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

[PubliusInfinitum]

Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

>

I suppose I should point out your failure to adequately respond to this post since it relates DIRECTLY to your OP.

I spoke to it... but if you felt it inadequate, I'll happily add to my response...

Pedophilia does in fact harm children... I know it, you know it, the child knows it and the pedophile knows it; and the social scientists who have referenced Indiana University Kinsey Institute, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the MOST REFERENCED "SEXUALITY SCIENTIST" IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIES... since he first authored his perveted tomes in 1948, wherein he declared that pedophilia is NOT harmful... but actually quite healthy for even adolescent , THEY KNOW it...

The issue is not that adult/child sex harms children, it is the deception, born of invalid reasoning, absurd rationalization, which is advanced in the MIND of the Pedophile, in the mind of the advocate of sexual deviancy, in the mind of the sexuality scientists... which is at issue and it's the SAME deception, the SAME absurd rationalizations and the SAME invalid reasoning which advances the notion that normalizing sexual deviancy is not harmful to the culture.

Feel better?

Now would you like to get back to my numerous other points? I really feel like we're about to turn a corner here...

 

[Valerie]

Gays want marriage symbolically, and for nothing else. The rest of us non-gays don't care. Gays are human beings, they can vote, they can't be subject to prosecution based on nothing more than their sexuality, yes yes yes. But they are pushing the envelope, for no obvious reason at marriage. We draw the line there, sorry. No can do. We draw the line THERE. And we don't need to justify anything.

Who is we???

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not at all about YOU and your personal opinion.

There is a material difference for gay couples and there is no constitutional justification for denying them equality under the law.

This material difference IS an obvious reason "to push the envelope" for these individuals whose citizenship is EQUAL to your own, whether or not YOU choose to see it. The opposing argument is merely based on either anecdotal emotion or religious conviction, nothing more...Speaking of symbolic?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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...Gays, minorities ,EVERYONE have the same rights, no more, no less. Pretending they don't is a lie. It's asking for something never intended in the Constitution. It asks more, and fairness doesn't include sexual perversions as a choice. It's not a right. Love anyone or anything you want. You just can expect the right MARRY ANYTHING YOU WISH. Sorry. Don't buy it.

Banning gay marriage deprives people of their rights.

What right is that?

It deprives individuals from freely entering a contract that everyone else is entitled to based upon their sexuality.

First, there is no such thing as 'gay Marriage'.... There is Marriage... Entering into a contract is not at contest by anyone... entering into Marriage is at contest.

It is no different than depriving individuals from freely entering the contract of marriage based upon their race or their religion.

No one is being prevented from marrying anyone... except where the two individuals are not suitable to or otherwise fail to meet the minimal standards required for Marriage... that there be TWO individuals, that the two individuals are of opposite genders...

It is not for the standard to meet the needs of the individuals; it is the responsibility of the individuals to MEET THE STANDARD.

There is no evidence that gay marriage harms anybody anymore than black marriage or Jewish marriage harms anyone.

There is no disputing the evidence that homosexuality is deviant from the baseline which is established by the biological imperative ... where the standard of Marriage was lowered to accomodate the deviant, it legitimizes deviancy and there is absolutely NOTHING GOOD which can be realized by the culture where sexual debauchery is normalized.

That you erroneously FEEL that 'there is no evidence that gay marriage harms no one' such is NOT a reasonable basis on which to turn the culture on its a head; particularly given that the FIRST thing that has to happen in rationalizing Homosexuals being suitable for Marriage is that the culture must pretend ABNORMALITY is NORMALITY... thus the foundation of the reasoning is DELUSION. Which is the formula for many a cultural catastrophe.

Gay marriage is inevitable for two reasons. First, young people are generally for it and older people are generally against.

Young people are generally prone to poor decisions and they tend, as they grow older to improve on such... And Young people are no where NEAR as 'for it' as the media driven , mythical consensus otherwise suggests...

The Young LEFTIST is generally for it... but hardly a day goes by when even the young leftist is not found belitting someone through the projection that they are a queer... IF in TRUTH, the young people didn't see homosexuality as wrong, there would be no substance on which to base such a projection... now would there?

Second, the actualization of the rights of individuals to do as they please has been relentless over time, whether that is full civil rights for women or for people of other religions or for minorities.

