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

[Bullypulpit]

Sure... that's not a problem: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rable-harm-marriage-same-sex.html#post1212227

In that link you'll find the argument wherein a timeline is measured against a rapidly falling moral standard; wherein the harmful ramifications of those crumbling standards are noted... the time frame is just post the free-love age of the 1960s, through to the present where the Homosexuality has been declared to be normal, marriage is being refined to include two people of the same gender; with polygomists stepping up to Re-redefine it to include three or more people and Congress is pass legislation which tacitly promote pedophiles to a protected class...

An argument against which no valid contest has yet to be advanced, so take a look at it and see what you can come up with...

My guess is you'll have you ass handed to you.

PI, he won't even read a word of it. He'll just come back in here and claim the link is biased and nothing in the article is true. He does it all the time. You could tell him the color of his eyes and he wouldn't believe you, because simply, he doesn't want to.

In case you missed it, which it seems likely you did, I addressed PublicIdiot's half-assed notions in #123 of this thread.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok Pi I've seen people claim that countless things we're going to cause *cue scary music* the downfall of western civilization and the coming of sexual debauchery that would make Sodom look like Sesame Street.

You claim we're all ready there or close, or something, I disagree but for the sake of argument what makes you think that your pet cause is actually a cause or the cause.

That is what I don't see objective proof of.

Ok, so you're incapable of advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in contest of that which you CLEARLY would otherwise like to contest.

GOOD NEWS KIDS...

Another advocate with the AUDACITY to HOPE for CHANGE is amongst us!

Praise the Saints... FRESH MEAT!

Should you stumble across an argument, sis... be sure to get back to us.

I didn't think ...

You never do Ravi... that's part of your charm.

 

[Ravi]

Ok, so you're incapable of advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in contest of that which you CLEARLY would otherwise like to contest.

GOOD NEWS KIDS...

Another advocate with the AUDACITY to HOPE for CHANGE is amongst us!

Praise the Saints... FRESH MEAT!

Should you stumble across an argument, sis... be sure to get back to us.

I didn't think ...

You never do Ravi... that's part of your charm.

Note...yet another concession from Pubic. Not only can't he come up with objective proof, he has also fallen back on his time honored ploy of deliberately twisting the statements of others.

Methinks Pubic is home now, probably in his mother's basement, crying like a stuck pig while searching the web for pictures of naked men.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Now, I eagerly await your evidence of "calamitous and catastrophic' consequences to individuals, communities and society as a whole in giving granting same gender couples the right to marry...A right it was never the government's to deny.

I can see that it's going to be a looooong wait.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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:

 

[Toro]

So, in other words, in PI-speak, allowing gays to marry will lead to more 9/11s from al-Qaeda terrorists.

Epic fail.

 

[007]

After many, many articles, links, well thought out and presented arguments done by PI and myself, all you liberals have to respond with is, "nuh uh, show me another link, that's biased, that's not true because I say so even if I can't prove it, and then top that pathetic diatribe off with a few personal insults, especially one of ravi's board name turned sexual insults." And there you have it... the liberals counter argument. Not worth the band width it took to display it. Just inane, text book liberal obfuscation and BULL SHIT!

Well whether any of you half wits admit it or not, and I know you wouldn't if your life depended on it, it's against your liberal, "let's argue FOR unnatural sex and PERVERSION," marching orders, but at the end of the day, PI and I win, in grand style.

You're all dismissed.

 

[Montrovant]

The APA says that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, that it's not an abnormal sexual orientation... this despite Homosexuality being 180 degrees oppossed to the biological imperative; which can be defined in NO OTHER TERMS than abnormality...

I'm curious, does this mean you feel heterosexuals who engage in sexual practices that cannot lead to procreation (anal sex, oral sex, etc) are suffering from mental disorders? Does this mean you feel anyone who masturbates suffers from a mental disorder? That any sexual behavior for the purposes of pleasure rather than procreation is a sign of a mental disorder?

