Revised: Objective proof of demonstrable harm ... Marriage/Same sex

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... A mod? YOU?

Man that is just SAD...

But it does explain all of the unanounced editing that's been going on...

But that changes nothin... Your posts will go without response until such time that either you sober up or I get sufficiently bored to entertain the sub-par intellect and this board is fresh out, except for you and the idiots who are actually IN IGNORE.

 

[KittenKoder]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/76726-everything-but-marriage.html

Deny this. Go ahead, you are a hypocrite and just won't admit it.

 

[Ravi]

You are supporting terrorists, plain and simple. You agree with their views and advocate the same reasoning for their violence. You justify their attack. Islamic violence is against America, and because we as Americans have freedom, gay people do not attack defenseless and innocent people for disagreeing with them, such as what you have suggested on occasion. They also do not see fit to justify the hatred of others by saying "since the Islamics hate mostly christians by default, perhaps if we killed off all the christians they would stop attacking us."

Pubic has more than lost his original argument. He has shown us that he in fact concedes to the terrorists. The group responsible for 9/11, in his mind, attacked innocent US civilians because they disapprove of gays. Therefore, Pubic wishes to appease the terrorists by limiting the freedom of Americans.

People like him are the ones that allow terrorism to "win." In fact, they help terrorists "win."

 

[Ravi]

Wow. Does this BS usually work for you around here?

It goes back to post #121, not that it matters. Is it so difficult to show where you responded to my post which pointed out a flaw in the premise of your OP?


Here's the link to your {well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, or as close as you can manage}, response in post #94. Bravo for getting me to go find it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ble-harm-marriage-same-sex-5.html#post1213417


You're all about the personal freedom? That's good to hear. Let's call it a concession. Common ground, if you will. Progress.

Now, consider the actual marriage laws as it relates to your OP and further as it relates to personal freedom.

Well, if you're being honest and the link I posted in my response to you is not going back to post #94, then there is a distinct technical issue, which I suspect is a result of some malfeasance on the part of a tach-savy member or a renegade mod...

I simply copied and pasted the perm-link and have tried it repeatedly since you stated that it went to another post and it went directly back to post #94 each and every time; which is why I copied and pasted the body of the text, in my last response.

Now with regard to your would-be point...

Marriage is a union between one male and one female... It serves the purpose of providing, to the extent that is possible, for a stable environment wherein they procreate and raise their offspring through the influence of both genders...

And while such does not provide for perfection; it provides for the best potential average... which will be destroyed, where such is skewed through redefining the scope to include the clinically abnormal, sexual deviant... mono-gender coupling.

Marriage doesn't provide anything except a license for a legal union. There is no threat to male / female procreation!

All sorts of relationships already exist in our society. If you believe in personal freedoms, you surely do not wish to out-law such unions, do you? Gay people are law abiding, tax paying citizens who deserve their personal freedoms.

So do you feel that excluding them from the legal union called "Marriage" then they will somehow magically become less gay? Expecting the word marriage to provide a "stable environment" is unreasonable and your ideas about your environment are being projected by your fears of instability.

Individual freedoms deserve equal protection under the law, whether or not you call their relationships "Marriage" -- It is ignorant to suggest you can condition people from who they love and are attracted to as life partners and somehow feel justified in treating them as second class citizens. That is not justifiable under our constitution.

It is incorrect to equate acknowledging this reality as if it is an evil normalization plot that will somehow cause the downfall of society where we endorse the legalization of pedophilia. That is nothing but a blatantly unsound fear tactic.

Maybe he thinks that if gay people are cowed enough they will magically become straight people, marry someone of the opposite sex and start cranking out babies.

His reasoning is so flawed that sometimes I think he hasn't made it past the second grade...but his writing style is above that level. He is firmly deluded by magical thinking.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

… Now with regard to your would-be point...

Marriage is a union between one male and one female... It serves the purpose of providing, to the extent that is possible, a stable environment wherein two individuals of distinct genders procreate and raise their offspring; wherein the distinct traits of BOTH genders are applied to influence and nurture their progeny...

And while such does not provide for perfection; it provides for the best potential average... which will be destroyed, where such is skewed through redefining the scope to include the clinically abnormal, sexual deviant... mono-gender coupling.

Maybe he thinks that if gay people are cowed enough they will magically become straight people, marry someone of the opposite sex and start cranking out babies.

His reasoning is so flawed that sometimes I think he hasn't made it past the second grade...but his writing style is above that level. He is firmly deluded by magical thinking.

Here the opposition comes YET AGAIN to offer up the addle-minded "NUH UH" Defense...

It seems that SUCH is ALL THEY HAVE…

I challenge this member to cite the specific element of my position wherein she concludes that I am even IMPLYING that Homosexuals, if cowed sufficiently, will decide to reject, or otherwise determine to overcome, their disorder...

