Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Reader, now in this little thread, I've defined morality upon the truth, held within the knowledge that presents the IRREFUTABLE FACTS THAT COMPRISE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY; facts which define THE HUMAN SEXUAL STANDARD,

from which Homosexuality,

BY DEFINITION:

DEVIATES. ​

I've stated this in this thread no less than a dozen times.

I've posted the discussion held with the above cited would-be "Contributor", wherein the separate and individual elements of human physiology were enumerated, and highlighted and set before her and her cult for their consideration, wherein they were asked if they recognized those elements as a function of human physiology and if they either accepted the facts or rejected them.

Those that have not ignored the discussion, which are the majority of the professed Homo-cultists... responded that human physiology is IRRELEVANT to the human sexual standard.

Folks, that is simply irrational... technically, such is delusional... but without regard to where the clinical diagnosis may fall, I am sure that most will agree that what it is NOT: is REASONABLE.

SO... that point is wholly REFUTED upon the evidence of this very thread.

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.

Reader, if it believes that, then the respondent is clinically insane... . As such as no kinship with reality.

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

Reader... the respondent is; without fear of overstating this: Mentally ill.

If any of you would like to defend anything she's claimed here... I invite you to do so.

Please, by all means, take any of the relevant assertions and set them to the historic record of this thread... .

And let me just say in advance, that the exercise will be good for you, as it will help you to understand that our opposition is not reasonable, thus there is no means to compromise with it... .

And THAT is why for 99.99999~ % of human history, homosexuals have lived in the closet. Because they're nuts... and the closet allows them to hide their nutty-nugget core. And when people forget that they're nuts... they end up normalizing their insanity and the next thing ya know... everything is bassackwards and upside down, wrong is right, good is bad... bad is good and evil reigns supreme.

Then *POOF* that culture is history and the closet is crammed to the rafters with head-cases for another thousand years... until the cycle repeats itself, and people have to learn ALL OVER AGAIN: "DO NOT NORMALIZE MENTAL DISORDER! THAT'S BAD!"

 

[Skylar]

Reader, now in this little thread, I've defined morality upon the truth, held within the knowledge that presents the IRREFUTABLE FACTS THAT COMPRISE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY; facts which define THE HUMAN SEXUAL STANDARD,

Again, your argument breaks in the same place: you assume that marriage can only be about procreation. And that's demonstrably false, as elegantly shown by all the infertile and childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married.

There's obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have children. Obliterating your entire basis of argument yet again.

Remember, there is no 'natural law of marriage'. Marriage is a social construct that we invented to serve our societies. And we define it. There's nothing immutable about marriage. It meaning changes with the needs of society. Polygamy, anti-miscegenation laws, arranged marriages, etc. all demonstrate the way marriage is adapted by the society that defines it.

You insist that YOU define marriage for all of history and every society. You're obviously, comically wrong. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States shows.

And in a matter of weeks, 50 of 50 states.

Reader... the respondent is without fear of overstating this: Mentally ill.

Nope. Rejecting your personal subjective opinion as defining 'natural law', 'god's law', 'objective truth', and any other Appeal to Authority fallacy you wish to use is explicitly rational.

As you applying a label to your subjective opinion doesn't magically make it objective truth. Its still just your subjective personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

You can't get around that. You are and remain gloriously irrelevant to the definition of anyone else's marriage. Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We invented marriage to serve our societies.

No... We did not 'invent' marriage. Just as we did not invent gravity, inertia, entropy, chaos, cause and effect, probabilities... or the unenviable consequences of deceit.

Nature invented those things and many more... all we can do is to recognize those laws and benefit from such, or reject them and suffer the unenviable consequences of doing so.

We didn't invent marriage, we corrupted, or otherwise perverted it. And we're paying the unenviable consequences of it.

Take the point you and your cult-comrades have made, a couple of dozen times, regarding the natural standards of marriage confusing 'fucking' with marriage.

In reality, thus in truth, sexual intercourse is behavior which should only be engaged within the scope of marriage.

Now you claim otherwise. And you're not alone... as such is today, a widely rejected thesis.

But the consequence for that is what? Unwanted pregnancies, poorly raised children, children bearing children, which brought upon what? "The Right to Choose"... which flies in the face of the foundational principle of individual freedom... along with all of the addle-minded leftwing feminist diatribes offering feckless notions ranging from 'personhood' to 'having your cake and eating it too' , OKA: "Having it all". Which consequently divided the cultural house... and what do ya suppose follows THAT?

The list of unenviable consequences is ENDLESS, but we know for certain that it leads inevitably to a rush by the sexual deviancy cult to demand that men should be qualified to 'marry' other men. And odds are, that the degenerative slide does NOT bottom out there, but only steepens for a cultural free fall into even more profound iterations of depravity and Reader, your children and grandchildren have a sexual bullseye on both sides of 'em.

