The "Free Press" has a Narrative that Assumes Gays are being Denied a Right...

[koshergrl]

They were born that way.

If you, personally, hold that it's a choice - that assumes that you can imagine doing it yourself, if you choose to.

I cannot imagine myself doing so; thus, I'm FORCED to LOGICALLY conclude they're born that way. So to defy how they're born is also to defy their own design, their own equipment (their brain).

And in my above post, which you quoted, I've also shown that *IF* you also hold it to be a CHOICE they're making, that since "the brain" is being used to make said choice, then again going against the brain would be defying one's equipment in that scenario also.

In other words, you can't (Logically) use "defying their natural equipment" in your argument, because (well I've told you logically above why you cannot) - because either way you go you're defying how your own equipment in one form or another, thus eliminating that from the equation completely.

your "equipment" logic was just shown holes that would require LOGIC and not EMOTION-BASED PLATITUDES to de-bunk, and if you find yourself unable to use a + b = c logic as I have done, then you're either forced to rethink your stance or you're forced to lie to yourself and others. That's "truth."

What a bunch of idiotic convoluted non sense!!

Yup, that's his mo.

 

[G.T.]

derp derp, derp derp.

 

[koshergrl]

Brilliant, GT! Keep it coming!

 

[Roudy]

so you don't believe gays can find "true love"? Their love isn't "real"? It's just "fucking"?

Fudge packing isn't love; it's just packing fudge.

Hey ask your president Hussein, apparently he thnks it is love.

 

[Sunni Man]

so you don't believe gays can find "true love"? Their love isn't "real"? It's just "fucking"?

Fudge packing isn't love; it's just packing fudge.

Hey ask your president Hussein, apparently he thnks it is love.

He is your president just as much as he is mine retard.

But I don't love him like you do.

 

[bodecea]

so you don't believe gays can find "true love"? Their love isn't "real"? It's just "fucking"?

Fudge packing isn't love; it's just packing fudge.

Do tell. I'm listening.

 

[koshergrl]

You would.

 

[bodecea]

You would.

It's called listening to people on the other side. I totally understand you being confused by that. BTW....good Ignore moves there, Allie. Not as if I thought you were telling the truth or anything, mind you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

News from The Associated Press

^It's Obvious in the Assumption in most "Reporting" that Marriage is a "Right" being Denied Same Sex Couples.

Of course when the Supreme Court has Ruled on Marriage Rights, they have made it Abundandly Clear why it's a Right:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia

Only Procreation is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"...

Coupling is not... Regardless of what that Coupling is.

The Left that Infects the "Free Press" may believe that Homosexuals are being Denied a Right, but there is no such Basis in Law to Support that Narrative.

In Fact, the SCOTUS has made it clear what the Right is.

Homosexuals Denying their Natural Design and Equipment is a Choice they make that Society is not Required to Validate as Equal to that which Creates us.

Doesn't make it bad, wrong or Criminal, but it certainly isn't Equal Naturally.

Fact not Fiction.



peace...

A swing and a miss…

The right being denied is equal access to the law, in addition to privacy rights concerning marriage in the context of individual liberty:

“It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship… . If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Ibid.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to marry:

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Consequently procreation is immaterial with regard to the right to marry.

 

[midcan5]

As always nothing of substance from the primitive right wing know nothings. One wonders if someday they will start to live in the real world and not this small world of bias and stupidity.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-are-being-denied-a-right-9.html#post5253151

 

[Skull Pilot]

so you don't believe gays can find "true love"? Their love isn't "real"? It's just "fucking"?

Fudge packing isn't love; it's just packing fudge.

You do know that straight people have anal sex too don't you?

 

[mal]

News from The Associated Press

^It's Obvious in the Assumption in most "Reporting" that Marriage is a "Right" being Denied Same Sex Couples.

Of course when the Supreme Court has Ruled on Marriage Rights, they have made it Abundandly Clear why it's a Right:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia

Only Procreation is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"...

Coupling is not... Regardless of what that Coupling is.

The Left that Infects the "Free Press" may believe that Homosexuals are being Denied a Right, but there is no such Basis in Law to Support that Narrative.

In Fact, the SCOTUS has made it clear what the Right is.

Homosexuals Denying their Natural Design and Equipment is a Choice they make that Society is not Required to Validate as Equal to that which Creates us.

Doesn't make it bad, wrong or Criminal, but it certainly isn't Equal Naturally.

Fact not Fiction.



peace...

I have always been Entertained at how far away from the OP these Threads will go...



peace...

 

[mal]

Wrong, and you know it.

Why?

B/c your question implied the same for the "Dog," and I logically debunked it all up in your grill piece, and you left the refutation unanswered.

So - one presents logic, the other bloviates thusly like a child and nit picks.

Your lack of logic on denying our equipment was also logically proven bunk, and no logical refutation provided.

Some people have mature discussions, others dip duck dodge and dance and ignore logic with platitudes, churlish name calling and acting like a beehotch.

While you are Formulating your Reasoning for Denying 2 Sisters Marriage "Rights" if the Expansion of those "Rights" ever happens, could you also Link where I have called you a name in this Thread?...