The position merely states, in POINT OF FACT, that homosexuals are oriented towards a sexuality which is in direct biological opposition to; thus is antithetical, to the biological baseline norm; that such represents a deviation from that norm, thus homosexuality represents sexual deviancy... thus homosexuality is ABNORMAL and NOT SUBJECT TO BEING DEFINED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF ANYTHING APPROACHING NORMALITY; and this DESPITE THE SUBJECTIVE "INTERPRETATION" OF THOSE WOUD-BE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ACTIVELY PROMOTING SUCH... In direct opposition to that indisputable reason.

Furthermore that there is NOTHING in the US Standard of Marriage which excludes homosexuals who make application for Marriage or pre-determines that such should be excluded or otherwise denied that application, EXCEPT where they fail to meet that reasoned and long established standard, which is designed to promote a SUSTAINABLE CULTURE...

I have stated many time and in many ways, that I hold no malice towards ANY sexual orientation, except where that orientation is used as a means to infringe upon my means to exercise my right, or the rights of others to pursue the fulfillment of my life/theirs lives; through the attempt by such individuals to exercise their rights to the detriment of my culture, to hold to viable and sustainable standards of public behavior; which include but are not limited to, defining Marriage as the joining of TWO PEOPLE; one male and one female... who are committed to a monogamous, caring relationship; within which they are able to share the responsibilities in raising and nurturing a family...

As the VERY ARGUMENT of 'FAIRNESS' which the homosexual advocacy brings to rationalize the revision of that standard MUST, by the very rationalization which they BRING... require that upon the lending of credence to such, that the culture will quickly come to realize that NO STANDARD CAN EVER BE APPLIED WHICH WILL EXCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL ORIENTED TOWARDS ANY DEVIANCY and that such can and MUST RESULT IN THE CRIPPLING of the nucleus element of the culture; the family... wherein EVERY FORM OF DEBAUCHEROUS "LIFESTYLE" WILL ENJOY THE DE FACTO LEGITIMACY OF MARRIAGE, THUS IN EFFECT RENDERING EVERY ORIENTATION OF "SEXUALITY, EVERY FORM OF DEBAUCHERY" to that of LEGITIMATE...

Now with that said, I'd again challenge this member to show where the standard applied in Marriage as such is DEFINED, EXCLUDES ANY INDIVIDUAL, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION TO MAKE APPLICATION AND BE ACCEPTED FOR MARRIAGE, beyond where THEY CHOOSE to apply outside the scope of acceptable parameters, set forth BY THAT STANDARD.

Secondly... I further challenge this member, to defend the REDEFINED STANDARD, which she submits for consideration, wherein the CULTURE WOULD provide for the joining of TWO HOMOSEXUALS; from those who would ask that THIS REVISION BE REVISED TO INCLUDE MORE THAN TWO INDIVIDUALS.…

Which is to say that I challenge this member to DEFEND THE STANDARD OF MARRIAGE WHEREIN THAT STANDARD PROVIDES FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS OF EITHER GENDER... FROM THOSE WHO WOULD DEMAND THAT HER STANDARD BE REVISED TO ACCEPT THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD APPLY FOR MARRIAGE...

Explain to this board Ravi, the reasoning YOU would use to defend your homosexual marriage from the TRIADS who would demand that you accept three or more individuals to be recognized as being acceptable for marriage…

Now friends, when Ravi and the rest of the 'ladies' are incapable of, refuse to, or otherwise FAIL to post a well reasoned, intellectually sound and logically valid defense of the MODIFIED Standard of Marriage; which they demand we must accept; and that such 'is only fair' on the basis that such 'would in NO WAY adversely affect the culture...' but would provide the simple legal necessities which would make homosexuals 'legally equal' with hetero-sexual couples... ; WHEN SHE can NOT provide a sustainable argument, which in ANY WAY differs from the argument which WE SUBMIT and have advanced for now well over a WEEK on this thread... and for 40 years throughout this culture in contest of the FULL SCOPE OF THE NORMAILZATION OF HOMSEXUALITY ITSELF; WHEN SHE FAILS TO ADVANCE AN ARGUMENT WHICH EXPLAINS THROUGH VALID< SUSTAINABLE REASON, WHY THOSE WHO DESIRE TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS A JOINING OF THREE OR MORE PEOPLE...

At that point: this debate is OVER...

As her failure, or the failure of ANY REPRESENTATION of her alliance, to submit such, will prove CONCLUSIVELY, INDISPUTABLY, INCONTESTABLY, that THEIR EMPHATIC ASSURANCES THAT THE REDEFINING OF MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE SAME GENDER UNIONS IN NO WAY REPRESENTS A THREAT TO THE STANDARD< OR TO THE CULTURE IN ANY POTENTIAL WAY... is MEANINGLESS; what's more, that these would-be assurances are based upon nothing less than abject IGNORANCE and unbridled stupidity... and that IN POINT OF INDISPUTABLE FACT, to ACCEPT their revision of marriage, is to DESTROY the very institution which they otherwise claim to hold in high esteem... rendering the concept, as it renders EVERY concept which they revise for their utilization, to MEANINGLESS...