And this is the 'tell' where your ignorance REALLY SHINES...

There is no 'right to do as one pleases'... PERIOD.

Rights exist ONLY within the scope of the responsibilities which sustain them... Where one CLAIMS the Right to undermine the viability of ones culture through the normalization of the abnormal, their failure to tend to their RESPONSIBILITY to DEFEND THE VIABILITY of their culture, will inevitably realize that the RIGHT they advanced destroys their culture...

[/quote]Our great grandchildren will look back at us and see us the same way as we saw all those whites fighting against integration - they'll think "What was all the fuss about?"[/QUOTE]

Our Great Grand children will look back on this generation and say: What a pack of self absorbed FOOLS... as there will be nothing remotely resembling AMERICA in 60 years.

The very IDEA that a viable culture sets the standards of acceptable behavior to accommodate the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, FLIES in the face of the very CONCEPT of standards itself.

Such is LUDICROUS on it's face.

 

[Valerie]

Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

>

I suppose I should point out your failure to adequately respond to this post since it relates DIRECTLY to your OP.

I spoke to it... but if you felt it inadequate, I'll happily add to my response...

Pedophilia does in fact harm children... I know it, you know it, the child knows it and the pedophile knows it; and the social scientists who have referenced Indiana University Kinsey Institute, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the MOST REFERENCED "SEXUALITY SCIENTIST" IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIES... since he first authored his perveted tomes in 1948, wherein he declared that pedophilia is NOT harmful... but actually quite healthy for even adolescent , THEY KNOW it...

The issue is not that adult/child sex harms children, it is the deception, born of invalid reasoning, absurd rationalization, which is advanced in the MIND of the Pedophile, in the mind of the advocate of sexual deviancy, in the mind of the sexuality scientists... which is at issue and it's the SAME deception, the SAME absurd rationalizations and the SAME invalid reasoning which advances the notion that normalizing sexual deviancy is not harmful to the culture.

Feel better?

Now would you like to get back to my numerous other points? I really feel like we're about to turn a corner here...

Again with the "normalizing"?

I can think of a lot of things that are harmful to our culture.

We agree on pedophilia, but for some reason you ignore the obvious contrast of that harmful perversion with the personal freedom of adult consensual sex. I wonder why the continual schism in YOUR absurd reasoning?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gays want marriage symbolically, and for nothing else. The rest of us non-gays don't care. Gays are human beings, they can vote, they can't be subject to prosecution based on nothing more than their sexuality, yes yes yes. But they are pushing the envelope, for no obvious reason at marriage. We draw the line there, sorry. No can do. We draw the line THERE. And we don't need to justify anything.

Who is we???

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not at all about YOU and your personal opinion.

ROFL... that's a lovely sauce Goose...

There is a material difference for gay couples and there is no constitutional justification for denying them equality under the law.

Valarie, it is the height of idiocy to claim that the standards of marriage are not being applied EQUALLY... now you could make an argument that the EQUAL APPLICATION OF THOSE STANDARDS IS NOT "FAIR"... but fairness has nothing to do with liberty... at least not in the real world. Fairness has nothing to do with the LAW... as fairness is a term of relevance... its subjective to the individual's perspective, and such is why whatever culture or movement sets 'fairness' as it's ideal... it crashes and burns... See: the 6 Republics of France in 230 years.

This material difference IS an obvious reason "to push the envelope" for these individuals whose citizenship is EQUAL to your own, whether or not YOU choose to see it. The opposing argument is merely based on either anecdotal emotion or religious conviction, nothing more...Speaking of symbolic?

AND THERE IS THE RUB! AT LAST!

The issue demonstrates the achilles heal of secular cultures... their tendency to strip themselves of cultural standards... and spinning into debauchery as a result.

The secular left is, as has been conclusively proven, by the testinomy advanced in this thread, of having failed to advance reasoned argument at ANY LEVEL... wherein they can show a sound moral justification for normalizing the abnormal... and thus is the basis of their DEMAND that they be accepted for application to for Marriage... as Marriage is the last bastion of Religious semblence in Public cultural life... they seek the LEGITIMACY THAT MARRIAGE REPRESENTS... because they feel that where the law forces the culture to accept them as suitable for Marriage, that this will finally prove that their abnomality is equal to the norm.

