Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up. There's no marriage in nature at all. And labeling your personal opinion as 'natural law' doesn't magically make your opinion objective. Its still just your subjective personal opinion.
There is no marriage in nature. You're describing fucking, equating it with marriage. You may not be able to tell the difference. A rational person could.
Marriage is our invention. Marriage can include one man and one man or one woman and one woman or one man and one woman. There's nothing objectively 'immutable' about marriage. It is a social construct that we invented to serve our society. And it is what we say it is.
As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates elegantly. You pretend none of it is happening. Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

Biologically you're right. But marriage is one of the reasons why our society progressed. Legalizing same-sex marriages is legalizing it's propaganda. What will it cause in 50 years? You see, it's a kind of experiment, and setting up this experiment on the US has too slap-bang character.

It's far more than an experiment, it is a subversion which strikes at every level of human existence...

Obvious nonsense. Human existence will continue just fine when gays marry. As all of the same driving forces of civilization exist before gay marriage as exist after. Your entire narrative of gays being more dangerous than thermonuclear war is mere melodramatic hysterics.

Grab a feinting couch, wipe the smearing eye liner and take a long breath. Its gonna be okay.

Which will further undermine the recognition of what marriage is... The essential purpose of such, the honor essential to bearing the responsibilities intrinsic to such.. As its purpose is purely to destroy the institution and in so doing the civilization that it sustains.

Nope. There's nothing 'intrinsic' about marriage. Its a social construct that's as adaptable as we are. As we invented it. And we define it. It exists to serve our society in the capacity we wish it to. And at present that capacity includes same sex couples.

In short... The force behind such is simply evil. And it will bring what evil is designed to bring.

In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. And bizarrely confuse disagreement with you with 'evil'. They aren't the same thing. And given your hateful rants about the 'right to eradicate homosexuals', in all likelihood the the opposite is true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Liberals are. They play them for fools to further their own political careers.

"I voted for gay marriage before I voted against it when I was pro gay marriage because I didn't want fags to know I was pro traditional marriage. Now upon seeing recent polls I have "evolved""

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I think it would be fairer to say that conservatives are always trying to either maintain the status ...

Yeah... We like to maintain the fundamentals like sound economics, cultural viability.... Things like that.

You know, respect for the principles that provide for peace, prosperity and things like that.

As a result we reject idiocy like replacing sound actuarial lending principle with "fairness". But only because that is the sort of things that produce catastrophic failures of the financial markets.

Now the idiots disagree, of course.

 

[Lilah]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

 

[Redfish]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

 

[Misty]

I am not trying to offend homosexuals. However I am not a gay too. Please, avoid rude comments. I can't realize why someone would oppose gay marriage and such kind of issues, so I figured this was the best way to go about it. Why are gays hated in America? What is the reason of this hatred? I know that there is a tendency to support them and respect their rights. But I would like to ask the opposite.

I don't hate gays per se but I hate people who purposely act like idiots.

 

[Skylar]

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

Nope. You're merely offering us vague and thuggish threats of slaughter and violence if you don't get your way. And you're hamstrung by one simple fact: you're a natural chickenshit. You won't actually be doing anything but talking. And the millennials, those of fighting age, won't be killing anyone because you don't like homosexuals.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

Understand, what you keep calling 'natural law' is just your subjective opinion with a label slapped onto it. Its just you citing you. And no one gives a rat ass what you believe.

You are gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.

 

[Skylar]

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

The 'reader' you keep referring to...is just you talking to yourself. Just your 'natural law of marriage' is just you citing yourself. With all of your sources being yourself. Your argument, your audience, your sources...is all just you citing you.

None of it has anything to do with the rest of us. As you expressing nothing but your subjective opinion. And your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

Rejecting your subjective personal opinion as defining 'natural law' isn't a rejection of responsibility. As your personal opinion doesn't define 'responsibility'. It merely defines the people that you want to kill, the harm you want to inflict, the slaughter you wish to engage in.

No thank you. There is no 'right to eradicate homosexuals', no matter how many times you tell yourself there is. You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

 

[Lilah]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

 

[Darkwind]

Homosexuality isn't a sexual deviancy.

You could not be more incorrect if you dedicated the rest of your life to perfecting being wrong.

In fact, homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological sexual standard, it deviates as far from the standard as is humanly possible, where the subjects remain human.

deviant: one who deviates from the accepted, established standard, especially in social or sexual behavior.

deviate: departure from established standards.

So while you may not like the word, the word is what homosexuals are. That they are people is irrelevant, except where they are recognized truthfully for what they are: Deviants, suffering an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder; OKA: Delusion.