Take your time Ravi... THINK about your response, as when you come to spam the thread with some half-witted quip... some addle-minded retort... you will concede this debate in FINALITY.

Now do your worst... BRING IT ON... EXPLAIN TO THIS BOARD HOW YOU WILL DEFEND YOUR REVISED DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE FROM THOSE WHO COME TO REVISE IT TO SUIT THEIR OWN DISTINCT, ‘SCIENTIFICALLY APPROVED’ (subjectively rationalized) DEVIANCY...

 

[Ravi]

Pubic,

You claimed that you had objective proof.

Several posters on this board have asked you to provide it.

Until you back up your words you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You have provided no objective proof. You have provided subjective twaddle from deluded minds.

As a side note you've demonstrated your true feelings about a group of Americans by your constant attempts to marginalize them because you believe this is what you feel will appease terrorists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubic,

You claimed that you had objective proof.

Several posters on this board have asked you to provide it.

Until you back up your words you are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You have provided no objective proof. You have provided subjective twaddle from deluded minds.

As a side note you've demonstrated your true feelings about a group of Americans by your constant attempts to marginalize them because you believe this is what you feel will appease terrorists.

And the member CONCEDES IN FINALITY!

As was not just predictable, but a logical, mathematical CERTAINTY.

This member and the balance of the advocates for the normalization of sexual deviancy, simply reject ANY and ALL evidence, through a subjective and otherwise intellectually BASELESS 'interpretation' of such, and thus consider that such evidence is NOT evidence and that this conclusion is grounds for dismissal...

Imagine a judiciary where such is the standard...

You've a grievance, let's say... Oh I dunno... lets use something innocuous... say a property usage grievance...

Say someone owns property next door to you and they are using such to cultivate pot... There are DOZENS of 12' tall stalks of the ganja, clearly visible over your fence... the sweet scent of which is wafting over permeating your home...

Now such is clearly a violation of law... you've photographic evidence, you've snipped samples from the plants which have leaned over your property line, and submitted air samples from the interior of you home for testing by a qualified lab which has provided you with the scientific analysis... you've submitted such to the court...

But the court is of the mind that Pot should be legal; that laws which sustain the reasoning that such is counter to the good of the culture are unreasonable and further that 'science' has proven that 'hemp is a superior substance to any other baseline material for textiles..' and so on...

You submit your testimony... you submit the photographic evidence, you submit tests which you've had prepared which identify the substance as cannabis and you submit air samples which show high concentrations of cannabis in the air which you've taken from the interior of your home...

The court simply looks down from the bench and declares: You stated on your contest that you would show sound, objective evidence that this citizen is growing pot on their property... and this court finds that you've shown no such evidence... these photos simply show pot plants, the air samples simply show the presence of pot in the air, somewhere... this court finds that you've shown insufficient evidence to support your claim and dismisses the case you've brought against this citizen and what's more, because you have indisputably proven that you've been in the presence of pot, having submitted photographs which you've testified that you took with your own camera and that you've sampled air in your own home which shows high concentration of POT... that YOU have submitted sufficient evidence which proves that YOU are routinely in the presence of this controlled substance and hereby sentences you to the maximum sentence allowable by law...

Such defies reason... such is an example where REASON IS ABSENT from the entire scope of such a decision, in terms of common sense and certainly of Justice... and that the advocates of this issue are misusing their rights to offer an opinion, neglecting their responsibility to apply sound reason, in their pursuit of the fulfillment of their lives; directly infringing upon the rights of those who they have engaged in civil discourse...

Now some have argued that Evil exist in the absence of reason... would you agree that the scenario above, wherein a court would reject clear and indisputable evidence and turn that evidence around in the FACE of common sense and use their power to subjectively interpret that evidence to convict an innocent, for the purposes of advancing their advocacy? Would THAT represent evil?

If so, then where is the distinction between this obtuse judgment advanced by our opposition and that advanced by the court in that scenario?

It is not reasonable to declare at this point that objective evidence which tends toward PROOF of my assertions has not been tendered in this debate... as there are DOZENS of posts which speak to nothing ELSE; yet this member and those who adhere to her position, listed in the 'thank-you' position of her post... are advancing precisely THAT.

 

[Valerie]

This member and the balance of the advocates for the normalization of sexual deviancy,

There you go again.

No one is advocating for "the normalization of sexual deviancy".

Allowing gay people equal access to the legal benefits of marriage does not make homosexuality "normal" in any way shape or form.

 

[Ravi]

lol! Photographic evidence actually would prove to the court that pot plants were being grown on a certain property.

