Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

Hmm...

So whatever I say is an unfounded assumption... thus Skylar implies that because I said it, that I just made it up.

Now let's apply her would-be principle to her own would-be contribution and see how it works for it.

You assume marriage is immutable. You assume a made up 'natural law of marriage'...citing only yourself.

Huh... self refutation!

I don't think 'self refutation' means what you think it means. As these aren't my assumptions. They're yours.

And none of them are logical or factually valid. Marriage is very much mutable and has changed repeatedly. You can't claim something is unchangable when its obviously changed.

Nor can you insist that marriage has only one valid basis....when infertile and childless couples are allowed to marry or remain married. There is obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And you cherry picking nature, citing what you think helps your argument and ignoring what doesn't ......demonstrates that nature ISN'T the supreme arbiter of your argument. Your cherry picking is. If nature were truly the 'supreme arbiter' than any observation of nature would be valid as any other. But you ignore whatever you don't like.

You just disproved nature as the 'supreme arbiter' of your argument......but ignoring nature as part of your argument. You were saying about 'self refutation'?

 

[Skylar]

Reader... That they can't answer the argument, so instead they spam and troll... and do what would reasoably expected of those who simply lack to means to reason objectively.

You whining about spamming, trolling, and objectivity is as rich as Croesus.

Keyes has second tell: he accuses others of what he's most flagrantly doing. He spams enormous block posts that he promises to post a 'million times a day'. And then denounces 'spamming'.

He offers us an entirely relativistic argument, where his every source is himself, citing himself, responding to himself, offering concession to himself as he talks to himself. And then he denounces relativism.

His denunciations are little more than reviews of what he just did.

 

[norwegen]

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 hate good-looking lesbian women. For some reason, they don't find me attractive.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

Nope...

Let's review:

UPDATE!​

Skylar has trotted out a NEW RESPONSE:

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'

In effect that is Skylar informing you that:

Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works.Circular Reason works, because Circular Reason works. ...

Let's review to recall how she got there:

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No matter how severely their personal subjective needs DEMAND that such is not real and true... they cannot address the facts that are human physiology and the human sexual standard it defines... and by natural extension, those obvious, natural facts define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

(And THAT reader, is all there is to this...)

 

[Skylar]

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

I'm contesting its irrelevant. As your assumption that procreation is the only valid basis of marriage is obviously false. As all the infertile and childless couples getting married or being permitted to stay married demonstrates. There's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them.

Rendering all your babble about 'physiology' moot. As is your imaginary 'natural law of marriage' fantasy.

Worse for you, marriage has changed repeatedly. Sometimes it involves 2 people. Sometimes groups. Sometimes its based on pair bonding. Sometimes its arranged. Sometimes its the joining of equals. Sometimes its dominant and subordinate. Sometimes it involves children. Sometimes it doesn't.

And they're all marriage. Utterly debunking your insistence that there can be only one: whatever you decide marriage is. Sorry, Highlander.....but you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

No matter how severely their personal subjective needs DEMAND that such is not real and true... they cannot address the facts that are human physiology and the human sexual standard it defines... and by natural extension, those obvious, natural facts define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

(And THAT reader, is all there is to this...)

Your personal subjective opinion doesn't define what is 'real and true'. It merely defines what you believe. Which isn't a standard of anything objective.

It doesn't matter how many times you declare your personal opinion is objective truth...its still just your hopelessly subjective, relativistic personal opinion.

You can't get around that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

I'm contesting its irrelevant.

You're claimjng that human physiology is irrelevant to the nucleus of human civilization?

ROFLMNAO.

Then as before, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

There's nothing more relevant to the human species than the physiological design OF the human species.

But, in fairness to you, as a Relativist, there is no way you could understand that?

(Reader, the best part of that intellectual train wreck, is that it MUST BELIEVE THAT. As such is essential to defending the fragile reality which Relativists build around themselves.

