the same. It would not be considered normal.

 

[Skylar]

So since the primary advocates of the 'homosexuality is wrong' argument have either abandoned it or devolved into name calling, is there anyone that can explain why we would apply such a value judgment to what is, at worst, unproductive sexual activity?

And I'm still waiting for anyone to be able to put a spit shine on the turd of the 'homosexual agenda being the greatest threat to liberty'. Can we agree that should be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap where it belongs?

 

[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.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

You really are caught up in your own propaganda.

In the 1950s you would be right up there with Joe McCarthy, before he got censored of course.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

You really are caught up in your own propaganda.

In the 1950s you would be right up there with Joe McCarthy, before he got censored of course.

You're speaking of the guy that warned the US that the US Culture and more specifically the US government was crawling with communist subversives?

Which we know through the remarkable clarity of history... that he was 100% correct?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are truly helpless.

 

[hipeter924]

So since the primary advocates of the 'homosexuality is wrong' argument have either abandoned it or devolved into name calling, is there anyone that can explain why we would apply such a value judgment to what is, at worst, unproductive sexual activity?

And I'm still waiting for anyone to be able to put a spit shine on the turd of the 'homosexual agenda being the greatest threat to liberty'. Can we agree that should be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap where it belongs?

Homosexuality is an example of civil rights being improved upon. Some in this thread want to go back to the 'good old days' when they could string up blacks, and tell women they belong in the kitchen.

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.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

You really are caught up in your own propaganda.

In the 1950s you would be right up there with Joe McCarthy, before he got censored of course.

You're speaking of the guy that warned the US that the US Culture and more specifically the US government was crawling with communist subversives?

Which we know through the remarkable clarity of history... that he was 100% correct?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are truly helpless.

He was by no means correct, and carried out foul character assassinations against people that weren't even communist.

Bet you would condone the Salem witch trials too, because they basically had the same result.

No real witches were at Salem, and only two real communists were ever found.

McCarthy's only desire was political power, and eventually the Presidency.

He used the fear and paranoia of Americans to boost his profile.

Hmm...sounds familiar. Kinda like you.

 

[GreenBean]

[
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.

Well well well what have we got here .... a voice from the phallic fellow-hood ... an irrelevant heckle from the penis gallery . You say "Homophobe" like it's a bad thing - I wear it like a badge of honor .

 

[GreenBean]

So since the primary advocates of the 'homosexuality is wrong' argument have either abandoned it or devolved into name calling, is there anyone that can explain why we would apply such a value judgment to what is, at worst, unproductive sexual activity?

And I'm still waiting for anyone to be able to put a spit shine on the turd of the 'homosexual agenda being the greatest threat to liberty'. Can we agree that should be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap where it belongs?

Homosexuality is an example of civil rights being improved upon. Some in this thread want to go back to the 'good old days' when they could string up blacks, and tell women they belong in the kitchen.

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.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

You really are caught up in your own propaganda.

In the 1950s you would be right up there with Joe McCarthy, before he got censored of course.

You're speaking of the guy that warned the US that the US Culture and more specifically the US government was crawling with communist subversives?

Which we know through the remarkable clarity of history... that he was 100% correct?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are truly helpless.

He was by no means correct, and carried out foul character assassinations against people that weren't even communist.

Bet you would condone the Salem witch trials too, because they basically had the same result.

No real witches were at Salem, and only two real communists were ever found.

McCarthy's only desire was political power, and eventually the Presidency.

He used the fear and paranoia of Americans to boost his profile.

Hmm...sounds familiar. Kinda like you.

And his primary enabler was Roy Kohn ...another faggot

 

[hipeter924]

[
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.

Well well well what have we got here .... a voice from the phallic fellow-hood ... an irrelevant heckle from the penis gallery . You say "Homophobe" like it's a bad thing - I wear it like a badge of honor .

Well keep it up, and you will covered in them.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

He ... carried out foul character assassinations against people that weren't even communist.

Did he?

Well do tell... (literally, I need ya to tell...)

Well, I just wantcha to know that you just posted your last credible post... and here's why:

Cite the name of one person the character of whom McCarthy assassinated.

Now, feel free to wear your fingers to a nub searching for it, but... the internet has not a single name of a single person who's character was assassinated by Joe McCarthy. And the reason is that Joe McCarthy did not assassinate anyone's character.

But you are hereby challenged to sustain your assertion, or (and this is my favorite part... ) CONCEDE THAT YOU'RE AN IGNORANT FOOL, BY FAILING TO DO SO.

No need to return... just go find the "FIRE HOT!" - "WATER WET!" thread, where your particular skills sets are more appreciated.

And just to make it easy on ya... Your concession is noted, by virtue of the historical facts... and such is accepted and advance.

LOL! You people are truly helpless.

 

[GreenBean]

Sorry to burst your bubble cum guzzler - but that's a myth perpetuated by the Gay Agenda. Animals have a variant sex drive - it differs from Human Beings in that they lack the requisite intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong.

But what's inherently wrong with homsexual behavior? This is where your argument break down. As the worst that can be said of homosexuality is that its not particularly productive in terms of reproduction. But then, neither are blow jobs. Or masturbation. Or condoms. Or celibacy. Or your grand parents knocking boots.