Perhaps Pubic can provide us with such objective evidence to prove his assertion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This member and the balance of the advocates for the normalization of sexual deviancy,

There you go again.

No one is advocating for "the normalization of sexual deviancy".

Allowing gay people equal access to the legal benefits of marriage does not make homosexuality "normal" in any way shape or form.

And again the member comes to conclude that the very act of redefining marriage to include those individuals whose sexual orientation deviates from the biological baseline norm; thus indisputably establsihes their sexuality as deviant; the sole purpose for which is to establish LEGITIMACY, is not, 'by ANY MEANS' an attempt to normalize sexual deviancy...

This member has been DIRECTLY and unambiguously challenged to provide an example wherein those suffering this disorder are excluded from Marriage ANYWHERE in the United States, where they make application within the scope of the standard that defines marraige and she has REPEATEDLY FAILED to show ANY exclusion... thus she has not shown a scintilla of inequity in the application of this standard against ANYONE.

She comes again to promote the deception that the purpose of marriage is to provide LEGAL equity for homosexuals... yet where it is noted that the legal joining of two or more individuals to establish a singular legal entity is routinely established through the simple incorporation, wherein ANY NUMBER OF ANY FACET of individuals join together to pursue a common goal EVERY DAY in the United States... and EVEN WHERE SUCH HAS BEEN STREAMLINED SPECIFICALLY TO ACCOMMODATE THESE INDIVIDUALS, where the typical annual filing and the regulatory responsibilities are stripped from the institution, in the name of FAIRNESS... THIS avenue is dismissed out of hand; on the grounds that it is NOT MARRIAGE... yet it provides EVERY LEGAL AND ECONOMIC PRIVILEGE OF MARRIAGE... thus the argument that they are pursing LEGAL EQUITY IS REFUTED, IN IT'S ENTIRETY!

The member is correct, however... in that revising the scope and standard of marriage to include the abnormal will NOT, in point of fact, MAKE THE ABNORMAL NORMAL... as was the case in renaming the perversion with an innocuous label, did not change the perverse deviancy from such to the status of merriment...

It simply provided a deceptive means by which the deviancy was not recognized as such... thus providing less resistance by those who were not fully engaged in the debate; thus promoting a popular concensus; the result of which was perfectly fine with these advocates... despite such being founded on lies, deception, obfuscation and myth...

Again, this member brings an argument which is absent sound reason... and where reason is absent, evil can flourish...

The advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy is nothing short of evil friends...

As such will always come with stark, unavoidable, CERTAIN calamity and where such is not rejected, the sum of those calamities can and MUST collect until it's wieght renders calamity into contastrophe...

Take note that these advocates for the normalization of sexual deviancy have OVERTLY avoided the challenge to defend their revised definition of Marriage, which would include the homosexual, from the demand of those who would RE-DEFINE their REVISION to include THREE OR MORE PEOPLE...

And reason requires that the basis for their refusal is that their advocacy will not be served by the certainty that they've no means to do so...

Thus their implied assurances are empty, vacuous lies... of the damnable variety.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol! Photographic evidence actually would prove to the court that pot plants were being grown on a certain property.

Perhaps Pubic can provide us with such objective evidence to prove his assertion.

Yes it would, where the court is reasonable; but in the final analysis, the evidence only proves what THE COURT determines it proves... and where the court subjectively determines it proves nothing... IT PROVES NOTHING. Which is where your judgment lies... in at least two contexts and on several levels...

You've conceded the argument Ravi.... all you're doing now is cementing the certainty that you're incapable of reason.

 

[Ravi]

lol! Photographic evidence actually would prove to the court that pot plants were being grown on a certain property.

Perhaps Pubic can provide us with such objective evidence to prove his assertion.

Yes it would, where the court is reasonable; but in the final analysis, the evidence only proves what THE COURT determines it proves... and where the court subjectively determines it proves nothing... IT PROVES NOTHING. Which is where your judgment lies... in at least two contexts and on several levels...

You've conceded the argument Ravi.... all you're doing now is cementing the certainty that you're incapable of reason.

Maybe you'll do your homework next time and actually come up with some objective proof.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lol! Photographic evidence actually would prove to the court that pot plants were being grown on a certain property.

Perhaps Pubic can provide us with such objective evidence to prove his assertion.

Yes it would, where the court is reasonable; but in the final analysis, the evidence only proves what THE COURT determines it proves... and where the court subjectively determines it proves nothing... IT PROVES NOTHING. Which is where your judgment lies... in at least two contexts and on several levels...

You've conceded the argument Ravi.... all you're doing now is cementing the certainty that you're incapable of reason.

Maybe you'll do your homework next time and actually come up with some objective proof.

And there you have it friends... the conclusion which rests in the absence of reason... advanced through stark ignorance that the stated position defies reason itself...