The coolest part of all of this is to watch them as they come unglued, as they get more desperate.

In the last three days they've declard that there are upwards of 75 genders... that marrige has NEVER BEEN ABOUT MEN JOINING WITH WOMAN... That marriage is only a contract and that WORDS MEAN NOTHING IN CONTRACTS ...

LOL! The homo-cult is the consequence of madness... And as the SCOTUS comes closer to handing down its decision... they're truly rolling over the edge.

 

[Skylar]

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

I'm contesting its irrelevant.

You're claimjng that human physiology is irrelevant to the nucleus of human civilization?

Laughing...really? You omit all but one sentence and then raise a strawman?

I've said, quite clearly:

I'm contesting its irrelevant. As your assumption that procreation is the only valid basis of marriage is obviously false. As all the infertile and childless couples getting married or being permitted to stay married demonstrates. There's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them.

I even bolded it for you. But still you ignore any mention of marriage and then start babbling about 'human civilization'. And well you should try and change the topic. It destroys your entire argument. As there's obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them.

Rendering your entire procreation argument moot. And you know it. Which is why you omitted any mention of it and ran.

Then as before, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

You just accepted a concession from yourself on an argument that only you made. That has to be some new relativistic record or something.

In the last three days they've declard that there are upwards of 75 genders... that marrige has NEVER BEEN ABOUT MEN JOINING WITH WOMAN... That marriage is only a contract and that WORDS MEAN NOTHING IN CONTRACTS ...

Nope. I've never claimed there were 'upward of 75 genders'. That's just you citing yourself. I've never argued that marriage has 'never been about men joining with women'. That's you citing yourself again, knocking down an argument only you are making. I've said this:

Marriage is what we say it is, as its a social construct of our invention. And it can have more than one valid basis. As all the infertile couples marrying demonstrates. As all the childless couples demonstrates. As all the same sex marriages demonstrate.

An argument you clearly can't refute. You always tell us where you know your argument breaks by what you desperately ignore.

Alas, you can't make us ignore what breaks your argument. Which is why you failed.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

I'm contesting its irrelevant.

What century do you live in? 42nd?
The marriages were always meant for couples to to give birth and raise children. Many infertile couples adopt children.

 

[Skylar]

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

I'm contesting its irrelevant.

What century do you live in? 42nd?
The marriages were always meant for couples to to give birth and raise children. Many infertile couples adopt children.

Children can certainly be a purpose in marriage. But they don't have to be the only purpose in marriage. Which is my point. There is more than one valid basis. If bearing children were the only purpose in the union then it would be dissolved the moment you could no longer procreate. Or forbidden those who couldn't have kids.

It isn't. There are plenty of folks who marry and never have children. And never adopt. Their marriages are as legal and valid as anyone else's. A fact that simply obliterates the idea that procreation is the only valid basis of marriage. There is clearly a valid basis that has nothing to do with procreation, children, or the ability to have them.

 

[Redfish]

The gay marriage debate is NOT about marriage, equality, rights, freedom, or the constitution.

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Unless we are able to understand what we are really arguing about, we will never find a solution.

 

[quorthon]

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Human as a biological unit? It's unnatural because of wrong use of genitalia.
I understand what the arguing is about, but I know some SSM supporter will say that such use of genitalia is absolutely normal. The war of ideologies, I call it.

 

[Redfish]

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Human as a biological unit? It's unnatural because of wrong use of genitalia.
I understand what the arguing is about, but I know some SSM supporter will say that such use of genitalia is absolutely normal. The war of ideologies, I call it.

yes, and the libs try to get around that by claiming its about rights or equal treatment. But as you said, its an ideological debate about what is normal and acceptable human behavior in a society.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No matter how severely their personal subjective needs DEMAND that such is not real and true... they cannot address the facts that are human physiology and the human sexual standard it defines... and by natural extension, those obvious, natural facts define Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

(And THAT reader, is all there is to this...)