I'm not going to argue the obvious truth that a homosexual couple cannot procreate without outside assistance (be that a surrogate, artificial insemination, whatever). However, the same is true of heterosexual couples where one or both partners are sterile. And there are innumerable sexual practices which cannot lead to procreation practiced by heterosexual couples; there are heterosexual couples who intentionally never have children; sex is clearly not only about a biological imperative.

Is homosexuality abnormal? Sure, as any behavior not practiced by the majority is abnormal. But we probably all engage in some sexual behavior that is abnormal

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Unless our moral standards are rooted in the real consequences to the lives of those individuals they affect, in this world, they are useless.

The point to that train-wreck is known only to you...

That you fail to understand the point indicates a certain shallowness to your self proclaimed intellectual superiority.

Huh... so where your opposition declares that your point is unknown... you return to establish as a point in FACT, that the point has meaningless; through your refusal to elucidate; to clarify that point...

Which FTR, was expected and was the point in stating that the point was indiscernible.

Thus, you're conceding THIS element of your argument... and we can close the book on at least this much. Feel free to re-open the book should you manage to rationalize a valid point from that drivel.

The entire point of my argument are the REAL CONSEQUENCES REALIZED BY THE DECLINE IN PUBLIC STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY...

The "decline in public standards" by what objective measure?

ROFLMNAO... By the objective measure which is established in the etymological roots of the verb: decline: diminish: to decrease in number, amount, value, or quality.

Now would you like to offer an argument, where normalizing sexual deviancy and the aforementioned symptoms of same; where LAW which was debated and the exclusion of protections for PEDOPHILIA were REJECTED, thus establishing a de facto 'protected status' of those who advocate for sexual relationships with minor children... are indicative of in increase in the value and quality of US standards of public behavior?

Unless our moral standards are rooted in the real consequences to the lives of those individuals they affect, in this world, they are useless.

The point to that train-wreck is known only to you...

The entire point of my argument are the REAL CONSEQUENCES REALIZED BY THE DECLINE IN PUBLIC STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY...

To what 'real consequences' are YOU referring?

Physical, monetary or psychological harm.

ROFL... Ahh... so once again we come to your desperate need to redefine "HARM" to service this argument... A point of fact established DAYS AGO… but one which you naturally couldn’t escape illustrating in undeniable terms… But hey… such is a function of your stark intellectual limitations…

(Again kids... note how the left MUST bastardize the language... how their most closely held 'feelings' and the specious reasoning used in advancing those 'feelings' can NOT be sustained UNLESS they REDEFINE THE LANGUAGE as if such were theirs to OWN.)

Let's review the definition of "HARM," shall we:

harm [haarm]
n
damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration


Now HARM is the noun that BULLY advanced in establishing his challenge... but when that chellenge is met, when the opposition defines the word, through an immutable resource "Webster's Dictionary" published THIS YEAR... thus establishing the current ACCEPTED defining traits of that concept... Bully must REDEFINE, modify and otherwise CHANGE the meaning of the word SHE USED to sustain her argument...

Which means that her argument as framed BY HER, is unsustainable... she's now simply trying to move the goal post, to limit the scope of the argument to only those elements which SHE feels are representative of harm; she's not advanced ANY argument which would provide a basis for such a limitation; as to do so would expose her point to the certainty that she rejects MORALITY as a potential element of harm; because to do so would illustrate in PERFECTION, THE SOUL OF MY ARGUMENT; that the decline in public standards, through the normalization of sexual deviancy is a DIRECZT FUNCTION OF SECULARISM... to strip morality from the equation; she opens the gate to every form of debauchery...

To wit: Let's assume for the sake of argument, that Homosexuality is determined to be suitable within the cultural definition of marriage.

Now setting aside morality... what argument will Buddy advance to prevent the TRIADS from being determined to be suitable for Marriage?

With regard to pedophilia... Absent morality... what argument will Buddy advance to prevent the cultural acceptance of adults engaging in 'loving, consensual, sexual relationships with children?

On this one, she must go to the legal threshold of 'childhood' as the threshold of legal consent... which sounds fine... but such is the nature of speciousness.. it SOUNDS great... but it's BULLSHIT.