And THIS member comes to ASSURE the culture that her advocacy presents NO POTENTIAL FOR CALAMITY... despite her inability to simply provide a valid argument in defense of the VERY STANDARD that SHE COMES TO ESTABLISH... from those who would challenge it ON THE SAME GROUNDS on which SHE COMES TO CONTEST the present standard...

Now, if SHE cannot defend THAT standard... using HER OWN REASONING... where is the basis for ANY POTENTIAL DEFENSE? Who better to defend HER POSITION, than HER?

Is it not reasonable to conclude that where those who advocate to change the standard, are not prepared to defend THAT standard against revision, that they are likely VERY MUCH AWARE that, USING THEIR OWN REASONING... that there is NO BASIS IN REASONING FOR ANY STANDARD TO EXIST?

And is it not thus reasonable to conclude that where NO STANDARD EXISTS... that this, in POINT OF FACT would result in the concept itself, which stood on NOTHING BUT THE SUSTAINING STANDARD, that by removing that standard that such would reduce the concept itself to NOTHING?

Wouldn't that mean that MARRIAGE ITSELF WOULD BE MEANINGLESS? That the concept of the family; the responsibilities inherent in such and the rights born of those responsibilities would be rendered impotent... that any individual or clumps of individuals, without regard to their sexual proclivities or 'orientations'; without regard to the elements which comprise their LIFESTYLES... that such could argue that THEY DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHAT WAS ONCE, (presently) CONSIDERED NORMAL... thus rendering the very notion of 'normality' moot... having dilluted the concept of normality to effectively MEANINGLESS... as every stripe of perversion would have to be considered normal, IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS?

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA... and IF they CANNOT... which they cannot... then they concede by default, that their advocacy is IN POINT OF FACT: INDEFENSIBLE.

Now what more do we need to reject this absurdity?

 

[Valerie]

Yes it would, where the court is reasonable; but in the final analysis, the evidence only proves what THE COURT determines it proves... and where the court subjectively determines it proves nothing... IT PROVES NOTHING. Which is where your judgment lies... in at least two contexts and on several levels...

You've conceded the argument Ravi.... all you're doing now is cementing the certainty that you're incapable of reason.

Maybe you'll do your homework next time and actually come up with some objective proof.

And there you have it friends... the conclusion which rests in the absence of reason... advanced through stark ignorance that the stated position defies reason itself...

And THIS member comes to ASSURE the culture that her advocacy presents NO POTENTIAL FOR CALAMITY... despite her inability to simply provide a valid argument in defense of the VERY STANDARD that SHE COMES TO ESTABLISH... from those who would challenge it ON THE SAME GROUNDS on which SHE COMES TO CONTEST the present standard...

Now, if SHE cannot defend THAT standard... using HER OWN REASONING... where is the basis for ANY POTENTIAL DEFENSE? Who better to defend HER POSITION, than HER?

Is it not reasonable to conclude that where those who advocate to change the standard, are not prepared to defend THAT standard against revision, that they are likely of the mind that there is NO BASIS IN REASONING FOR ANY STANDARD TO EXIST? And is it not thus reasonable to conclude that where NO STANDARD EXISTS... that this, in POINT OF FACT would result in the concept itself, which stood on NOTHING BUT THE SUSTAINING STANDARD would be reduced to NOTHING? Wouldn't that mean that MARRIAGE ITSELF WOULD BE MEANINGLESS? That the concept of the family; the responsibilities inherent in such and the rights born of those responsibilities would be rendered impotent... that any individual or clumps of individuals, without regard to their sexual proclivities or 'orientations'; without regard to the elements which comprise their LIFESTYLES... that such could argue that THEY DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHAT WAS ONCE, (presently) CONSIDERED NORMAL... thus rendering the very notion of 'normality' moot... having dilluted the concept of normality to effectively MEANINGLESS... as every stripe of perversion would have to be considered normal, IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS?

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA... and IF they CANNOT... which they cannot... they concede by default that their advocacy is IN POINT OF FACT: INDEFENSIBLE.

Now what more do we need to reject this absurdity?

I think the only real "potential for calamity" is in the fear reaction of people like you.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Maybe you'll do your homework next time and actually come up with some objective proof.

And there you have it friends... the conclusion which rests in the absence of reason... advanced through stark ignorance that the stated position defies reason itself...

And THIS member comes to ASSURE the culture that her advocacy presents NO POTENTIAL FOR CALAMITY... despite her inability to simply provide a valid argument in defense of the VERY STANDARD that SHE COMES TO ESTABLISH... from those who would challenge it ON THE SAME GROUNDS on which SHE COMES TO CONTEST the present standard...

Now, if SHE cannot defend THAT standard... using HER OWN REASONING... where is the basis for ANY POTENTIAL DEFENSE? Who better to defend HER POSITION, than HER?