So what? Who says that the only purpose in sex is procreation? Its certainly A purpose. But as all the infertile getting it on, and all the birth control demonstrates, its obviously not the ONLY purpose.

So if there is a valid purpose in sex that has nothing to do with procreation, why then would satisfying that valid purpose be 'wrong'? Or 'evil'? Or any of the other value judgments your ilk apply so arbitrarily?

There is no reason. You've offered us an arbitrary value judgment backed by itself. Which is the epitome of a circular argument.

And the 'greatest threat to liberty'? Your ilk are a melodramatic bunch, aren't they?

But what's inherently wrong with homsexual behavior? This is where your argument break down. As the worst that can be said of homosexuality is that its not particularly productive in terms of reproduction.

Homosexuality is the manifestation of a diseased mind. It is unhealthy both physically and psychologically. It is counter productive both on a personal level as well as a societal level. TRying to portray it "an alternative lifestyle" to society - in particular adolescents is criminal

 

[hipeter924]

He ... carried out foul character assassinations against people that weren't even communist.

[...]Cite the name of one person the character of whom McCarthy assassinated.[...]

And you are a historical revisionist to boot: The Censure of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy

[...]205 State Department employees[...]

Despite McCarthy's inconsistency, his refusal to provide any of the names of the "known communists," and his inability to produce any coherent or reasonable evidence, his charges struck a chord with the American people. The months leading up to his February speech had been trying ones for America's Cold War policies. China had fallen to a communist revolution. The Soviets had detonated an atomic device. McCarthy's wild charges provided a ready explanation for these foreign policy disasters: communist subversives were working within the very bowels of the American government.
[...]"McCarthyism," as the hunt for communists in the United States came to be known during the 1950s, did untold damage to many people's lives and careers, had a muzzling effect on domestic debate on Cold War issues, and managed to scare millions of Americans. McCarthy, however, located no communists and his personal power collapsed in 1954 when he accused the Army of coddling known communists. Televised hearings of his investigation into the U.S. Army let the American people see his bullying tactics and lack of credibility in full view for the first time, and he quickly lost support. The U.S. Senate censured him shortly thereafter and he died in 1957.

McCarthy says communists are in State Department mdash History.com This Day in History mdash 2 9 1950
Damn, must suck to be you, with all that revisionist crap stuffed in your head.

Then I guess you are one of those people that think facts just get in the way of a good drama.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Despite McCarthy's inconsistency, his refusal to provide any of the names of the "known communists,"

Yes, as I said you would not be able to cite even ONE PERSON 'whose character was assassinated by Joe McCarthy.'... and this despite your stating that Joe McCarthy had "... carried out foul character assassinations against people..."

You concession is hereby officially confirmed... and again Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

(Ya did the very best ya could scamp... now please head on back over the "FIRE HOT! WATER WET!" thread. No charge for the education. It's my pleasure. Although it'd be more satisfyin' if ya had the means to actually understand what it meant... but hey, one does the best one can with what one has to work with.)

 

[hipeter924]

Despite McCarthy's inconsistency, his refusal to provide any of the names of the "known communists,"

Yes, as I said you would not be able to cite even ONE PERSON 'whose character was assassinated by Joe McCarthy.'... and this despite your stating that Joe McCarthy had "... carried out foul character assassinations against people..."

You concession is hereby officially confirmed... and again Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

(Ya did the very best ya could scamp... now please head on back over the "FIRE HOT! WATER WET!" thread.)

Let me get this into your thick head.

There are no names, because McCarthy refused to name the communists he claimed existed. But he did accuse 250 government employees of being communists.

Then he later made an ass out of himself in front of the whole country, accusing people in the military of being communists.

When he was censored it was rather pathetic too.

The only communists even found in nearly half a decade of anti-communist witch hunts were the Rosenbergs, and they were convicted on flaky and circumstantial evidence at that.

Just like your so-called 'gay conspiracy', there is no evidence behind it - but sure a lot of paranoia and nonsense from you to boot.

 

[Skylar]

[
Homosexuality is the manifestation of a diseased mind. It is unhealthy both physically and psychologically. It is counter productive both on a personal level as well as a societal level. TRying to portray it "an alternative lifestyle" to society - in particular adolescents is criminal

Says who? Again, the pronouncement of immorality is arbitrary. Its wrongness is because its the product of a diseased mind. And its the product of a diseased mind because its wrong. That's an argument best measured in units of pi.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation. Or oral sex. Or old people fucking. But we don't hear the weeping and wailing a gnashing of teeth related to grammy and pop pop getting it on. Demonstrating just how arbitrary the value judgment against homosexuality actually is. On a societal level, what's the issue? Gays and lesbians have kids. They adopt. They work. They pay taxes. They contribute to society.

What's the big deal? What's the point of this bizarre obsession with how they get their nut? Why the value judgments? It seems a bizarre place to hang your moral hat.

 

[Borillar]

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

You mean homosexuality occurs in nature? It is a natural condition?

 

[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.

You mean homosexuality occurs in nature? It is a natural condition?

No, do you not read? I said that birth defects are a deviation from what nature intended. What is so hard to understand about that?