What are the elements of Buddy's argument, wherein she advocates for the normalization of homosexuality?

Would anyone like to argue against the observation wherein I have come to conclude that the bedrock of Buddy's argument for the Normalization of Homosexuality is SCIENCE? The 'findings' of social scientists that through decades of many technologically advanced 'studies' that science has PROVEN that Homosexuality is NOT deviant? That such is quite 'normal' and as such, there can be said to be no trace of any cognitive disorder? Thus where such is normal and no functional disorder is present, that such is NORMAL... and all claims that such is not, are therefore invalid, antiquated notions, often set in superstition and skewed understandings of previous and long discredited notions of MORALITY?

Now... given that such is incontestable, we can readily see, that where SCIENCE has provided evidence that 'children often benefit from consensual sexual relationships with adults'... and that where SCIENCE is the arbiter of what becomes LAW... and Morality is rejected as such an arbiter... it is a certainty that the legal thresholds which establish 'legal consent' will be lowered to whatever threshold SCIENCE determines to be suitable; and thus, it is imperative to those who advocate for such, to do what?

What is the ONLY ISSUE which stands between the normalization of ADULT/CHILD SEX and the moral thresholds which presently prevent such...?

Would anyone like to advance an argument which determines that there is SOMETHING OTHER THAN: MORALITY... which stands between the decline of such standards, which would LEGALIZE Pedophilia and the present laws which forbid it?

If so, bring it the HELL ON!...

While I am uncertain as to the basis of your peculiar brand of morality I feel certain in saying that it has little to do with real consequences in this life or this world.

I see...

Yet where such was otherwise necessary to sustain a valid point; you can't find the intellectual honesty to even cite an example of 'real consequences'... despite your emphatic certainty... how positively clever.

My 'peculiar morality' simply requires that where standards are at the minimum, those who use those standards as a guide by which to measure their public behavior, will behave somewhere just south of what the standard requires.

The only regressive here is you, but let's not forget your fellow traveler PallidRetard. Your shared stance is based on little more than religious doctrine and blind prejudice, hearkening back to an earlier time...like the Dark Ages in Europe...

ROFLMNAO...
And this is based upon what precisely?

What is the basis of those standards? Deontological...? Theological...? Absolutist...? What, exactly serves as the foundation for your moral standards?

Welllll Alll righty THEN! So you're conceding that you've no basis for the irrational swirve to confuse religious principle with DOCTRINE...

Fair enough... Now feel free to DEMAND that ya didn't concede, despite the certain evidence provided above, where you did just that; through trying to prove that my 'peculiar value system' is found in judeo-Christian values... wherein you erroneously conclude that the PRINCIPLES on which those values rest amount to DOCTRINE; thus the application of those PRINCIPLES in establishing public law, thus public standards equate to the establishment of a CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY...

It's a well worn non sequitur of the absurd variety... but it is hysterical (in at least two contexts and on several levels) that you couldn’t resist to trot such out as the essence of pure reason...

ROFLMNAO...

Now, I eagerly await your evidence of "calamitous and catastrophic' consequences to individuals, communities and society as a whole in giving granting same gender couples the right to marry...A right it was never the government's to deny.

Sure... that's not a problem: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rable-harm-marriage-same-sex.html#post1212227

In that link you'll find the argument wherein a timeline is measured against a rapidly falling moral standard; wherein the harmful ramifications of those crumbling standards are noted... the time frame is just post the free-love age of the 1960s, through to the present where the Homosexuality has been declared to be normal, marriage is being refined to include two people of the same gender; with polygamists stepping up to Re-redefine it to include three or more people and Congress is pass legislation which tacitly promote pedophiles to a protected class...

An argument against which no valid contest has yet to be advanced, so take a look at it and see what you can come up with...

My guess is you'll have you ass handed to you.

Your "timeline", as you call it, is nothing more than a string of unsupported assertions... [/quote]

Are they? Well then you'll be kind enough to point out the challenges to ANY of that timeline, wherein such support would be pointed...