Is it not reasonable to conclude that where those who advocate to change the standard, are not prepared to defend THAT standard against revision, that they are likely of the mind that there is NO BASIS IN REASONING FOR ANY STANDARD TO EXIST?

And is it not thus reasonable to conclude that where NO STANDARD EXISTS... that this, in POINT OF FACT would result in the concept itself, which stood on NOTHING BUT THE SUSTAINING STANDARD would be reduced to NOTHING?

Wouldn't that mean that MARRIAGE ITSELF WOULD BE MEANINGLESS? That the concept of the family; the responsibilities inherent in such and the rights born of those responsibilities would be rendered impotent... that any individual or clumps of individuals, without regard to their sexual proclivities or 'orientations'; without regard to the elements which comprise their LIFESTYLES... that such could argue that THEY DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHAT WAS ONCE, (presently) CONSIDERED NORMAL... thus rendering the very notion of 'normality' moot... having dilluted the concept of normality to effectively MEANINGLESS... as every stripe of perversion would have to be considered normal, IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS?

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA... and IF they CANNOT... which they cannot... they concede by default that their advocacy is IN POINT OF FACT: INDEFENSIBLE.

Now what more do we need to reject this absurdity?

I think the only real "potential for calamity" is in the fear reaction of people like you.

And where on asks for a sustainable argument... one gets empty platitudes...

Again friends... if THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEIR STANDARD FROM CONTESTS WHICH WILL COME RESTING UPON THE EXACT SAME BASIS AS THEIR ARGUMENT PRESENTLY COMES... then is it reasonable to conclude that they intend that ANY STANDARD IS REASONABLE?

What we have here is precisely what I have asserted... this contest represents NOTHING SHORT, than the attempt to NORMALIZE SEXUAL DEVIANCY OF ALL STRIPES...

Not the least of which is 'loving and consensual sexual relationships with children...'

Every fiber is intrinsic to the whole cloth... As the ONLY SUSTAINABLE CONTEST WHICH STANDS AGAISNT SUCH: IS THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... as such is that from which everything else is measured. The advocates of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy are simply complaining that ti isn't FAIR that they be considered ABNORMAL and suffer a social stigma, because of this standard... and as such, they come to render that standard... MOOT; NULL AND VOID... they just can't admit that... because even the most a-political moderate, who couldn't care less about ANY OF THIS, because they've got their OWN PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH, would readily recognize THAT as DANGEROUS ABSURDITY.

We've shown that the advocates of what they claim to be the simple, singular, wholly distinct desire to simply allow homosexuals to be accepted as being suitable for marriage... provides that the standard itself will be IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED... PROVEN through their inability to DEFEND THAT REVISED STANDARD FROM A CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CHALLENGER... those who would revise marriage to include three or more people...

They've no means to defend it; because they've NO DESIRE TO DEFEND IT; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEFENDING IT.

It's not a complex issue folks... it's simply vulgar; thus unpleasent to consider...

But if you think that THIS is unpleasent, how do you think it is going to feel when the popular concensus is that Marriage is open to every stripe of debauchery which can be imagined... and your children and grand children are being legally pursued, enticed, courted, dated and are otherwise actively invloved in a consensual, loving, sexual relationship with their teacher, counselor or guardian... as a result of your having kicked the shit out of that individual because you found them fondling that child and were summarily convicted of a HATE CRIME and sentenced to prison on the scale of a capital crime?

I expect that will be vastly more 'unpleasent.'

 

[Valerie]

And there you have it friends... the conclusion which rests in the absence of reason... advanced through stark ignorance that the stated position defies reason itself...

And THIS member comes to ASSURE the culture that her advocacy presents NO POTENTIAL FOR CALAMITY... despite her inability to simply provide a valid argument in defense of the VERY STANDARD that SHE COMES TO ESTABLISH... from those who would challenge it ON THE SAME GROUNDS on which SHE COMES TO CONTEST the present standard...

Now, if SHE cannot defend THAT standard... using HER OWN REASONING... where is the basis for ANY POTENTIAL DEFENSE? Who better to defend HER POSITION, than HER?

Is it not reasonable to conclude that where those who advocate to change the standard, are not prepared to defend THAT standard against revision, that they are likely of the mind that there is NO BASIS IN REASONING FOR ANY STANDARD TO EXIST? And is it not thus reasonable to conclude that where NO STANDARD EXISTS... that this, in POINT OF FACT would result in the concept itself, which stood on NOTHING BUT THE SUSTAINING STANDARD would be reduced to NOTHING? Wouldn't that mean that MARRIAGE ITSELF WOULD BE MEANINGLESS? That the concept of the family; the responsibilities inherent in such and the rights born of those responsibilities would be rendered impotent... that any individual or clumps of individuals, without regard to their sexual proclivities or 'orientations'; without regard to the elements which comprise their LIFESTYLES... that such could argue that THEY DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHAT WAS ONCE, (presently) CONSIDERED NORMAL... thus rendering the very notion of 'normality' moot... having dilluted the concept of normality to effectively MEANINGLESS... as every stripe of perversion would have to be considered normal, IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS?