But sadly, in so doing, they will undermine the sanctity on which the legitimacy of Marriage rests... undermining their fundamental purpose.

And such is the nature of evil... the inherent deception provides that what one FEELS that one is pursuing is RIGHT... in the end, one finds that such has lead them to ruin... the ideological left calls this ruin... 'the unintended consequences' which result from their good intentions... when in reality, its the predictable consequences of ignoring sound reason, by confusing EQUALITY with FAIRNESS...

But the bottom line here kids... is that on THIS ONE.... You've run up against the wall... You come to a line which we're not prepared to concede... not for you, not for any reason; and your pushing is only going to realize an exponentially greater push back, in response...

And we're perfectly prepared to go to war to settle it...

Any questions?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

>

I suppose I should point out your failure to adequately respond to this post since it relates DIRECTLY to your OP.

I spoke to it... but if you felt it inadequate, I'll happily add to my response...

Pedophilia does in fact harm children... I know it, you know it, the child knows it and the pedophile knows it; and the social scientists who have referenced Indiana University Kinsey Institute, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the MOST REFERENCED "SEXUALITY SCIENTIST" IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIES... since he first authored his perveted tomes in 1948, wherein he declared that pedophilia is NOT harmful... but actually quite healthy for even adolescent , THEY KNOW it...

The issue is not that adult/child sex harms children, it is the deception, born of invalid reasoning, absurd rationalization, which is advanced in the MIND of the Pedophile, in the mind of the advocate of sexual deviancy, in the mind of the sexuality scientists... which is at issue and it's the SAME deception, the SAME absurd rationalizations and the SAME invalid reasoning which advances the notion that normalizing sexual deviancy is not harmful to the culture.

Feel better?

Now would you like to get back to my numerous other points? I really feel like we're about to turn a corner here...

Again with the "normalizing"?

I can think of a lot of things that are harmful to our culture.

We agree on pedophilia, but for some reason you ignore the obvious contrast of that harmful perversion with the personal freedom of adult consensual sex. I wonder why the continual schism in YOUR absurd reasoning?

Pedophilia and Homosexuality are a distinction with no substantial difference; they're one in the same deviancy... and while you feel otherwise... you're simply operating under a stark ignorance or delusion.

I've stated repeatedly that the only organized advocacy for Adult/child sex... is NAMBLA... an organization formed BY homosexuals to exclusively serve the homosexual community... and DEFENDED, EXCLUSIVELY BY the Homosexual community...

When the APA released it's "RIND STUDY" in '99... and that 'scientific report' concluded that 'adult/child sex is actually GOOD for children...' Dr. Laura Schlesinger took that 'report' head-on... now what group do you suppose ROSE THE TALLEST AND CRIED THE LOUDEST? Here's a clue... It rhymes with Schlomosexuals...

And what's more Val.. the ONLY reason that the Advocacy demands that the homo-sexual orientation be declared suitable for marriage is FOR NO OTHER REASON than teh LEGITIMACY WHICH SUCH WOULD PROVIDE as THAT IS THE LAST VESTIGE OF RELIGIOUS MORAL AUTHORITY in the US PUBLIC CULTURE...

Period.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

I am having de ja vue ... though I didn't live at the time ... sounds a lot like so many other past cries about something "ruining marriage" ... blacks, Jews ...

???

Could you please elaborate on this point.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.

Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.

What is wrong with this argument?

 

[Ravi]

Actually, pedophilia and homosexuality are both incontestable examples of sexual deviant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

For perhaps the millionth time, there is no protection for pedophiles in this bill.

Pedophilia is illegal.

Homosexuality is legal.

Heterosexuality is legal.

In other words...
Epic Fail!

Well there ya have it folks... "Pedophilia is ILLEGAL and homosexuality is NOT"

So we're faced with two fairly simple solutions... we can either return homosexuality to illegal... or legalize pedophilia...

Clearly, the member wants to imply that she is ALL ABOUT THE LAW...

So where the culture were to return homosexuality to illegal, she implies here that she would immediately shut down her advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy... IMMEDIATELY.

