The Left Loses Ground...

[Ame®icano]

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

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.

None of those redefined marriage.

 

[bripat9643]

Links to anyone claiming 10-20%?

About 4% of people admit to being gay or lesbian in the US. Those numbers would be higher in a more tolerant and accepting society (expect that to happen in the next 20 years).

What does the number of individual in the minority group have to do with whether or not that minority is entitled to equal rights? Jews make up less than 2% of the US population and yet it would be against the same laws to refuse to bake them a cake (which, by the way, is not participating in any event. By that logic, the guys that sells a gun participates in the murder)

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Once you believe in small lie of 10%, it easier to accept bigger lie of 20%.

It's like federal government claims they need to take our right away to protect us. First they came after our privacy, then after speech, then search an seizure, they keep coming for guns, they'll not give up untill they got them all...

It was the Bush administration that took away your privacy and you applauded when they did so you only have yourself to blame.

At passed the House with 145 Dims voting 'Yeah' and 62 Dims voting 'Nay.' In the Senate the bill passed with a vote of 98-1 in favor. Russ Feingold was the only Dim to vote 'Nay.'

It takes a huge bilge full of gal to blame Bush for the Patriot Act.

 

[bripat9643]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

And your argument would be?

The argument is, equal protection under the law for access to the cash and prizes, whatever they are.

The whole point of marriage laws is to give preferential treatment to families that can have children. They aren't supposed to be like a 401K available to everyone.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

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.

If marriage is not 're-definable', how did polygamy get re-defined as not marriage?

It's really funny that liberals need explanation for self-explanatory things.

Marriage was not redefined, polygamy was. It didn't fit under what marriage is.

 

[Ame®icano]

As I said, I'm an American.

And there you have USMB's Lie of the Year.

So you claim she can't be American. You know, there was a guy, national socialist, he was saying the same things.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sure.


"Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian."
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic


"...entitled to equal rights?"

Nonsense.

You're simply too weak to stand up for what you believe.
You bullies won't be satisfied unless everyone pats you on the back for being gay.

I've said I don't care one way or another.
If it comes to a vote, I vote against gay marriage as an intellectual endeavor. See, I've never found that any major religion endorses, supports same....and none of the philosophers I've studied came out in favor of homosexuality- most did come out against things like slavery.

So...it makes no difference to me. If you expect me to engage in same, I'd decline...but do what you wish in private.

Just stop telling me to advocate it.

Nobody here is making the 10-20% claim. Few people today are making the 10-20% claim. That 10% number was assigned to anyone who had a wet dream...taking us back to my original assertion that sexuality is a scale and you're simply never going to know how many gay people or straight people there are.

And we're still back to the numbers don't matter when it comes to minority rights.

There's absolutely no statistical bases for an claim that homosexuals make up more than 2% of the population, so why do queers keep claiming higher numbers?

Once you believe in small lie of 10%, it easier to accept bigger lie of 20%.

It's like federal government claims they need to take our right away to protect us. First they came after our privacy, then after speech, then search an seizure, they keep coming for guns, they'll not give up untill they got them all...

It was the Bush administration that took away your privacy and you applauded when they did so you only have yourself to blame.

No libertarian ever applauded to such things. Patriot Act wasn't constitutional then, and its not constitutional now.

Not a single Libertarian spoke up and objected therefore you all consented to the patriot Act.

 

[Bfgrn]

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps

I was laughing at you and your statement that Hitler and Stalin were right wing dictators.

Why is the truth funny? Oh, I know...you are only capable of framing conservatism in parochial terms.

Tell me Einstein, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the US Constitution, capitalism and apple pie? Or would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the communist manifesto, communism and vodka?

BTW, Stalin was an extreme social conservative who banned abortions in Russia...


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Bfgrn]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

And your argument would be?

The argument is, equal protection under the law for access to the cash and prizes, whatever they are.

The whole point of marriage laws is to give preferential treatment to families that can have children. They aren't supposed to be like a 401K available to everyone.

There is much more to marriage laws...and same sex couples can have children.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

None of those redefined marriage.

Yes, they did!

 

[bripat9643]

And if a gay couple truly wanted to marry for "love" then why the talk of "benefits?" I thought people married each other for love, not cash and prizes.

Childish argument...

And your argument would be?

The argument is, equal protection under the law for access to the cash and prizes, whatever they are.

The whole point of marriage laws is to give preferential treatment to families that can have children. They aren't supposed to be like a 401K available to everyone.

There is much more to marriage laws...and same sex couples can have children.

No they can't. And there is no other reason for any of our marriage laws. They definitely weren't created to a couple of fuck buddies could get government benefits.

 

[bripat9643]

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps

I was laughing at you and your statement that Hitler and Stalin were right wing dictators.

Why is the truth funny? Oh, I know...you are only capable of framing conservatism in parochial terms.

Tell me Einstein, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the US Constitution, capitalism and apple pie? Or would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the communist manifesto, communism and vodka?

Based on the actual definition of the term as used, the former is the case. Someone who supports communism is not a conservative.

BTW, Stalin was an extreme social conservative who banned abortions in Russia...


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

More leftists horseshit. Anyone who claims leftists aren't authoritarians is automatically a sleazy lying POS. Do you think fining a business $135,000 for declining to bake someone a cake isn't authoritarian? Do you think speech codes on campus aren't authoritarian? Do you think telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy isn't authoritarian?

