It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Unless none of that actually happens.

Well, that's what CNN told those who asked 'what happens when Homosexuals are accepted and they demand to be married.

It happened..., because it HAD to happen. As such are the nature of slippery slopes, because they lead directly to inevitable consequences.

None of your murder fantasies regarding gays 'have' to happen. Nor is there the slightest evidence that it will. You're confusing what you want to happen...with what the evidence suggests actually will.

Remember, most people support same sex marriage.

Opposition is 27 points down. With the fighting age folks supporting same sex marriage about 4 to 1. You have to all the way to senior citizens before you find an age group that doesn't support same sex marriage in the majority.

And even among those who oppose same sex marriage don't want them murdered.

Remember, you're insane. And that tends to limit the appeal of your message to rational people.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime.

No one has said otherwise. What I said is that the License issued to deviants who want to pretend to be 'married', will be used as evidence of their crime against humanity.

I'm a big fan of irrefutable evidence served by the signing of such licenses, as it will spares those seeking to serve justice, the time of having to prove their case through more tedious means.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Remember, most people support same sex marriage.

Golly... if that were relevant in any way, at all... wouldn't that be a wonderful point?

 

[Skylar]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

 

[Pop23]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

 

[Skylar]

Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime.

No one has said otherwise. What I said is that the License issued to deviants who want to pretend to be 'married', will be used as evidence of their crime against humanity.

I'm a big fan of irrefutable evidence served by the signing of such licenses, as it will spares those seeking to serve justice, the time of having to prove their case through more tedious means.

Yeah, but you don't offer irrefutable evidence. You merely call your subjective personal opinion 'irrefutable'. And then plead with us desperately to accept your fallacy as real. And to the best of my knowledge, no one does.

 

[Skylar]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no marriage in 'nature'.

Well, the only thing that needs to be established for that to be true, is that humanity must be removed from Nature.

Be sure to let me know when you work that out.

Until then, while humanity IS a function of nature, and where nature provides for two distinct genders; each specifically designed to join with the other... which defines marriage... Marriage will remain defined by that natural human physiological standard, as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Remember, most people support same sex marriage.

Golly... if that were relevant in any way, at all... wouldn't that be a wonderful point?

Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant. As people most folks support what you oppose. And they'll vote in accordance with their beliefs. Not yours.

As for your imaginary 'civil war', even you won't fight in that fantasy. And millenials certainly aren't going to sacrifice their lives because of your insane murder fantasies of homosexuals.

Rendering your perspective irrelevant. Twice.

 

[Pop23]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?

We were talking about the purpose of marriage? Correct?

Was, one man and one woman, not too closely related, and to create a family unit where previously there was none before.

Do I have that right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah, but you don't offer irrefutable evidence.

True... but then I am not a license signed by two people of the same gender. Which will be irrefutable evidence of those two individuals being guilty of crimes against humanity.

Understand... I am not here contesting the licenses, or the queers signing them. I am here to advocate for such, for the purpose of promoting a clear and incontestable record of those who represent: THE PROBLEM.

This, so that when the cultural pendulum shifts... those who are tasked with SOLVING THE PROBLEM will have a clear path to identifying those who represent such.

 

[Skylar]

There is no marriage in 'nature'.

Well, the only thing that needs to be established for that to be true, is that humanity must be removed from Nature.

Outside of human society, there is no marriage. If marriage were 'law of nature', it would exist outside of human societies.

It never does. It exists ONLY when we invent it. And it is defined by us. Marriage is what we say it is. And we define it as including one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman.

You can't get around that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant.

No question there... and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The coolest part of "The Record" is it's staying power. And who could ask more from it?

 

[Skylar]

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?

We were talking about the purpose of marriage? Correct?

Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Outside of human society, there is no marriage.

LOL! You seem to be gifted with the means to offer irrelevance... .

Now can you show a viable purpose for such?

 

[Skylar]

Well, in terms of the political winds and your civil war fantasies, its immediately relevant.

No question there... and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The coolest part of "The Record" is it's staying power. And who could ask more from it?

And the coolest part about your imagination is that it really has no impact on reality. We're not bound to your fantasies. That you imagine that folks will somehow agree with you....apparently 'because' .....doesn't change the fact that they don't. And there's no indication that they will.

You keep assuming that your subjective opinion define the future. But they really don't.

 

[Skylar]

Outside of human society, there is no marriage.

LOL! You seem to be gifted with the means to offer irrelevance... .

Now can you show a viable purpose for such?

If marriage were a law of nature, it would apply across nature. It doesn't. It applies only in human socities and only as we define it.

You're still hamstrung by the delusion that YOU define marriage. And you're still just as irrelevant as you ever were. Remember, when you told us that you knew how the USSC was going to rule on Obergefell?

How'd that work out again?

 

[Pop23]

No... Marriage is defined by Nature. And Nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?

We were talking about the purpose of marriage? Correct?

Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.

Do you agree with what I posted.

Is that really that difficult?

 

[Skylar]

There is no marriage in 'nature'. It exists exclusively within human societies. Marriage is whatever we say it is.

And we say its one man and woman. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. And so it is. See how that works?

Remember, you pretending that your subjective opinion is 'nature' doesn't actually change the fact that its just your opinion.

To form a new family where there was none previously.

Right?

Huh? Do you want to put that in the form of a complete sentence with a subject?

We were talking about the purpose of marriage? Correct?

Nope. Can you just skip ahead to your incest argument, my little one trick pony. Then we can tell you that nothing you've insisted must happen has. And you can pretend that you know the future. And we can all get our chuckle.

Do you agree with what I posted.

Is that really that difficult?

Obviously not. We were not discussing the 'purpose of marriage'. You're desperately trying to shift the conversation to the same silly 'incest' fallacy as you ever do.

While I appreciate the rhetorical foreplay, really...just jump ahead to the part where we start laughing. For time's sake.