The Left Loses Ground...

[TemplarKormac]

Smells like a liberal ran through here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.

Were you even reading my posts? Defining and regulating are two separate things. Recognizing that two individuals are married is simple enough. That's it. No delineation on what the nature of the marriage is.

Government should only be involved when those individuals ask for it to be. Where in the Constitution did the founders allow for government to define (or regulate) marriage? Perhaps you weren't reading the 10th Amendment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was a time when I thought this joker was just being contrarian with this line of reasoning. I now know that he's entirely serious. He truly believes that his right to be a bigot should be protected in the same way as the rights of others to be treated equally and fairly are protected.

Tell me something:

You want tolerance and understanding from people like me for gays, right? You want for me not to be a bigot and treat gays equally. So, how you would launching a character assassination against me convince me to do that, with someone like you acting as their champion?

Gays want to escape the bigotry and intolerance they are subjected to, correct? Then why is it, when they have been liberated from such oppression, that they become the very thing they wished to escape from?

I wonder, would you call a Muslim a bigot to his face if he refused service to a gay couple?

 

[NYcarbineer]

False argument. I am straight and I am a Christian. Yet I was taught WE ARE ALL sinners. But you folks want to decide what sins are acceptable.

Spare me the high and mighty routine.

You have chosen who the sinners are. Yes, you have. Not only do you tack on whatever sins you deem they committed, you outright pick who is or isn't a sinner based on your political ideals. You are not God. You don't get to make judgements on who is sinful and who is not. You bastardize the Christian faith to somehow find a way to make gay marriage religiously acceptable.

It is really very simple. No one is asking you to embrace homosexuality. Just respect their civil rights.

Yet here you are, preaching the homosexual gospel.

I am respecting their civil rights. Yes, yes, right now. I am neither asking for them to be put in internment camps, or systematically executed, or have their property taken from them because of what they are. I am not asking for them to be mistreated in any shape, form, or fashion. But I am asking that if they want to be tolerated, accepted or respected, they must do the same likewise to those who have religious objections to furthering their way of life.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Gays want understanding yet fail to grant understanding to those who disagree with their lifestyles on religious grounds. There is no understanding, simply hostility. Simply, "my rights trump yours. Comply or be destroyed. Resistance is futile."

Now what of my civil rights? What of those Christians who run businesses? Do their civil rights go out the door as soon as a gay couple says, "cater our wedding?"

You're asking gays to tolerate discrimination against them. That's absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.

Were you even reading my posts? Defining and regulating are two separate things. Recognizing that two individuals are married is simple enough. That's it. No delineation on what the nature of the marriage is.

Government should only be involved when those individuals ask for it to be. Where in the Constitution did the founders allow for government to define (or regulate) marriage? Perhaps you weren't reading the 10th Amendment.

Marriage laws are state laws. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws that conflict with the Constitution. Therefore, a state law on marriage that violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government can't regulate marriage without defining it you imbecile.

Were you even reading my posts? Defining and regulating are two separate things. Recognizing that two individuals are married is simple enough. That's it. No delineation on what the nature of the marriage is.

Government should only be involved when those individuals ask for it to be. Where in the Constitution did the founders allow for government to define (or regulate) marriage? Perhaps you weren't reading the 10th Amendment.

Can you show us any state marriage law that does not define what constitutes a marriage under those laws?

 

[Mac1958]

You want tolerance and understanding from people like me for gays, right? You want for me not to be a bigot and treat gays equally. So, how you would launching a character assassination against me convince me to do that, with someone like you acting as their champion?

Gays want to escape the bigotry and intolerance they are subjected to, correct? Then why is it, when they have been liberated from such oppression, that they become the very thing they wished to escape from?

Very good and fair points.

I'm pro-gay marriage (actually I don't really give a shit, so by default that is "pro") but it's frustrating to see the Left resort to virtually nothing else but personal insults and name-calling on pretty much every issue. Surely, at some intellectual level, they must realize that treating people like that ("you're just a racist!") is only going to make things worse, yet they persist. It's like getting a child to stop doing something, they simply will not listen.

My theory is they're going to continue to behave like this under the assumption that demographics will do their work for them, that they don't really need to be decent and civil. I can see the strategy, I guess, but it still isn't a way to deal with people.

.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah, but your personal opinion isn't the 'objective laws of nature'.

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Marriage has constantly being redefined throughout the history of this nation. Your wife is no longer your property, interracial marriages are now legal, polygamy has been made illegal.

Marriage was not defined as one man/one woman. It was redefined as one man/one woman.

