Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry: Being transgender is a "mental" disorder

[Silhouette]

Hey, you know what's really weird? In both this thread and the "churches" thread, the sentiments against the LGBT agenda are running in the 80-percentile range in the polls at the top.

That's odd. Even odder is the claim that "a majority of Americans now support LGBT "rights" while LGBTs fight fiercely to keep the matter of gay marriage and other issues such as transgender surgery/bathroom access etc. completely away from the voting booth. It's as if they know something they aren't telling us the truth about?

Here's the churches thread: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 859 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 859 pages...quite the popular discussion too I might add..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey, you know what's really weird? In both this thread and the "chuches" thread, the sentiments against the LGBT agenda are running in the 80-percentile range in the polls at the top.

That's odd. Even odder is the claim that "a majority of Americans now support LGBT "rights" while LGBTs fight fiercely to keep the matter of gay marriage and other issues such as transgender surgery/bathroom access etc. completely away from the voting booth. It's as if they know something they aren't telling us the truth about?

Here's the churches thread: Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 859 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum 859 pages...quite the popular discussion too I might add..

Well the "The Overwhelming Popularity for the Pretense of Marriage by those wholly unsuited for Marriage", is sourced from the same delusional well as 'Humanity is not a party to Nature'.

In truth, the only legitimate 'polls' that have considered the issue, were demonstrated by the vast majority of the people in the United States, electing the vast majority of Legislators, who long debated the question, whereupon the vast majority of the Legislators voted to recognized the natural standards of Marriage, which hold that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. The bills established by those majority votes, were signed into law by the vast majority of the governors; who were elected, by the vast majority of The People of the United States.

This proving in unassailable terms, that most people in the United States respect the laws of nature which define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

THAT is REALITY... where the would-be Polls showing otherwise are Deceit which is FRAUDULENTLY advanced by a tiny minority, using illicit means to make it APPEAR as though such popularity exists.

These fraudulences have been exposed time and again by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, who's sponsors have been assaulted by these cults, where investigations of such determined that literally THOUSANDS of would-be complaints were being registered by fewer than a dozen individuals.

This type of fraud is precisely the fraud that the Left is using each and every election to register votes in the name of other people, through absentee ballots, wholesale ballot fraud and every other conceivable means to defraud the system.

 

[Silhouette]

Well Keys, proof in the pudding is that they are fighting fiercely to keep "This majority who supports us" from accessing the voting booth on the questions they say they have majority support for. There's your evidence for deceit in polling, right on its face.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

UPDATE!​

Skylar has trotted out a NEW RESPONSE:

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'

Proving once again the Relativist credo: Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. Circular Reasoning works because Circular Reasoning works. ...

Let's review to recall how it got there:

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

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

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

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

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Its virtually a dead lock that same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, as there's is essentially zero chance that the court will side against gay marriage in question 2. Which means that even in the unlikely case that the court finds that a state can ban gay marriages from being performed in that state, there aren't going to rule that a state can ignore gay marriages conducted in OTHER states where they are legal. The reciprocity of contracts clause of the constitution could very well make this a 9-0 ruling on question 2.

Making gay marriage defacto legal in every state.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or one man and one man or one woman or one woman. Marriage is our invention. It is what we say it is.

Therefore any contract which falls outside of the natural standard of marriage, is illegitimate... thus unenforcible anywhere. And NO STATE is allowed to adopt contracts which are illegal in other states.

Says you, citing yourself. Your personal opinion is no more the basis of our laws than it is the basis of natural law or the meaning of words. You've simply doubled down on relativistic thinking, insisting that everyone is bound to whatever definitions you imagine.

Nope. We're not. As you have no idea what you're talking about. And your personal opinion defines nothing objectively.

As demonstrated by all the same sex marriage occurring in 37 of 50 States. And soon 50 of 50 States. You insist none of it is happening. Reality says otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

Since when have you ever done anything but ad hominem and cite yourself Skylar? I can't even remember a link or text you quoted from a professional organization that backed any position you ever held.