Your personal subjective opinion doesn't define what is 'real and true'. It merely defines what you believe. Which isn't a standard of anything objective.

It doesn't matter how many times you declare your personal opinion is objective truth...its still just your hopelessly subjective, relativistic personal opinion.

You can't get around that.

Reader, take what you see in the above would-be contribution and compare that mess to the defining elements of Relativism:

The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to the opinions formed from one's personal culture, society, or one's own historical context and, as a result can never be objectively reasoned as absolute.

Then take a look at the defining elements of delusion:

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.

See how that works?http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/watch#watch__2

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Human as a biological unit? It's unnatural because of wrong use of genitalia.
I understand what the arguing is about, but I know some SSM supporter will say that such use of genitalia is absolutely normal. The war of ideologies, I call it.

But it's not a war of ideologies... It's a war between the ideologues who 'believe' how things should be and the philosophy born from the history of humanity in determining how things are.

Which is to say the war between the Ideological Left and the philosophical Right.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, take what you see in the above would-be contribution and compare that mess to the defining elements of Relativism:

The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to the opinions formed from one's personal culture, society, or one's own historical context and, as a result can never be objectively reasoned as absolute.

And you are by far the most relativistic poster here. As you define morality, truth, knowledge etc by whatever you imagine. As the only source you ever cite is your own subjective opinion. The 'reader' you claim to be addressing is just you talking to yourself.

Your argument, your sources, even your audience....is just you citing yourself.

You citing you isn't an objective standard of anything. Its just your subjective opinion. So you declaring that marriage can only be about procreation is just your opinion. There's no requirement that it be so. And it demonstrably isn't. You insisting that marriage is immutable is just your opinion. Its obviously changed repeatedly.

Marriage remains a social construct that we invented and we define. As demonstrated by all the same sex marriage happening in 37 of 50 States.

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.

You're not offering a 'rational argument' or 'reality'. You're offering your personal opinion as defining nature, objective truth, universal momrality and and even 'god's law'.

Um.....you citing you doesn't do any of those things. You're deluding yourself. You're merely citing yourself. Your entire post is even directed to yourself.

 

[Skylar]

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Human as a biological unit? It's unnatural because of wrong use of genitalia.
I understand what the arguing is about, but I know some SSM supporter will say that such use of genitalia is absolutely normal. The war of ideologies, I call it.

I'd say an individual is a far better source on the use of their own genitalia than some random internet poster claiming to speak for them.

 

[Skylar]

The gay marriage debate is NOT about marriage, equality, rights, freedom, or the constitution.

Says you. I get that you have a personal opinion on the matter. You'll need to get that it has no particular relevance to anyone else's marriage, any court ruling, the constitution, or any legal definition.

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

That's your issue. The court is addressing these two questions exclusively:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was
lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Unless we are able to understand what we are really arguing about, we will never find a solution.

Oh, we can find a solution without accepting your assumptions. As your assumptions have no real relevance to the issue or the legal questions being addressed.

 

[Skylar]

the current gay marriage debate is about whether homosexuality is a normal human condition.

Human as a biological unit? It's unnatural because of wrong use of genitalia.
I understand what the arguing is about, but I know some SSM supporter will say that such use of genitalia is absolutely normal. The war of ideologies, I call it.

But it's not a war of ideologies... It's a war between the ideologues who 'believe' how things should be and the philosophy born from the history of humanity in determining how things are.

We invented marriage to serve our societies. We determine how things are regarding marriage. You believe that YOU determine how things are regarding marriage.

Same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates your laughably wrong. You define nothing regarding anyone else's marriage. As your personal opinion defines nothing objectively.

And your assumption that marriage can only be about procreation is merely your assumption. We're not bound to that, as its merely your subjective opinion. Worse for you, your assumption is demonstrably false, as shown by every infertile or childless couple that is allowed to marry or remain married.

There's obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Simply obliterating your entire basis of argument.