Marriage is not 're-definable' Gilligan. It is a law of nature. Meaning that Marriage is, what Nature created marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

The Pretense that humanity has some means to alter the laws of nature, will simply produce the same Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe that has always followed such evil... and int he wake of what ever is manifested by such, humanity will return to the same policy that it has always returned to, when humanity has "RE-LEARNED" the simple lesson that the Laws of Nature, are NOT suggestions and they're not OPTIONAL.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.

Tell that to your conservative pals who want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to narrowly define marriage.

Marriage is defined by the Natural Human Physiological Design; wherein One Man is Joined with One Woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage is not 're-definable' Gilligan. It is a law of nature. Meaning that Marriage is, what Nature created marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Nature has no such thing. It has sex, most of which doesn't make babies, not marriage. That is a human convention, which is why very few actually follow the rules of one spouse, in monogamy, until death. What you believe to be nature isn't...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[

You totally misunderstood my statement. Government can regulate marriage, but it shouldn't be defining or redefining it. That's not its job. It's job is neither to promote nor endorse one type of marriage or the other. That's why the founders put no specific language in the Constitution dealing with marriage. Their foresight again is impeccable and prophetic.

Tell that to your conservative pals who want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to narrowly define marriage.

Marriage is defined by the Natural Human Physiological Design; wherein One Man is Joined with One Woman.

That's not marriage, that's how to make a baby. Do you need some illustrations to help explain that to you?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reasonable people understand when tolerance is appropriate, and when it's not.

Yes... Which is why I pointed out that Americans do not demand that tolerance is sacrosanct as does that cult of children and fools on the Left.

To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant.

Reader, Recall that my position is that The Left holds up "Tolerance" as sacrosanct, while being among the most intolerant cult in Human History. Recall, that just 60 years ago, the Ideological Left murdered 150 MILLION innocent human beings, whose only crime was that they were not inclined to accept communism.

Atrocities which stand unparalleled in human history and set the Left's "Tolerance" at roughly equal to that of EBOLA.

Truly, in every sense of the word, "Left-think" ... is a disorder of the human mind; OKA: a Disease.

 

[G.T.]

Skylar, let me help you through this. If I cite that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph... that such is stated as my opinion, in no way alters that the speed limit on I-75 is 70 Mph.

You're not citing a speed limit. You're making up a non-existent 'natural law of marriage'. There's no such thing. There is no marriage in nature.

We invented marriage. And we define it. And in 37 states marriage includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

You disagree. Um, so what? We don't base our laws on your subjective opinion.

False skylar, that is NOT all I do. I state the opinion, then I substantiate that opinion by setting it upon the underlying reasoning that formed the opinion.

That underlying opinion....being another one of your opinions. Which is based on another opinion. Which is based on another opinion. Its turtles all the way down. No where is there any objective requirements that match your descriptions.

For example: your 'natural law of marriage'. When you describe it.....you talk about fucking. Mating. Procreation. That's not marriage. That's breeding. They aren't the same thing. You don't need to be married to breed. And you don't need to breed to be married.

Procreation isn't a requirement of anyone's marriage. Infertile couples are allowed to marry all the time. Infertile couples or couples that have no children are allowed to stay married by the millions. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a criteria that doesn't exist and apply to *no one*?

Obviously we wouldn't. Your argument is nothing but a fallacy: your opinion offered as 'objective law'. Which it isn't. Its just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

Marriage is already defined. What faggots are doing is redefining it.

"Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen.

So, here is the question. Why gays want to marry anyways?

Marriage has constantly being redefined throughout the history of this nation. Your wife is no longer your property, interracial marriages are now legal, polygamy has been made illegal.

Marriage was not defined as one man/one woman. It was redefined as one man/one woman.

Marriage is not 're-definable' Gilligan. It is a law of nature. Meaning that Marriage is, what Nature created marriage as: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

The Pretense that humanity has some means to alter the laws of nature, will simply produce the same Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe that has always followed such evil... and int he wake of what ever is manifested by such, humanity will return to the same policy that it has always returned to, when humanity has "RE-LEARNED" the simple lesson that the Laws of Nature, are NOT suggestions and they're not OPTIONAL.

This is inane psychobabble.
Gayness occurs in nature.
Marriage does not.
Sex does. Toolbox.

 

[Toro]

[Q

It has only been "debunked" by those whose grandchildren will be ashamed of them in coming years.

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

No. You can assume my nonresponse was due to boredom.

All sexuality is hardwired. You will realize that eventually.

Go Bolts!