She's clearly wanting to give us the impression that her objection to pedophilia rests on its legal status... Which begs the question; "If pedophilia were 'decided,' by say a judicial 'RULING,' to be legal, would she then accept pedophilia?

I think the answer there is a hysterically predictable “OH YEAH…”

We can be sure, that where 'SCIENCE' was said to have 'determined' that: 'many children actually benefited from consensual sexual relationships with adults; and that many decades of 'research' had shown that former attitudes about such, wherein it was believed that child sexual abuse produced long-term psychological damage; were simply WRONG... that 'studies show' that few, if ANY children, who suffer sexual abuse as a child suffer any serious damage, psychological or otherwise...' that this member would adhere to that SCIENCE in a New York minute... and there would be absolutely NOTHING which you could offer which would rise to sufficient level to represent objective evidence... And how do we know? How can we be SO sure? Well when “SCIENCE” declared that the Homo-sexual orientation did NOT deviate from the biological baseline norm… she BIT HARD ON THAT ONE…

What’s the difference?

LOL! I'm beginning to think you are secretly advocating for pedophilia. I'd dare say you are more than likely a member of NAMBLA.

Children are not consenting adults. There is a huge difference...but of course that point matters not to you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well there ya have it folks... "Pedophilia is ILLEGAL and homosexuality is NOT"

So we're faced with two fairly simple solutions... we can either return homosexuality to illegal... or legalize pedophilia...

Clearly, the member wants to imply that she is ALL ABOUT THE LAW...

So where the culture were to return homosexuality to illegal, she implies here that she would immediately shut down her advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy... IMMEDIATELY.

She's clearly wanting to give us the impression that her objection to pedophilia rests on its legal status... Which begs the question; "If pedophilia were 'decided,' by say a judicial 'RULING,' to be legal, would she then accept pedophilia?

I think the answer there is a hysterically predictable “OH YEAH…”

We can be sure, that where 'SCIENCE' was said to have 'determined' that: 'many children actually benefited from consensual sexual relationships with adults; and that many decades of 'research' had shown that former attitudes about such, wherein it was believed that child sexual abuse produced long-term psychological damage; were simply WRONG... that 'studies show' that few, if ANY children, who suffer sexual abuse as a child suffer any serious damage, psychological or otherwise...' that this member would adhere to that SCIENCE in a New York minute... and there would be absolutely NOTHING which you could offer which would rise to sufficient level to represent objective evidence... And how do we know? How can we be SO sure? Well when “SCIENCE” declared that the Homo-sexual orientation did NOT deviate from the biological baseline norm… she BIT HARD ON THAT ONE…

What’s the difference?

LOL! I'm beginning to think you are secretly advocating for pedophilia. I'd dare say you are more than likely a member of NAMBLA.

Children are not consenting adults. There is a huge difference...but of course that point matters not to you.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Ravi.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.

Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.

What is wrong with this argument?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is that it's a false comparison... the premise being that the discrimination of blacks, is on some level similar to the discrimination of those suffering the homo-sexual orientation.

This based upon the certainty that there is no discrimination, legally speaking, of Homo-sexuals... sexual orientation stands as a means to civil protections... which is what feeds this specious line of reasoning. Racial Minorities are protected, sexual orientation is protected... thus the comparison is implied.

But being a racial minority is a genetic distinction which the bearer cannot change... Being homosexual is not a genetic distinction... SCIENCE has determined that there is no genetic root at the bottom of sexual orientation; sexual orientation is a mental disorder...

And while there are also protections for the physically/mentally impaired, those protection does not rise to the level where, when that impairment prohibits the individual from fulfilling the scope of say a job, which requires them to perform certain tasks... where they, say... have no arms... the law does not force an employer to hire them to fill a position which requires arms... I'm sure you see this point as accurate and agree that the civil protections do not afforded the handicapped a 'right' to do anything a non-handicapped person can do; and this because the reality is that they simply cannot. The protections afforded are designed to protect their opportunities... to the extent that is possible; and assure, again to the extent that is possible, that their opportunities rest at equity with the balance of the population.

