Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.

Progressivism... OKA: Left-think, rests entirely in Relativism. Which rejects the objectivity that is essential to justice, and the truth intrinsic to that and justice. Which is why no Leftist, and no Leftist policy, has ever served justice, or equality.

But you don't use objectivity. You merely assume that any subjective opinion you possess must be objective truth.

Subjective is not objective. Simply obliterating your entire basis of argument.

Next fallacy please.

ROFL!

Reader, note that I said that Relativism rejects objectivity.... and immediately a Relativist comes to 'inform' you, that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVITY".

More accurately I've said that you citing your subjective opinion doesn't define objectivity. As subjective isn't objective.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

 

[Pop23]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

 

[Skylar]

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.

Progressivism... OKA: Left-think, rests entirely in Relativism. Which rejects the objectivity that is essential to justice, and the truth intrinsic to that and justice. Which is why no Leftist, and no Leftist policy, has ever served justice, or equality.

But you don't use objectivity. You merely assume that any subjective opinion you possess must be objective truth.

Subjective is not objective. Simply obliterating your entire basis of argument.

Next fallacy please.

ROFL!

Reader, note that I said that Relativism rejects objectivity.... and immediately a Relativist comes to 'inform' you, that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVITY".


I say it here and it COMES OUT THERE!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, recall that the key to defeating Leftists in debate rests in two fundamental elements:

1 - Find a Leftist.

2 - Get them to speak.)

Wow. I broke you in one post, reducing you to spamming the same debunked nonsense over and over.

That was easy.

And your subjective opinion still doesn't define objective truth. Simply killing your silly argument.

 

[Skylar]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.

 

[Pop23]

When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

 

[Skylar]

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?

 

[Pop23]

5 years ago... 5000 years ago... Marriage was, as it is today, The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.

Of course, why did you think I would not agree?

You off your meds again?

 

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.

Of course, why did you think I would not agree?

You off your meds again?

And once again, you abandon your entire argument.

You're nothing if not predictable.

 

[Pop23]

OT: I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?

OT= Off Topic

Do you also need an explanation of both "off" and "topic"?

 

[Skylar]

If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?

OT= Off Topic

Do you also need an explanation of both "off" and "topic"?

And how does that differ from your normally irrelevant drivel about incest and polygamy?

As neither have a thing to do with 'killing homosexual marriage'.

 

[Pop23]

And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.

Of course, why did you think I would not agree?

You off your meds again?

And once again, you abandon your entire argument.

You're nothing if not predictable.

Indeed, I've never promoted criminal activities.

You have serious and deep problems. Maybe the worst one is your obsession with sibling sex closely followed by your obsession with me.

 

[Pop23]

You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya.

That OCD acting up again?

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?

OT= Off Topic

Do you also need an explanation of both "off" and "topic"?

And how does that differ from your normally irrelevant drivel about incest and polygamy?

As neither have a thing to do with 'killing homosexual marriage'.

Incest is a crime, and I never promote criminal activity.

 

[Skylar]

Show me the law saying as much.

Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist.

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm

So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.

Of course, why did you think I would not agree?

You off your meds again?

And once again, you abandon your entire argument.

You're nothing if not predictable.

Indeed, I've never promoted criminal activities.

You have serious and deep problems. Maybe the worst one is your obsession with sibling sex closely followed by your obsession with me.

And you've abandoned all your 'incest marriage' babble once again. Admitting that no, the law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

You're easy, Troll.

 

[Skylar]

Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors?

Do try and keep up, Troll.

You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!

You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?

OT= Off Topic

Do you also need an explanation of both "off" and "topic"?

And how does that differ from your normally irrelevant drivel about incest and polygamy?

As neither have a thing to do with 'killing homosexual marriage'.

Incest is a crime, and I never promote criminal activity.

And how does your personal obsession with incest marriage and polygamy have any relevance to 'killing homosexual marriage'?

Or is there an implied "OT" before everything you post, Troll?

 

[thereisnospoon]

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country. Good luck with that.

The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.

 

[Skylar]

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country. Good luck with that.

The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.

The narrative was 'killing homosexual marriage'. Which is actually a tad more violent in its terminology.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.

Umm....If you think there is no distinction between the two, you have a problem.
The fact is no matter what the SCOTUS says, no one may change the definition of marriage.
And you'll never be able to compel everyone to accept it.
On this one there is no "you will comply"....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country. Good luck with that.

The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the Triumvirate of Evil at the hollow core of socialism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country. Good luck with that.

The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.

The narrative was 'killing homosexual marriage'. Which is actually a tad more violent in its terminology.

Oh please.