 

[PoliticalChic]

ROFLMNAO...

Reader, what the cultist is trying not to tell you, is that it believes that behavior: sexual deviancy equates to 'being black'.

See how that works?

Sexuality is hardwired, Pubes.

See how nature works?

Clearly false.

1. Prisons prove that.

2. As do the CDC studies.

a. "Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development."
Column Does it matter if only 1.4 of people are gay - USATODAY.com


b. "In light of this, it was not surprising that the recent findings of a survey released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was largely ignored by the media. The survey is titled Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. This prestigious and thorough federal study revealed that only 1.4% of Americans identify themselves as homosexual.

Further, it clearly showed homosexual activity to be more a matter of lifestyle than genetics."

I assume that your non-post means that you are now beginning to understand the subject, and will avoid the misnomer 'hardwired' in connection with homosexuality.

Excellent.



Go Rangers!

No. You can assume my nonresponse was due to boredom.

All sexuality is hardwired. You will realize that eventually.

Go Bolts!

"Go Bolts!"


I realize that you're already going to hell....so now you're just trying to get a good spot

 

[Toro]

If the Rangers win, that's good too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Rangers win, that's good too.

Fence sitters wind up with splinters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reasonable people understand when tolerance is appropriate, and when it's not.

Yes... Which is why I pointed out that Americans do not demand that tolerance is sacrosanct as does that cult of children and fools on the Left.

To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant.

Reader, Recall that my position is that The Left holds up "Tolerance" as sacrosanct, while being among the most intolerant cult in Human History. Recall, that just 60 years ago, the Ideological Left murdered 150 MILLION innocent human beings, whose only crime was that they were not inclined to accept communism.

Atrocities which stand unparalleled in human history and set the Left's "Tolerance" at roughly equal to that of EBOLA.

Truly, in every sense of the word, "Left-think" ... is a disorder of the human mind; OKA: a Disease.

Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?

Name names. Name a thousand names.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?

Name names. Name a thousand names.

ROFLMNAO... Poor Gilligan.

It's still struggling to accept the history of its cult.

The Ideological Left has for 40 years advocated for THE RIGHT to murder the most innocent of human life... Which GILLIGAN ITSELF CLAIMS IS NOT HUMAN BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THEM: "they're not "PERSONS".

And what is this right set upon? Why it's set upon the RIGHT TO PRIVACY... And that these non-persons are INCONVENIENT!

Now what makes this worse is that these people claim a right to murder their own pre-born children while they're still in their womb! AAND WHATS MORE... Many of the cult are demanding a "RIGHT" to murder their children AFTER THEYRE BORN!

Understand Reader, if these idiots will rationalize a right to murder their own children who are still in their mother's womb because they're INCONVENIENT ... There's nothing between that rationalization and ONE WHICH RATIONALIZES
TO MURDER THOSE WHO ARE NOT THEIR CHILDREN... Who represent an inconvenience.

Now Gilligan, was that what you were looking for?

Oh! FYI: since the early 70s... The Left has murdered 50 MILLION PRE-BORN BABIES in the US ALONE.

I hope that helps

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reasonable people understand when tolerance is appropriate, and when it's not.

Yes... Which is why I pointed out that Americans do not demand that tolerance is sacrosanct as does that cult of children and fools on the Left.

To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant.

Reader, Recall that my position is that The Left holds up "Tolerance" as sacrosanct, while being among the most intolerant cult in Human History. Recall, that just 60 years ago, the Ideological Left murdered 150 MILLION innocent human beings, whose only crime was that they were not inclined to accept communism.

Atrocities which stand unparalleled in human history and set the Left's "Tolerance" at roughly equal to that of EBOLA.

Truly, in every sense of the word, "Left-think" ... is a disorder of the human mind; OKA: a Disease.

Who on the left in America today wants to kill 150 million people?

Name names. Name a thousand names.

Waldo Frank’s analysis in 1934:
"The NRA is the beginning of American Fascism. But unlikeItaly and Germany, democratic parliamentarianism has for generations been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world; it is a tribal institution. Therefore, a Fascism that disposes of it, rather than
sharpens and exploits it, is not to be expected in North Americaor Britain. Fascism may be so gradual in the United Statesthat most voters will not be aware of its existence. The true Fascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrer and Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will bejudicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and WalterLippmann."
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-facism/page/7/0


Just as you Progressives has no compunction with respect to forced sterilizations and concentration camps for the Japanese-Americans, when the time comes, and the orders from above, you'll fall in line and nod 'yes sir, yes sir.'

That is the outcome when you worship the collective.