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA... and IF they CANNOT... which they cannot... they concede by default that their advocacy is IN POINT OF FACT: INDEFENSIBLE.

Now what more do we need to reject this absurdity?

I think the only real "potential for calamity" is in the fear reaction of people like you.

And where on asks for a sustainable argument... one gets empty platitudes...

Again friends... if THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEIR STANDARD FROM CONTESTS WHICH WILL COME RESTING UPON THE EXACT SAME BASIS AS THEIR ARGUMENT PRESENTLY COMES... then is it reasonable to conclude that they intend that ANY STANDARD IS REASONABLE?

What we have here is precisely what I have asserted... this contest represents NOTHING SHORT, than the attempt to NORMALIZE SEXUAL DEVIANCY OF ALL STRIPES...

Not the least of which is 'loving and consensual sexual relationships with children...

Every fiber is intrinsic to the whole cloth... As the ONLY CONTEST WICH STANDS AGAISNT SUCH IS THE STANDARD... And we've shown that the advocates of what they claim to be the simple, singular, wholly distinct desire to simply allow homosexuals to be accepted as being suitable for marriage... provides that the standard itself will be IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED... proven through their inability to DEFEND THAT REVISED STANDARD FROM A CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CHALLENGER... those who would revise marriage to include three or more people...

They've no means to defend it, because they've NO DESIRE TO DEFEND IT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEFENDING IT.

It's not a complex issue folks... it's simply vulgar, thus unpleasent to consider; but if you think that THIS is unpleasent, how do you think it is going to feel when the popular concensus is that Marriage is open to every stripe of debauchery which can be imagined... and your children grand children are being legally pursued, enticed, courted, dated and are otherwise actively invloved in a consensual, loving, sexual relationship with their teacher, counselor or guardian... as a result of your having kicked the shit out of that individual because you found them fondling that child and being convicted of a HATE CRIME and being sentenced to prison on the scale of a capital crime?

I expect that will be vastly more 'unpleasent.'

There is no potential calamity and there is no "normalization agenda". Marriage laws are antiquated and subject to change state by state. The "potential calamity" of treating all citizens equally is only in your imagination as marriage laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia laws.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I think the only real "potential for calamity" is in the fear reaction of people like you.

And where on asks for a sustainable argument... one gets empty platitudes...

Again friends... if THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEIR STANDARD FROM CONTESTS WHICH WILL COME RESTING UPON THE EXACT SAME BASIS AS THEIR ARGUMENT PRESENTLY COMES... then is it reasonable to conclude that they intend that ANY STANDARD IS REASONABLE?

What we have here is precisely what I have asserted... this contest represents NOTHING SHORT, than the attempt to NORMALIZE SEXUAL DEVIANCY OF ALL STRIPES...

Not the least of which is 'loving and consensual sexual relationships with children...'

Every fiber is intrinsic to the whole cloth... As the ONLY SUSTAINABLE CONTEST WHICH STANDS AGAISNT SUCH: IS THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... as such is that from which everything else is measured. The advocates of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy are simply complaining that ti isn't FAIR that they be considered ABNORMAL and suffer a social stigma, because of this standard... and as such, they come to render that standard... MOOT; NULL AND VOID... they just can't admit that... because even the most a-political moderate, who couldn't care less about ANY OF THIS, because they've got their OWN PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH, would readily recognize THAT as DANGEROUS ABSURDITY.

We've shown that the advocates of what they claim to be the simple, singular, wholly distinct desire to simply allow homosexuals to be accepted as being suitable for marriage... provides that the standard itself will be IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED... PROVEN through their inability to DEFEND THAT REVISED STANDARD FROM A CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CHALLENGER... those who would revise marriage to include three or more people...

They've no means to defend it; because they've NO DESIRE TO DEFEND IT; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEFENDING IT.

It's not a complex issue folks... it's simply vulgar; thus unpleasent to consider...

But if you think that THIS is unpleasent, how do you think it is going to feel when the popular concensus is that Marriage is open to every stripe of debauchery which can be imagined... and your children and grand children are being legally pursued, enticed, courted, dated and are otherwise actively invloved in a consensual, loving, sexual relationship with their teacher, counselor or guardian... as a result of your having kicked the shit out of that individual because you found them fondling that child and were summarily convicted of a HATE CRIME and sentenced to prison on the scale of a capital crime?

I expect that will be vastly more 'unpleasent.'

There is no potential calamity and there is no "normalization agenda". Marriage laws are antiquated and subject to change state by state. The "potential calamity" of treating all citizens equally is only in your imagination as marriage laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia laws.