As a general rule, a challenge would include something such as a contesting OPINION... where upon someone would claim something like: "There was no debate int he 1970s wherein an advocacy of homosexual rights assured the culture that Homosexuals would not ask the culture to redefine marriage to include Homosexuals... "

Now would you like to offer such a contest? If so BRING IT... otherwise, the OPINION wherein that timeline is set, remains whole and UNCHALLENGED...

Perhaps you want to contest the facts surrounding the exclusively homosexual advocacy for the normalization of adult/child sex...

Perhaps you want to challenge the Opinion I offered wherein the President of the US in the 1990s provided the cultural guidance that oral sex wasn't Sex... which resulted in a the middle school children being found engaging in oral sex 'group activities.'

Perhaps you'll find that there is no evidence of unfettered sexual material in our mass media... maybe you'll challenge my opinions regarding the sexualizing of children in that media... or my opinions that the normalization of homosexuality has resulted in prebuescent children are openly claiming amongst themselves that they are "Bi" or 'curious'...

Pick one or ALL... but where you chose to mount a CHALLENGE, the response to that challenge will be pointed directly to the content of your challenge and where you lazily proclaim that you're merely challenging them "ALL;" you'll find that where evidence of ANY SINGLE ONE, will refute the whole, which YOU ESTABLISHED...

So there's your homework Skippy... you best get right to it.

Opinions, in other words...with a link to an unrelated web page having something to do with triad marriages. Polyandry/Polygamy are not at issue here.

The link was to the web page of the TRIADS... which are a group which have LONG challenged the scope of Marriage, which limits Marriage to one male and one female...

Thus the issue of declining social standards, wherein the subtext sets the validity and sustainability of the present definition of marriage, would necessarily include those challenging such...

Unless you're attempting to deflect the debate from its current course... A course which leaves you looking like a bigger buffoon than you already do.

ROFLMNAO... Oh SWEET IRONY! She can be SUCH a BITCH!

Your ass is handed to you. Would you prefer it served hot?...Or cold?

Ain't delusion GRAND...?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The APA says that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, that it's not an abnormal sexual orientation... this despite Homosexuality being 180 degrees oppossed to the biological imperative; which can be defined in NO OTHER TERMS than abnormality...

I'm curious, does this mean you feel heterosexuals who engage in sexual practices that cannot lead to procreation (anal sex, oral sex, etc) are suffering from mental disorders? Does this mean you feel anyone who masturbates suffers from a mental disorder? That any sexual behavior for the purposes of pleasure rather than procreation is a sign of a mental disorder?

ROFL...

WOW! That specious rant usually pops up in the first page of such debates...

Golly ... now where to begin?

I suppose the best place to start is at the beginning where the issue is Bi-GENDER, or the SEXUAL ORIENTATION wherein arrousal and activities of a sexual nature are placed within the pursuit of sexual gratification from a member of the opposite GENDER...

Given that such serves the biological imperative... now that a given activity, oral sex, anal sex, toy inhanced sexual activity... voyuerism... the mile-high club (airplane sex)... car sex... elevator sex, train sex, office sex, backyard sex, pool sex, aerial lift sex, beach sex, sex on horse-back, sex in the bushes, sex on the rocks, sex in the corner of the resturant, sex on the 9th tee, or just good ol' fashion bed room, missionary sex WHERE THAT SEX IS BETWEEN OR FOCUSES UPON, PEOPLE OF THE OPPOSITE GENDER is pretty much sexual activity which serves the biological imperative... thus is necessarily defined, by the laws of COMMON SENSE, as 'normal sexual orientation'... could it be argued that some of that is indicative of some disorder which requires external parameters to enhance the arousal... sure. But within the scope of normality... it's a nornal ORIENTATION, sexually speaking.

Now in contrast... ANY of the aforementioned activities with livestock in general, or those of the opposite gender, or those who are not suitable for sexual intercourse, due to their inherent limitations regarding perspective... say CHILDREN for example... or human vegetables... those suffering cognitive impairments or a human CORPSE... would necessarily be rendered UNSUSTAINABLE in terms of the biological imperative, thus ABNORMAL...

I hope that helps...