In truth, the only thing that you people comprising The Ideological LEFT stand for, is tearing down standards, rejecting principle and destroying whatever culture it infects.

And there's just not much more to it, than that.

OH! And BTW... North Carolina today, added itself to the list of states telling the US Federal judiciary to stuff it, informing it's magistrates that they're not bound by law to marry people of the same gender.

You're losing... but that's only because, you can't win. Because THE INSTANT you win... you lose. Meaning that there is NO POTENTIAL UPSIDE to your getting what you're demanding.

By getting what you want, you destroy what you need...

But hey... in fairness to you, as a person saddled with severe mental disorder, there is NO WAY that you can EVER come to understand that.

And I wish that that in some way relieved me of the responsibility to correct your idiocy where its found... MAN oh MAN! Do I wish THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, now in this little thread, I've defined morality upon the truth, held within the knowledge that presents the IRREFUTABLE FACTS THAT COMPRISE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY; facts which define THE HUMAN SEXUAL STANDARD,

Again, your argument breaks in the same place: you assume that marriage can only be about procreation.

I do not assume that, I've never assumed that and no matter how many times you claim such, it will remain a fantasy which lives only within the fertile ground fertilized by your own subjective needs in the furrows of your diseased mind.

MARRIAGE >IS< the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That some people cannot or choose not to have children is IRRELEVANT to the law of nature which defines marriage as PURELY, solely, wholly, utterly, entirely, finally and without except, completely and thoroughly between two persons, each respectively of distinct genders... and for all of the reasons which have been stated ad nauseam.

And that the tiny and otherwise irrelevant percentage of people who marry and do not have children, do so... IN NO WAY provides a basis in reason which justifies that marriage is ANYTHING EXCEPT that which nature has designed.

You disagree... and that has been duly noted. Sadly, for your argument, your reasoning is unsound, your construct invalid.

You are finally: Dismissed.

 

[Skylar]

We invented marriage to serve our societies.

No... We did not 'invent' marriage. Just as we did not invent gravity, inertia, entropy, chaos, cause and effect, probabilities... or the unenviable consequences of deceit.

Marriage isn't gravity, inertia, entropy or any of the other things you cited. Its a social construct that we invented and we define. And it means what we say it means.

Sometimes it involves 2 people. Sometimes entire groups of people. Sometimes its based in pair bonding. Other times its arranged. Sometimes its for life. Sometimes its not. Sometimes it involves children. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its the joining of equals. Sometimes is explicitly dominant and subordinate.

And all of it is marriage. It depends on the society, their needs and how they define it. You insist that it depends only on how YOU define it.

Nope. Your personal opinion defines nothing objectively. And is functionally irrelevant to the definition of marriage in any society. As we don't consult you on our definitions.

As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 (soon to be 50 of 50) states demonstrates elegantly on every point.

Nature invented those things and many more... all we can do is to recognize those laws and benefit from such, or reject them and suffer the unenviable consequences of doing so.

There is no marriage in nature. Rendering your made up 'natural law of marriage' more subjective, relativistic gibberish. Nor is procreation the only valid basis of marriage. As all the infertile and childless couples marrying and staying married demonstrates. Nor is anyone required to have children or be able to have children to get married.

There is obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children, or the ability to have them. Which again smashes your claims into a little puddle of irrational goo.

Sorry Keys....but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no marriage in nature.

Yet humanity exists in nature and humanity is designed specifically for marriage.

So, if you're correct, then humanity is distinct from nature... or marriage doesn't exist in humanity...

And since we're both here discussing marriage... that would appear to be fair evidence that we both exist, thus humanity exists, and given that everything that exists, exists in nature... that means that humanity exists in nature and since we're discussing marriage as it relates to humanity... that means that you're dead-ass fuckin' WRONG, across the board!

Which... I hesitate to point out, given the existential nature of the discussion... and the evidence at hand.... that sets you as previously diagnosed, as being; Crazier than a shit-house rat.

 

[Skylar]

Reader, now in this little thread, I've defined morality upon the truth, held within the knowledge that presents the IRREFUTABLE FACTS THAT COMPRISE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY; facts which define THE HUMAN SEXUAL STANDARD,

Again, your argument breaks in the same place: you assume that marriage can only be about procreation.

I do not assume that, I've never assumed that and no matter how many times you claim such, it will remain a fantasy which lives only within the fertile ground fertilized by your own subjective needs in the furrows of your diseased mind.

Then without that assumption, there can be more than one valid basis of marriage. Including a basis that has nothing to do with procreation, children, or the ability to have them. A valid basis demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married.

That was easy.

