Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home.

Somehow we survive that indignity.

do you go in one at a time or all together?

You seem oddly curious as to bathroom habits.

Do you have separate gender specific bathrooms at your house?

My guess is that Redfish does not. Because bathrooms in one's home, are to be used within the strict purpose of the rules of the household require; which in this instance is a home that does not recognize gender neutrality and does respect the natural distinctions, which establish the natural boundaries, regarding gender.

 

[Redfish]

Why do that, they can just get married. Unless there is a federal law that reads as follows: gay marriages may only involve two unrelated adults, there wil be marriages of siblings, parents/children, and multiple person marriages.

BTW, the ACLU is already preparing a polygamy marriage case to be brought to the SC.

Our society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating.

why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives.

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.

 

[Redfish]

This might be a rhetorical question but, are you mentally handicapped?

Please provide a link to the part in the Constitution where it covers regulation of urinals. While your at it please provide a link to where I said anything about urinals..

jake said that unisex restrooms were ok with him. you two are so similar in your rants I get you mixed up.

Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home.

Somehow we survive that indignity.

do you go in one at a time or all together?

You seem oddly curious as to bathroom habits.

Do you have separate gender specific bathrooms at your house?

My guess is that Redfish does not. Because bathrooms in one's home, are to be used within the strict purpose of the rules of the household require; which in this instance is a home that does not recognize gender neutrality and does respect the natural distinctions, which establish the natural boundaries, regarding gender.

of course, we were taliking about public restrooms, not the ones in your home. and not the small ones in small restaurants.

come on libs, remember restrooms in schools, airports, shopping centers. Do you really want them to be unisex?

 

[Redfish]

That is not what SCOTUS ruled. They may rule that was next month, and then you lefties can celebrate as the weddings of gays, siblings, parent/child, begin. same sex sibling marriage will happen once SSM becomes legal. It will be done for tax reasons, not sex, and there will be no way to prevent it.

SCOTUS previous rulings said that all american citizens have the rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment, they did not mention gay marriage in that decision. Yes, it was implied but not specifically mentioned.

If you get the ruling you want in June will you STFU about this? I will accept that ruling even thought I think it will damage our society and that such issues should be decided by the people not judges.

The country is moving left socially, you may think that is good, I don't. Time will tell who is right.

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives.

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.

first, go fuck yourself.

I am a parent to two fine upstanding, successful adults. But thats none of your business.

yes, when my kids were little we had to sometimes take them to the opposite sex restroom, but only when they were too small go go on their own.

as to why this thread got off track onto restrooms, ask your libtardian friends, they started that line of discussion, not me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

I recognize your point, but I should be noted that the Left is not expressing anything remotely AKIN to 'rule by Minority dictate... it is fraudulently advancing the deceit that Sexual Deviancy is widely ENDORSED by the majority.

We know this as fact, by their incessant desire to prop up the judicial fiat, stripping the legislatively passed law, by a tiny judicial minority, SPECIFICALLY AND WHOLLY DECEITFULLY representing such as THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THOSE HALLOWED '37 States'.

Rest assured, that where they were to find power, they would assume the power of the majority, without regard to the enumeration of their support... and they will have no concern for the will of those who oppose them, OKA: The Minority.

As such is the nature of Relativism; which is to say that such is the nature of evil.

And this due to it's own nature to reject the objectivity that is otherwise essential to the recognition of, the truth.

 

[Syriusly]

why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

The 'right' are not anymore willing to let the 'people' decide when they disagree with the people than the left.

The 'right' are just as quick to go to court to fight laws they disagree with(gun laws, campaign finance laws) as the 'left' are.
The 'right' are just as quick to ignore the 'will' of the people when they disagree with it(see the Right's reaction to State laws legalizing marijuana)

Both sides believe in Freedom, Democracy, and the Constitution- and both sides fight for what they believe is Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution.

Both sides claim to represent the people- and generally ignore the people when they disagree with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is Keys' allowed in public? Is all of this nonsense coming out of the basement or the closet?

 

[Seawytch]

So gay marriage will now lead to people peeing together...

Do these nut cases listen to themselves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So gay marriage will now lead to people peeing together...

Do these nut cases listen to themselves?

It's part of Keys' Fabula Prop Prime Feces argument into which Redfish has swallowed hook and sinker.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So gay marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.[sic]

And as the planet must rotate, the Relativist must reject the argument, through the pretense that such simply does not exist... turning instead to pretense that the argument exists only in the individual bringing the argument, as such is meets their own shallow, which is to say their subjective needs, offering, quite by default, the lowly RE-Concession to the points it sought to contest, but which continue to stand, wholly unscathed.

I republish those point below, for the benefit of the reader:

Laughing......try again when your entire basis of argument isn't a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Reader, you'll want to pay close attention here. As this is will demonstrate how easily the Left is defeated.

Note, that in the above cited exchange, I have first: Found a Leftist AND I have managed to get it to speak.

In speaking; as is ALWAYS the case, the Leftist has advanced an idea which references one of the laws of nature; specifically a law which governs human reasoning. In so doing, as they will do without fail, every time they make reference to a natural law, it conflates the actual law, with it's own subjective need.

The Law; which those who observed it first, entitled it: Argumentum ad Verecundiam; which is to say the argument from respect... with another variation being Ipse Dixit; which is to say: 'He, himself said it...' speaks to the fatally flawed logical construct which appeals to the reasoning of another... and does so absent sustaining argument, which demonstrates the truth of the reasoning or evidence set forth by the preceding authority.