I'm not going to argue the obvious truth that a homosexual couple cannot procreate without outside assistance (be that a surrogate, artificial insemination, whatever).

Oh come now... one can't advance such an advocacy... and distance themselves from that point...

However, the same is true of heterosexual couples where one or both partners are sterile.

Nope... the biological imperative is a function of what relevant issue? Wouldn't you agree that the relevant issue is "ORIENTATION;" and wouldn't a hetero-sexual couple be oriented sexually, within the scope of the biological imperative, even where one or both were unsuited for procreation, or uninterested in such?

When we normalize the antithesis of the Biological Imperative, we dismiss the BI as relevant and thus subject the culture to the calamity of same... and from there, where nature and her immutable rules are dismissed, we set ourselves down the wide and bumpy road where ALL manner of morality, all forms of standards are dismissed and we set the culture to suffer even greater calamity... much of which is noted in the OP.

And there are innumerable sexual practices which cannot lead to procreation practiced by heterosexual couples; there are heterosexual couples who intentionally never have children; sex is clearly not only about a biological imperative.

Nonsense...

Is homosexuality abnormal? Sure

Well said... thus it's to be kept private... out of sight and decidely NOT SUITABLE TO ESTABLISH A CRUSADE THE FOCUS OF WHICH IS TO NORMALIZE IT...

..., as any behavior not practiced by the majority is abnormal. But we probably all engage in some sexual behavior that is abnormal

Agreed... some sexual behaviors are quite bizarre... and the same goes for those folks. Keep your kink to yourselves and don't demand that the culture shift on ti's axis to accommodate you and your needs to prop-up your understandably sagging self esteem.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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:

So, in other words, in PI-speak, allowing gays to marry will lead to more 9/11s from al-Qaeda terrorists.

Epic fail.

Clearly, "SOMEONE" felt it necessary to edit my post and delete the top image of DEBAUCHERY, without noting such... but that is the nature of the left and their misuse of power to defend their advocacy of the normalization of debauchery...

But the fact is that history is repleat with cultures which sank into such being destroyed and conquered... is that the point which you're coming to contest?

Would ya care to explain the basis of the Islamic cliche which identifies the US as "The Great Satan"... where the decline in US cultural standards is NOT set as the basis for that position?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Still waiting...

And no PublicIdiot, your pathetic rhetorical flourishes constitute evidence of neither demonstrable harm nor objective evidence

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Still waiting...

Well what you're waiting for, is not something which is within the scope of this discussion...

Which is a result of your inability to reason; your stark intellectual limitations, which preclude your means to comprehend well reasoned argument; argument which is being advanced in direct response to your addle-minded drivel...

Thus your cognitive deficiency which prevents you from advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument; is all that is missing from our little discussion... and the wait for your cognitive means to increase sufficiently to provide for such, is beyond the scope of viability for forums such as this; as well as the lifespan of our species...

Now where one may be waiting for my last response... which you read and CHOSE TO IGNORE... for obvious reasons... here is the link to that response, which was posted just this very morning:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...le-harm-marriage-same-sex-12.html#post1219853

 

[Ravi]

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:

So, in other words, in PI-speak, allowing gays to marry will lead to more 9/11s from al-Qaeda terrorists.

Epic fail.

Clearly, "SOMEONE" felt it necessary to edit my post and delete the top image of DEBAUCHERY, without noting such... but that is the nature of the left and their misuse of power to defend their advocacy of the normalization of debauchery...

But the fact is that history is repleat with cultures which sank into such being destroyed and conquered... is that the point which you're coming to contest?

Would ya care to explain the basis of the Islamic cliche which identifies the US as "The Great Satan"... where the decline in US cultural standards is NOT set as the basis for that position?

I admit it Pubic, I deleted your original picture. That's my family for God's sake, where the hell did you get that photo???

Jeesh, talk about a delusional paranoid asshole...oh, whoops we are talking about Pubic.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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:

So, in other words, in PI-speak, allowing gays to marry will lead to more 9/11s from al-Qaeda terrorists.

Epic fail.