The issue here is that homosexuals want to REDEFINE the well reasoned, logically valid, long standing standards which define Marriage. And they do this through the use of an irrational view of FAIRNESS; where upon they drape “Equality’ as a facade in bringing legal challenges which seek to represent that they are not being treated EQUALLY, under the law…

The simple fact is, that Homo-sexuals are NOT prohibited from marriage... they get married ALL THE TIME... what the standard of marriage prohibits, is what ALL standards prohibit and that is someone who cannot meet that standard IS not provided a pass to cross that threshold.

To the best of my knowledge, No homosexual has had their application for a marriage license denied... on the basis that they are 'Homosexual'...

They HAVE however had their application denied because they are applying for a license, in full knowledge that as filed, they do not meet the minimal threshold requirements... which are applied EQUALLY to ALL applicants: First, there must be TWO individuals... second that those two individuals must be comprised of two distinct GENDERS.

Where a homosexual comes to apply for a license to marry and open declares "I AM A HOMOSEXUAL MALE... Please meet my wife Sally... she is a HOMOSEXUAL FEMALE... and we would like to apply for a marriage license... the municipality would approve such an application in a SNAP! Why? Because there are TWO individuals, who represent the two distinct genders; thus having met the minimum standard required for marriage.

The homosexual argument is that they are being treated UNFAIRLY... they simply use the word 'equal' as a substitute because the Law does not concern itself with FAIRNESS... as fairness is a subjective determination... EQUALITY on the other hand, where judicial decisions are handed down, often results in NEITHER party feeling that they've been treated "FAIRLY..."

The homo-sexual advocacy above, the validity of which you seem to adhere, requires that Homo-sexuality is not being treated EQUALLY... when in truth... they are being treated PRECISELY equally... THEIR argument is WITH THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY ITSELF!

They are not satisfied with EQUAL TREATMENT... they are demanding SPECIAL CONSIDERATION... 'We can't meet this standard; the standard is unreasonable because of our mental disorder... our special circumstances prevent us with no means to apply for marriage and make a successful application, in that we do not possess the means to LOVE people of the opposite gender; which is a lie in and of itself.

Homosexual males, love their mothers, their sisters, aunts and I've no doubt, love other females which they have come to know and are special to them... So they are capable of loving females... they simply do not love females 'in that way'... Right? (You know what I'm sayin... RIGHT? You old DOG!... “Dey gonna GET SOME!!!”)

So it's the physical attraction... right? Which used to mean what? It USED to mean, when someone felt 'that way' about another, and we're talking hetero's now... that this meant that they LOVED someone, were sexually attracted to them and wanted to settle down and start a family... They wanted to GET MARRIED! To JOIN TOGETHER.... Join as one BEING... as ONE Entity. So Marriage is merely the Public acknowledgment that those two individuals were operating as ONE... in the presents of God and his witnesses, that they were committing themselves to one another... vowing to remain WHOLE... as one entity... because... Well... why is that?

What happens when two genders join as one? What it is about the process of "joining?"

Isn't it the biological function of procreation? And when two people join... and that results in procreation; that's a pretty serious commitment isn't it? This SINGULAR entity of marriage, wherein TWO INDIVIDUALS have joined and conceived A NEW individual... which is a new element of their singularity, which is distinct to THEIR UNION... requires a firm commitment in a sound Union... which we call a 'family' and stands as the nucleus of our culture.

Now, as far a joining is concerned... that doesn't require any input from the government, does it? I mean two people have committed themselves to one another... what business is it, of the government's? If two people cohabitate, share expenses and otherwise operate as one entity... that doesn't seem to have any public interests, does it? And it does not...

So then... why DOES the government bother? What is the public interests, which rests at the foundation of the whole licensing process?

What SPECIFICALLY is the licensing burden designed to do?

Excellent question!

To answer that one... We simply look at the scope of licensing itself... Why does the government require a Contractor to make application for a license?

Wouldn't you agree that the government requires a contractor to apply for a license because they want to ensure that the would-be contractor is QUALIFIED to Contract within their desired specialty?

Of course... Licensing merely establishes a minimum STANDARD, by which those who would participate in a given endeavor, must meet before they can cross the threshold established by that standard and engage in their stated purpose...