In this instance, I have advanced the intrinsic authority of nature itself. Stating in specific terms the basis of nature's ACTIONS... wherein Nature has DESIGNED HUMANITY WITH TWO DISTINCT BUT COMPLIMENTING GENDERS, EACH RESPECTIVELY DESIGNED TO JOIN WITH THE OTHER... WHEREIN THAT UNION OF TWO DISTINCT BODIES ESTABLISHES ONE SUSTAINABLE PHYSICAL BODY, FROM TWO.

FURTHER POINTING THAT MARRIAGE IS THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF THAT UNION, WHEREIN TWO BODIES ARE JOINED AS ONE IN LEGAL TERMS: THE MALE AND FEMALE JOIN TO FORM ONE LEGAL ENTITY.

This provides the reference of unimpeachable facts, as the basis for the fact that nature has, in so doing DEFINED MARRIAGE.

By that construct I have not appealed to any authority, I have DEMONSTRATED THE FACTS... REGARDING THE AUTHORITY, demonstrating that such IS IN FACT: THE AUTHORITY.

Now with that said, we can now see that the would-be "contributor" has no means to sustain her 'reasoning', and I will now allow it to demonstrate such, to wit:

Skylar, where specifically do you find my argument, fallacious? Meaning that I am challenging you to state in SPECIFIC TERMS, the elements of my argument which fallaciously appeal to authority.

Enjoy the silence reader. Providing you such, is always: my esteemed pleasure.

More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young.

Reader, note that as a means to deflect from the laws of nature governing HUMAN BEHAVIOR... the Relativist has run to note the laws of nature governing the lower species, specifically with regard to culling the sick and otherwise disadvantaged from the herd and sustaining themselves, through the sustenance designed for them... by nature.

Well at least you finally addressed the shredding of your fallacy rather than simply repeating it. That's progress of a sort, I guess.

And there is no marriage in nature. What you're describing is fucking. You falsely equate them. Fucking is not marriage. Nor marriage fucking. Marriage is a social construct and means what we say it means.

In 37 of 50 state it includes a man and a man. And a woman and a woman. Marriage doesn't require children, nor the ability to have them. As no one is excluded from marriage for being unable to have kids. Not one person.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? Obviously, we wouldn't. And in 37 of 50 States, we don't.

Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws.

There is no 'law of nature of marriage'. You've made it up, citing only yourself. Nature doesn't have marriage. Thus, you're not citing nature nor any observation of nature. You're citing your personal opinion.

And you citing yourself establishes no 'laws' nor anything objective. Merely your subjective beliefs.

Subjective is not objective, Keyes. You can't get around that.

Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed SPECIFICALLY ON THAT GROUND.

The lack of marriage in nature destroys your entire argument. And your dismissal of any portion of nature that doesn't affirm your beliefs destroys your appeal to authority. As your version of the 'laws of nature' are nothing but generic Confirmation Bias.

Yet another fallacy of logic. If not for fallacies, your posts would be little more than a date stamp.

And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.

Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And exactly as predicted....first comes the spamming. Then comes the bizarre summary declarations of victory. Next is the scrambling rout as you flee the topic with your tail between your legs, refusing to discuss your claims or the fallacies they're based on.

The reader should note I could set my watch to his routs.

 

[Syriusly]

So you are saying the way to stop incest is by restricting the rights of gays. ROFL

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives.

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.

first, go fuck yourself.

I am a parent to two fine upstanding, successful adults. But thats none of your business.

yes, when my kids were little we had to sometimes take them to the opposite sex restroom, but only when they were too small go go on their own.

as to why this thread got off track onto restrooms, ask your libtardian friends, they started that line of discussion, not me.

No- once again- it was you who brought up restrooms


Poster:
Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

Redfish:
are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

 

[Redfish]

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children, because I care about what this country stands for. .

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

The 'right' are not anymore willing to let the 'people' decide when they disagree with the people than the left.

The 'right' are just as quick to go to court to fight laws they disagree with(gun laws, campaign finance laws) as the 'left' are.
The 'right' are just as quick to ignore the 'will' of the people when they disagree with it(see the Right's reaction to State laws legalizing marijuana)

Both sides believe in Freedom, Democracy, and the Constitution- and both sides fight for what they believe is Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution.

Both sides claim to represent the people- and generally ignore the people when they disagree with them.

the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state) voted against gay marriage twice. why were those people not allowed to decide? why was the will of the people ignored?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So gay marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's one form of it, yes.

 

[Skylar]

So gay marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

 

[Redfish]

thats what you fools are saying----------that allowing gay marriage will not promote sibling marriage, but it will.

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives.

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.

first, go fuck yourself.

I am a parent to two fine upstanding, successful adults. But thats none of your business.

yes, when my kids were little we had to sometimes take them to the opposite sex restroom, but only when they were too small go go on their own.

as to why this thread got off track onto restrooms, ask your libtardian friends, they started that line of discussion, not me.

No- once again- it was you who brought up restrooms


Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

Redfish:are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

I was using that as an analogy. sorry if it was over your head.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

The 'right' are not anymore willing to let the 'people' decide when they disagree with the people than the left.

The 'right' are just as quick to go to court to fight laws they disagree with(gun laws, campaign finance laws) as the 'left' are.
The 'right' are just as quick to ignore the 'will' of the people when they disagree with it(see the Right's reaction to State laws legalizing marijuana)

Both sides believe in Freedom, Democracy, and the Constitution- and both sides fight for what they believe is Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution.

Both sides claim to represent the people- and generally ignore the people when they disagree with them.

the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state) voted against gay marriage twice. why were those people not allowed to decide? why was the will of the people ignored?

Because SCOTUS decided the people of California violated the Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

Define: The -far- right.

I asked, because, in reality, thus in truth... there is no such thing as a 'far' right. And this is because one either recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to, the laws of nature governing human behavior, or one does not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody. You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.