Thanks in Advance.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

"
Everything that is being talked about in this thread is being talked about from the stance that Kinsey's studies are valid.

No they aren't. You are obsessed with Kinsey, that is obvious, but he is not the basis of any of the arguments here (except perhaps in your own head).

 

[mal]

"
Everything that is being talked about in this thread is being talked about from the stance that Kinsey's studies are valid.

No they aren't. You are obsessed with Kinsey, that is obvious, but he is not the basis of any of the arguments here (except perhaps in your own head).

"Obsessed"... Then the Dismissal.

Could you guys be anymore Predictable?

I Started this Thread to see if anything had Changed... If any of you had New Material.

You don't.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Wrong, and you know it.

Why?

B/c your question implied the same for the "Dog," and I logically debunked it all up in your grill piece, and you left the refutation unanswered.

So - one presents logic, the other bloviates thusly like a child and nit picks.

Your lack of logic on denying our equipment was also logically proven bunk, and no logical refutation provided.

Some people have mature discussions, others dip duck dodge and dance and ignore logic with platitudes, churlish name calling and acting like a beehotch.

While you are Formulating your Reasoning for Denying 2 Sisters Marriage "Rights" if the Expansion of those "Rights" ever happens, could you also Link where I have called you a name in this Thread?...

Thanks in Advance.



peace...

others is plural.


Also - like I said,m as soon as you begin to address the several points I have made, I'll address the ONE of yours I haven't.

But I know these games you like to play so, I wouldn't expect it or anything teh ghey like that, tbh.

 

[G.T.]

No, you didn't. You asked about $1,000,000 for getting cozy with a dog.

Choice. When did you make yours. That's your allegation, now own it.

The Choice is the Defiance of one's Natural Design and Equipment.

It happens in many forms...

From the Dead to Dogs to Food.

I don't Expect you to get this... You are doing what Bodecea has done for a Decade.

Did you Think you were having and Original thought?...



peace...

False paradigm.

Your brain is what you use in the first place to make a choice - to defy your brain's choice would also be to defy your equipment. That paradigm has more than just that hole in it, also.

Unanswerable.

 

[G.T.]

False paradigm.

Your brain is what you use in the first place to make a choice - to defy your brain's choice would also be to defy your equipment. That paradigm has more than just that hole in it, also.

No it's not... Explain why People have Fucked the Dead, Fuck Animals and had Fecal Fetishes since the Written Word has Documented Man?...

Choice?... or were they Born that way?



peace...

They were born that way.

If you, personally, hold that it's a choice - that assumes that you can imagine doing it yourself, if you choose to.

I cannot imagine myself doing so; thus, I'm FORCED to LOGICALLY conclude they're born that way. So to defy how they're born is also to defy their own design, their own equipment (their brain).

And in my above post, which you quoted, I've also shown that *IF* you also hold it to be a CHOICE they're making, that since "the brain" is being used to make said choice, then again going against the brain would be defying one's equipment in that scenario also.

In other words, you can't (Logically) use "defying their natural equipment" in your argument, because (well I've told you logically above why you cannot) - because either way you go you're defying how your own equipment in one form or another, thus eliminating that from the equation completely.

your "equipment" logic was just shown holes that would require LOGIC and not EMOTION-BASED PLATITUDES to de-bunk, and if you find yourself unable to use a + b = c logic as I have done, then you're either forced to rethink your stance or you're forced to lie to yourself and others. That's "truth."

Unanswerable.

 

[G.T.]

Big talk by the "cut off your nose to spite your face" crowd....but the facts are NO ONE is doing anything to get government out of marriage.

Marriage is not going away... End of List.



peace...

The actual raw data disagrees with you. Marriage has been on a consistent downward trend for over 100 years now.

Unanswerable.

 

[G.T.]

You missed her point, fwiw.

You cant voluntarily get a boner for a man.

You can voluntarily let a dog lick your pussy, though.

In other words, Gays would be defying their OWN Nature - to be straight.

And if someone gets a boner for a dog?...

Nature in your World then?...

And Dogs fucking Humans?... Seems like the Animals are acting of Free Will?...

Nature in your World also?

There are Standards...

We disagree on what they are.



peace...

Well here, let me use logic instead of the platitudes that you use:

A dog and a human fucking should *not* be legal, because the two can consent as both understand and are within their power to deny the act, unless a rape occurs; but since a dog is not sentient enough to report a rape, i.e. a violation to self, then of course it should be illegal such is other animal cruelty. Of course, the human doing-so would thusly be cast aside in a society where likely one in like 250 million people are aroused by dogs - but fuck if I care what some person fucking a dog does so long as dogs become able to protect themselves from involuntary acts forced upon them.

So why should the person and dog not be able to marry, either?

Because a Dog cannot consent to, n'or understand marriage. Same issue. No freedom of choice, thus, a forced practice.

Just like a child cannot consent to n'or understand sex with an adult.




That's using actual logic, not platitudes based on emotional judgements.

Unanswerable.