Such is the same with regard to Marriage. Licensing of marriage is NOTHIGN BUT the means of the government to ensure that those who make application to enter into MARRIAGE... meet the minimum standards required FOR SUCH and given the above explanation... where the purpose of Marriage is to create a single entity where two genders join as one... we can readily see that the minimum standard is such that there be TWO individuals... and that those two represent the TWO DISTINCT GENDERS...

Why not three or more and what if they're infertile or impotent; why must they both be humans and why must they represent both distinct genders and why... ?

The standard represents the public interests... Like the US Constitution, the standard of Marriage does not seek to accommodate every flake of human desire... its purpose is to serve the interests of the community wherein TWO PEOPLE JOIN TO RAISE A FAMILY... and it simply seeks to determine that where such is the case, that such unions are comprised of the minimum requirements to make that work, to the extent that can be measured; to give that union the best possible chance, within the means of the law to provide for such; and to do so with as little interference or encumbrance upon the rights of the individual as possible.

So we can readily see that there is no means for those afflicted with the homo-sexual orientation to procreate... In my state, they are prohibited from adoption... thus there will be no family... thus there is nothing to be served through Marriage.

Homosexuals are free to join... they are FREE to commit to one another if they are so inclined... they can cohabitate, share expenses, bank accounts, car payments, home loans... and they are FREE to, if THEY FEEL REALLY STRONGLY for one another... they can incorporate and form a legal union, which establishes their special union as ONE LEGAL ENTITY... recognized by the Federal law, the State Law and all local municipalities, the IRS and the US Chamber of Commerce...

But they do NOT meet, as they are not well suited, for the standards that ARE MARRIAGE; in that the homo-sexual orientation, makes it unlikely that they will present application wherein the TWO individual applicants are representative of both distinct genders... and there is NO CHANCE that they will procreate, or adopt a child... and for the same reasons.


So Homosexuals are NOT being treated unequally under the law; they are being treated unfairly, as THEY interpret their circumstances, based upon the specious scientific conclusions which require that one suspend reason and accept that the abnormal is normal; as well as the spurious argument, that Marriage is the SOLE MEANS which provide for the specific economic privileges… common to Marriage; to which they erroneously FEEL, that they are RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED.

It’s all a lie… based upon a litany of myths, which are sustained by a chorus of empty platitudes.

 

[Nik]

Gays want marriage symbolically, and for nothing else. The rest of us non-gays don't care. Gays are human beings, they can vote, they can't be subject to prosecution based on nothing more than their sexuality, yes yes yes. But they are pushing the envelope, for no obvious reason at marriage. We draw the line there, sorry. No can do. We draw the line THERE. And we don't need to justify anything.

No, retard. There are more than 1,700 federal rights and privileges that come from getting married.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

For perhaps the millionth time, there is no protection for pedophiles in this bill.

Pedophilia is illegal.

Homosexuality is legal.

Heterosexuality is legal.

In other words...
Epic Fail!

Well there ya have it folks... "Pedophilia is ILLEGAL and homosexuality is NOT"

So we're faced with two fairly simple solutions... we can either return homosexuality to illegal... or legalize pedophilia...

Clearly, the member wants to imply that she is ALL ABOUT THE LAW...

So where the culture were to return homosexuality to illegal, she implies here that she would immediately shut down her advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy... IMMEDIATELY.

She's clearly wanting to give us the impression that her objection to pedophilia rests on its legal status... Which begs the question; "If pedophilia were 'decided,' by say a judicial 'RULING,' to be legal, would she then accept pedophilia?

I think the answer there is a hysterically predictable “OH YEAH…”

We can be sure, that where 'SCIENCE' was said to have 'determined' that: 'many children actually benefited from consensual sexual relationships with adults; and that many decades of 'research' had shown that former attitudes about such, wherein it was believed that child sexual abuse produced long-term psychological damage; were simply WRONG... that 'studies show' that few, if ANY children, who suffer sexual abuse as a child suffer any serious damage, psychological or otherwise...' that this member would adhere to that SCIENCE in a New York minute... and there would be absolutely NOTHING which you could offer which would rise to sufficient level to represent objective evidence... And how do we know? How can we be SO sure? Well when “SCIENCE” declared that the Homo-sexual orientation did NOT deviate from the biological baseline norm… she BIT HARD ON THAT ONE…

What’s the difference?

LOL! I'm beginning to think ...