Now, you should know... the refusal to accept reality... is a symptom of delusion.

In other words you butchered a dictionary.

Deviancy is presented in many ways... in the above example, 'citing the dictionary', when expressed by the perverse, disordered mind of the deviant, comes out: 'butchered a dictionary'.

I'm more curious about your perversion and why you care what homosexuals do. You obviously think about this a lot.

And when one advocates for the recognition of, respect for and adherence to the laws of nature that assure a sound culture, the perverse reasoning asks:

What do you call someone who fixates on homosexuality like you do?

What laws of nature? Are there any sexual acts that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to perform?

I'm more curious as to why you believe you are entitled to make a moral judgement while trying to deny others their right to make moral judgements.

 

[hipeter924]

I think it would be fairer to say that conservatives are always trying to either maintain the status ...

Yeah... We like to maintain the fundamentals like sound economics, cultural viability.... Things like that.

You know, respect for the principles that provide for peace, prosperity and things like that.

As a result we reject idiocy like replacing sound actuarial lending principle with "fairness". But only because that is the sort of things that produce catastrophic failures of the financial markets.

Now the idiots disagree, of course.

Speaking of financial markets, these are some of the heterosexual people 'ruining the financial markets' rather than running them: What It Was Like Being Gay on Wall Street - TheStreet

On his second day of work, a lewd picture was posted on the office bulletin board. According to a lawsuit filed with the California Superior Court on March 4, 1996, the photo depicted "a man performing oral sex on another man in front of him while simultaneously being the subject of anal intercourse from another man behind him.

Anderson 's photograph was superimposed on the man in the middle." Underneath the picture was scrawled a note explaining that Anderson would provide "good service to our bisexual clients." His picture, he says, had been purloined from his new Cantor Fitzgerald ID card.

"I tried to rip it down and I was told that if I ripped it down, I was fired," says Anderson. "Those rules were understood there." About three weeks later, while chowing down on a BLT, Anderson sensed a foreign object in his sandwich. He peeled apart the slices of sourdough bread to discover "a pink rubber vagina with hairs on it," he says.

[...]As for Anderson, after taking off six months to get his head together, he's given up on the securities industry. "I've gone back to interior design," he says, "where people are just people."

Ouch, he doesn't consider his former colleagues 'people'. Wonder why?

 

[Nosmo King]

Liberals are. They play them for fools to further their own political careers.

"I voted for gay marriage before I voted against it when I was pro gay marriage because I didn't want fags to know I was pro traditional marriage. Now upon seeing recent polls I have "evolved""

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

And we do a little side step!

Nothing in your response addresses the accurate allegations concerning the Conservative positi0ons on equal rights. A deflection, an obfuscation, but not a legitimate response.

I can't blame you for that. If I clung to a dying ideology that refuses to be in the vanguard of the civil rights battle, I'd hide, lie and deflect too, then I'd rethink my politics.

 

[Redfish]

Liberals are. They play them for fools to further their own political careers.

"I voted for gay marriage before I voted against it when I was pro gay marriage because I didn't want fags to know I was pro traditional marriage. Now upon seeing recent polls I have "evolved""

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

And we do a little side step!

Nothing inn your response addresses the accurate allegations concerning the Conservative positi0ons on equal rights. A deflection, an obfuscation, but not a legitimate response.

I can't blame you for that. If I clung to a dying ideology that refuses to be in the vanguard of the civil rights battle, I'd hide, lie and deflect too, then I'd rethink my politics.

gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue, its a cultural and societal issue. The issue is whether a society wants to recognize homsexuality as a normal human condition. All the rest of this is BS to cover up the real issue, and society as a whole should decide, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

 

[Skylar]

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is.

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

 

[Redfish]

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Totally wrong. Minority rights were established by majority vote. If you call that tyranny, then you are very ignorant.

What you want is minority dictates to establish rights. Why not just go back to a monarchy where the king establshed rights and determined who was entitled to them?

You fools have no idea what you are opening up.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is a case to be made for equal rights among all law abiding American citizens. This case falls on deaf Conservative ears. Why?

Some Conservatives will tell you that minority rights means 'special rights', what ever that means. Some Conservatives feel that extending civil rights to all Americans somehow erodes their own rights. How that conclusion was jumped to still baffles me.

Some Conservatives believe that their view of moral comportment means they hold the right to deny others their rights simply because those others are different. That establishes a sense of moral superiority among the Conservatives. Moral superiority to deny others simple basic civil rights. Does that make sense to anyone?