More empty assurancesfrom the individual who REFUSES, NOW for the FIFTH TIME, to simply defend her would-be standard from the next logical contest OF THAT REVISION... of this 'antiquated' standard...

And again it must be noted that her refusal rests upon the certainty that her goal is to dismantle the notion OF THE STANDARD THAT IS "NORMALITY"... that she has NO INTENTION OF REVISING THE PRESENT STANDARD TO ANOTHER STANDARD...

This is not an attempt towards PROGRESSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT... it is an overt ATTACK ON THE CONCEPT OF NORMALITY ITSELF... in which she feels that ALL of humanity is NORMAL without regard to their sexual appetites... With no concern for the given 'sexual orientation'... or the potential for the certaint 'unintended consequences which are the ever present shadow of such advocacies...

It's a concept which rests in the pure absence of reason; it is the very personification of evil; it is the defense wherein this member is telling you that 'don't worry about what COULD happen... because whatever it is... IT WON'T!

And that defense is being advanced, EVEN AS THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PASSES LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR CIVIL PROTECTIONS, WHEREIN ANY CRIME WHICH IS COMMITTED AGAINST A PERSON THAT CAN ARGUABLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF DESIRING CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION... WILL RESULT IN YOUR BEING SENTENCED TO PRISON AT THE LEVEL AS THAT REALIZED FOR THOSE FOUND GUILTY OF A CAPITAL CRIME; thus rendering the very CONTEST of adult/child sex, a capital crime.

But hey... DON't WORRY! NOTHING BAD CAN COME FROM THAT!

 

[Valerie]

And where on asks for a sustainable argument... one gets empty platitudes...

Again friends... if THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEIR STANDARD FROM CONTESTS WHICH WILL COME RESTING UPON THE EXACT SAME BASIS AS THEIR ARGUMENT PRESENTLY COMES... then is it reasonable to conclude that they intend that ANY STANDARD IS REASONABLE?

What we have here is precisely what I have asserted... this contest represents NOTHING SHORT, than the attempt to NORMALIZE SEXUAL DEVIANCY OF ALL STRIPES...

Not the least of which is 'loving and consensual sexual relationships with children...'

Every fiber is intrinsic to the whole cloth... As the ONLY SUSTAINABLE CONTEST WHICH STANDS AGAISNT SUCH: IS THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... as such is that from which everything else is measured. The advocates of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy are simply complaining that ti isn't FAIR that they be considered ABNORMAL and suffer a social stigma, because of this standard... and as such, they come to render that standard... MOOT; NULL AND VOID... they just can't admit that... because even the most a-political moderate, who couldn't care less about ANY OF THIS, because they've got their OWN PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH, would readily recognize THAT as DANGEROUS ABSURDITY.

We've shown that the advocates of what they claim to be the simple, singular, wholly distinct desire to simply allow homosexuals to be accepted as being suitable for marriage... provides that the standard itself will be IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED... PROVEN through their inability to DEFEND THAT REVISED STANDARD FROM A CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CHALLENGER... those who would revise marriage to include three or more people...

They've no means to defend it; because they've NO DESIRE TO DEFEND IT; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEFENDING IT.

It's not a complex issue folks... it's simply vulgar; thus unpleasent to consider...

But if you think that THIS is unpleasent, how do you think it is going to feel when the popular concensus is that Marriage is open to every stripe of debauchery which can be imagined... and your children and grand children are being legally pursued, enticed, courted, dated and are otherwise actively invloved in a consensual, loving, sexual relationship with their teacher, counselor or guardian... as a result of your having kicked the shit out of that individual because you found them fondling that child and were summarily convicted of a HATE CRIME and sentenced to prison on the scale of a capital crime?

I expect that will be vastly more 'unpleasent.'

There is no potential calamity and there is no "normalization agenda". Marriage laws are antiquated and subject to change state by state. The "potential calamity" of treating all citizens equally is only in your imagination as marriage laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia laws.

More empty assurancesfrom the individual who REFUSES, NOW for the FIFTH TIME, to simply defend her would-be standard from the next logical contest OF THAT REVISION... of this 'antiquated' standard...

And again it must be noted that her refusal rests upon the certainty that her goal is to dismantle the notion OF THE STANDARD THAT IS "NORMALITY"... that she has NO INTENTION OF REVISING THE PRESENT STANDARD TO ANOTHER STANDARD...

This is not an attempt towards PROGRESSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT... it is an overt ATTACK ON THE CONCEPT OF NORMALITY ITSELF... in which she feels that ALL of humanity is NORMAL without regard to their sexual appetites... With no concern for the given 'sexual orientation'... or the potential for the certaint 'unintended consequences which are the ever present shadow of such advocacies...

It's a concept which rests in the pure absence of reason; it is evil personified.

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

 

[Toro]

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

And let's not forget, it leads not only pedophilia but also to terrorism!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

And let's not forget, it leads not only pedophilia but also to terrorism!