Yet there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of such...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gays want marriage symbolically, and for nothing else. The rest of us non-gays don't care. Gays are human beings, they can vote, they can't be subject to prosecution based on nothing more than their sexuality, yes yes yes. But they are pushing the envelope, for no obvious reason at marriage. We draw the line there, sorry. No can do. We draw the line THERE. And we don't need to justify anything.

No, retard. There are more than 1,700 federal rights and privileges that come from getting married.

ROFLMNAO...

I've been engaged in this argument for four decades and it is HILARIOUS how this particular argument is now suffering such absurd inflation...

There are no where near 1700 such rights and privileges... enjoyed by normal married couples; that is one of the litanny of myths and lies to which I spoke above.

What's FASCINATING to me, is how what seems to be perfectly reasonable people on first glance, are found to be willing to TURN THE CULTURE ON ITS HEAD; THEY ARE WILLING TO GO TO THE END OF THE WORLD... THERE IS NO MEANS WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF 'MARRIAGE'...

They will pay Lobbyist HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS... hire lawyers, buy judges, file lawsuits, lobby congress, OPENLY smear ANYONE who has the temerity to challenge them publically...

But they aren't willing to CONSIDER... simply spending a HUNDRED BUCKS to file for Incorporation; to establish a LEGAL ENTITY... which provides for every facet wherein MULTIPLE PARTYS join as ONE LEGAL ENTITY as a means to pursue every conceivable end...

They will QUICKLY FLASH that 'incorporation doesn't provide for the receiving of Social Security Benefits in the event that the other 'significant other' passes...

Which they feel is a GREAT POINT!

But think about it... THEY'RE PREPARED TO TURN THE WORLD INSIDE OUT TO CHANGE THE DEFINING STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE...

but they're just not capable of lobbying to have congress modify yet ANOTHER distinction in the NUMEROUS distinctions which they have provided for every conceivable implementation of Incorporation...

They're PREPARED TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO FORCE MARRIAGE... but they can't file ONE lawsuit, to demand that the law be changed to provide for the SOCIAL SECURITY to be included in the benefits of a special corporate entity designed to accommodate THEIR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES...

It's specious nonsense kids...

It's a litany of myths, stacked on top of an endless streem of lies and platitudes.

 

[Nik]

Oh noes! The world will turn inside out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to Iowa. Or Connecticut. The world is still pretty much the same as it was. Oh, except there is more happiness because specific people feel less discriminated against.

 

[Toro]

Oh noes! The world will turn inside out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to Iowa. Or Connecticut. The world is still pretty much the same as it was. Oh, except there is more happiness because specific people feel less discriminated against.

Holland, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Spain all have gay marriage.

And all are basket-case hell-holes controlled by Satan.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Bad analogy.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Bad analogy.

Not so much...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Bad analogy.

Joe, you're new here so, its understandable... but Bully is a known imbecile... and a site troll...

She's on ignore by the more intelligent members... and engaging her in discussion only tends to aggravate the 'situation'...

Do what you must, but it's not uncommon that those who encourage trolls who are on ignore tend to end up there themselves... as to engage them, one typically quotes them and no one really wants to see the idiocy of those that they've determined are unsuitable for civil discourse.

You're of course correct in your conclusion that the analogy is absurd... you'll find that this post is, for all intents and purposes, the intellectual 'high-tide line' of that moron... and what's more, she tends to repeat the same discredited crap, over and over... until ya just can't stand to see it anymore.

Save yourself some anguish and just ignore the poor pathetic tool...

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Thank God most people have the common sense to know right from wrong. Thank God most people don't buy this MORONIC idea that if DOGS lick each others ASSES, then HUMANS SHOULD TOO! How STUPID does one have to be to try and forward such an IDIOTIC idea? I would HATE to see what kind of a world we'd live in if a person that believes THAT crap actually got the power to make it so. People might as well take up residence in their TOILET!

Well that's easy...

It's not the perfect illustration, but it's close enough...

Now if one needs to know what such would realize... here's what happens when a culture becomes weak and unsustainable. Just remember, THIS was a tiny little group of a few dozen determined individuals and NOT a determined, organized, capable sovereign nation:

Could you please be more specific about how this illustration relates to the crux of your argument.