 

[Ame®icano]

In the REAL world, someone has to decide who gets property, children etc. That is why we have a court system and not a free for all.

So the freedoms and liberties should be the right of all citizens. The government should not define marriage, yet many on the right demand government define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

I really don't understand is what the problem is. No one is asking you to give up any of your rights, why would you want to deny those rights to others?

It's been said many times, gays already have the same rights, they chose not to exercise them, they want something else. They're not denied any rights that everyone already have.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

NONE of that is socialism...

You are right comparing Hitler and Stalin...both were right wing dictators...

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps

I was laughing at you and your statement that Hitler and Stalin were right wing dictators.

Why is the truth funny? Oh, I know...you are only capable of framing conservatism in parochial terms.

Tell me Einstein, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the US Constitution, capitalism and apple pie? Or would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the communist manifesto, communism and vodka?

Based on the actual definition of the term as used, the former is the case. Someone who supports communism is not a conservative.

BTW, Stalin was an extreme social conservative who banned abortions in Russia...


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

More leftists horseshit. Anyone who claims leftists aren't authoritarians is automatically a sleazy lying POS. Do you think fining a business $135,000 for declining to bake someone a cake isn't authoritarian? Do you think speech codes on campus aren't authoritarian? Do you think telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy isn't authoritarian?

Welcome to the real world my pissing infant, which has rules and sometimes serious consequences if you break them.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Your understanding of history is absurd. Your ignorance stems from your parochial indoctrination. You confuse left and right with liberal and conservative. There is nothing liberal about communism.

There is nothing liberal about todays liberals. They're all progressives and the same scum as communists.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sexual Deviancy, a presentation of mental disorder... and more specifically, the behavior that seeks to normalize that mental disorder that presents with that behavior.

They don't seek it anymore. Homosexuality was normalized, meaning removed from the list of mental disorders, some 40 years ago. So was pedophilia, recently. LINK

 

[Ame®icano]

Isn't celibacy a mental disorder, using your standards? Wouldn't the species disappear if everyone was celibate?

Based on this it seems you're equalizing homosexuality with celibacy.

You do understand that celibacy is a choice, right?

 

[Ame®icano]

How many children do celibates produce?

How many pencils in a junk yard?

Celibates choose a sexual lifestyle that is non-reproductive, as do homosexuals. You revere the former and condemn the latter,

for that choice.

In your words, both celibacy and homosexuality are choices.

 

[Ame®icano]

Celibacy is deviant because it deviates from your sexual standard.

No Gilligan, Celibacy does not deviate from the human physiological standard.

And here's another thing you may be interested in not understanding: Unlike Homosexuality... Celibacy is wholly LEGITIMATE!

It certainly does. You say one man one woman is the norm. Celibacy is not that, therefore celibacy deviates from the norm.

One man and one woman is a norm, but for marriage. If celibates are not seeking for marriage, how do they deviating from the norm?

 

[Ame®icano]

From where I stand, I see that they already have. You in particular. You engage in bigotry against Christians, call them hateful for having a distaste for gay marriage, randomly start quoting cherrypicked bible verses that supposedly support gay marriage, and dehumanize anyone who speaks out against it.

So how are you tolerant when you are only willing to grant it to homosexuals and not Christians? Tolerance is the willingness to accept that other people hold different views from you, without compromisig your own. What liberals like you demonstrate is nothing close to tolerance.

You can "hold" any view you wish. And no one is forced to invite gays into their home. But in the public realm, there are laws against discrimination by business open to the public.

Yes... there are laws against irrationally discriminating against people who are a different color, gender or who are disadvantaged because their physical circumstances... but none of THAT is relevant where the issue is BEHAVIOR!

I am not obligated to accept your behavior, because your behavior is common to a minority.

The notion that you're entitled to force others to accept your behavior is foolish beyond measure.

What "behavior"? There are also laws against public lewdness.

Sexual Deviancy, a presentation of mental disorder... and more specifically, the behavior that seeks to normalize that mental disorder that presents with that behavior.

"deviancy"? You are the one who talks about the laws of nature...in nature...

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

What's the point?

And, by the way, how many of those are female?

 

[bripat9643]

My laughter has reached uncontainable levels and my sides are now hurdling through the atmosphere at the light speed...

Maybe you should stop laughing...it is ironic that YOUR beliefs are the same as Hitler..

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) in Germany, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazis and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, (such as those from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, run by Jewish gay rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld) and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps

I was laughing at you and your statement that Hitler and Stalin were right wing dictators.

Why is the truth funny? Oh, I know...you are only capable of framing conservatism in parochial terms.

Tell me Einstein, would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the US Constitution, capitalism and apple pie? Or would a conservative in Russia want to 'conserve' the communist manifesto, communism and vodka?

Based on the actual definition of the term as used, the former is the case. Someone who supports communism is not a conservative.

BTW, Stalin was an extreme social conservative who banned abortions in Russia...


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

More leftists horseshit. Anyone who claims leftists aren't authoritarians is automatically a sleazy lying POS. Do you think fining a business $135,000 for declining to bake someone a cake isn't authoritarian? Do you think speech codes on campus aren't authoritarian? Do you think telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy isn't authoritarian?

Welcome to the real world my pissing infant, which has rules and sometimes serious consequences if you break them.

That's what every Nazi says. They're big on rules.