Clearly, "SOMEONE" felt it necessary to edit my post and delete the top image of DEBAUCHERY, without noting such... but that is the nature of the left and their misuse of power to defend their advocacy of the normalization of debauchery...

But the fact is that history is repleat with cultures which sank into such being destroyed and conquered... is that the point which you're coming to contest?

Would ya care to explain the basis of the Islamic cliche which identifies the US as "The Great Satan"... where the decline in US cultural standards is NOT set as the basis for that position?

I admit it Pubic, I deleted your original picture. That's my family for God's sake, where the hell did you get that photo???

Jeesh, talk about a delusional paranoid asshole...oh, whoops we are talking about Pubic.

And Ravi takes yet ANOTHER opportunity to avoid the argument and dodge the relevant issues... Conceding YET again, in what must be her 5th or 6th concession to the same argument.


So yes, friends... we can conclude that well beyond any DOUBT... we OWN the left on this issue...

The trick is cornering them into a debate...

Because what this thread has established as FACT; is that they will go to ANY LENGTH to avoid the debate... preferring instead to lean on invalid, irrational, absurd appeals to popularity... and to point to conventional wisdom which they snatch from ethereal myth and outright lies of the damnable variety.

 

[KittenKoder]

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:

Now I shall call you scum, because that's just really wrong in so many ways.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Still waiting...

Well what you're waiting for, is not something which is not within the scope of thise discussion...

Which is a result of your inability to reason; your stark intellectual limitations which preclude your means to comprehend well reasoned argument; argument which is being advanced in direct response to your addle-minded drivel...

Thus your cognitive deficiency which prevents you from advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument; is all that is missing from our little discussion... and the wait for your cognitive means to increase sufficiently to provide for such is beyond the scope of viability for forums such as this; as well as the lifespan of our species...

Now where one may be waiting for my last response... which you read and CHOSE TO IGNORE... for obvious reasons... here is the link to that response, which was posted just this very morning:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...le-harm-marriage-same-sex-12.html#post1219853

You must first present a well reasoned argument, something I have yet to see you do, instead of the conceptual frittata you seem predisposed to. When seen in psychotic patients, it is called "flight o f ideas".

 

[Bullypulpit]

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:

Now I shall call you scum, because that's just really wrong in so many ways.

Don't call him "scum". It only feeds into his persecution complex.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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:

Now I shall call you scum, because that's just really wrong in so many ways.

ROFL... Scum?

Well Ok... of course that will require you cite one 'way' which you feel warrants the denigration... and yes... when you fail to cite one reasonable basis for it, you will concede, by default that you're an addle-minded leftist who's prone to knee-jerk ad populum rants, of the flaccid variety.

But "BEST OF LUCK" with that...

So we find YET ANOTHER of the advocates of sexual deviancy who've come to avoid the argument in support of impotent appeals to what they erroneously 'feel' is a popularly held position... OKA: Mythical Conventional Wisdom... proving conclusively that the ideological left's drive to normalize sexual deviancy is built on absolutely NOTHING, but cliches, platitudes and LIES.

Great job Kitten...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Still waiting...

Well what you're waiting for, is not something which is not within the scope of thise discussion...

Which is a result of your inability to reason; your stark intellectual limitations which preclude your means to comprehend well reasoned argument; argument which is being advanced in direct response to your addle-minded drivel...

Thus your cognitive deficiency which prevents you from advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument; is all that is missing from our little discussion... and the wait for your cognitive means to increase sufficiently to provide for such is beyond the scope of viability for forums such as this; as well as the lifespan of our species...

Now where one may be waiting for my last response... which you read and CHOSE TO IGNORE... for obvious reasons... here is the link to that response, which was posted just this very morning:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...le-harm-marriage-same-sex-12.html#post1219853

You must first present a well reasoned argument, something I have yet to see you do, instead of the conceptual frittata you seem predisposed to. When seen in psychotic patients, it is called "flight o f ideas".

And with THAT... the SIXTH failure to engage the argument...

THE BULLY CONCEDES THE DEBATE IN EARNEST... and given she's proven herself intellectually impotent... she's earned her spot in the ignore bin.