MARRIAGE >IS< the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And in 37 of 50 States, one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. In a few weeks that will be 50 of 50 States.

That some people cannot or choose not to have children is IRRELEVANT to the law of nature which defines marriage as PURELY, solely, wholly, utterly, entirely, finally and without except, completely and thoroughly between two persons, each respectively of distinct genders... and for all of the reasons which have been stated ad nauseam.

There is no such 'law of nature' related to marriage. You've made it up. There is no marriage in nature. And if a couple chooses to have kids or can't.....it doesn't matter. Their marriages are just as valid as those couples who do have kids or who can.

If procreation were the only valid basis of marriage then no one would couldn't procreate would be allowed to marry or remain married. Yet neither is true. No one is required to have kids or be able to in order to get married.

Eliminating procreation as the only possible basis of marriage. As even without procreation you still have a valid marriage.

Your claims fall to logic, reason and evidence yet again. Each time. Every time.

 

[Skylar]

There is no marriage in nature.

Yet humanity exists in nature and humanity is designed specifically for marriage.

Humanity existing in nature doesn't make any subjective assumption you invent a 'natural law'. As labeling your personal opinion doesn't change the fact that its still your subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective.

Thus you labeling your opinion that marriage is only a man and a woman doesn't make your opinion 'natural law. Its just you citing yourself, sharing what you personally believe. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, you're demonstrably wrong. Marriage is changable. How do we know? Because its changed. Sometimes it involves 2 people. Sometimes entire groups of people. Sometimes its based in pair bonding. Other times its arranged. Sometimes its for life. Sometimes its not. Sometimes it involves children. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its the joining of equals. Sometimes is explicitly dominant and subordinate.

And its all marriage.

You say otherwise, insisting that you and only you can define marriage. And no one gives a shit, as you citing yourself means nothing objectively.

Societies continue to define marriage as they see fit. Not as you see fit. As you are gloriously irrelevant to any other person's marriage, the definition of marriage, or the laws surrounding them.

Get used to the idea. As gays will be getting married regardless of what label you apply to your subjective opinions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then without that assumption, there can be more than one valid basis of marriage.

Nope... not unless the concept is going to be corrupted. (And I understand that you don't care about that, because your subjective needs stand superior to any other consideration... what you don't understand and that's only because you lack the slightest intellectual means TO understand... is that you subjective needs are your problem and your problem alone.)

Now, with that said, it should be noted that what there is never a valid basis for, is the corrupting of an essential natural institution, on which civilization depends, entirely.

But hey, given that you're insane and all... There was NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[Skylar]

Which... I hesitate to point out, given the existential nature of the discussion... and the evidence at hand.... that sets you as previously diagnosed, as being; Crazier than a shit-house rat.

Says the guy who claims to speak for nature, god, natural law, and objective truth. All while merely citing himself.

Your personal opinion defines none of these things, nor anything objective. Subjective is not objective.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Then without that assumption, there can be more than one valid basis of marriage.

Nope... not unless the concept is going to be corrupted. (And I understand that you don't care about that, because your subjective needs stand superior to any other consideration... what you don't understand and that's only because you lack the slightest intellectual means TO understand... is that you subjective needs are your problem and your problem alone.)

Corrupted according to who? According to you claiming to speak for nature, god, or whatever other Appeal to Authority fallacy you wish to employ. All while cherry picking nature and ignoring any aspect of nature you don't like.

Demonstrating that your source isn't 'nature'. Its your subjective opinion guiding flagrant use of the Confirmation Bias fallacy. Where you ignore anything that doesn't match what you already believe. And cite only those things that you think do confirm your beliefs.

No objectively valid standard is based on fallacies of logic. Your standards are based in 3 such fallacies.

No thank you. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Humanity existing in nature doesn't make any subjective assumption you invent a 'natural law'.

You're the one that said humanity doesn't exist in nature... I just laughed at how cool it was that you'd say some stupid shit like that, in public.

I mean you and I both know you're a fuckin' lunatic. I am just fascinated by how little you care that anyone else knows it.

But hey... if you don't care, I can't see why I should.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which... I hesitate to point out, given the existential nature of the discussion... and the evidence at hand.... that sets you as previously diagnosed, as being; Crazier than a shit-house rat.

Says the guy who claims to speak for nature, god, natural law, and objective truth.

Is observing it, the same thing as speaking for it?

So Isaac Newton then, he was speaking for gravity?

And Einstein, he was speaking for 'space/time'?

And Copernicus he was speaking for the construct of the solar orbit?

ROFLMNAO! Yes Ma'am... you're nuckin' FUTZ!

 

[Skylar]

Humanity existing in nature doesn't make any subjective assumption you invent a 'natural law'.

You're the one that said humanity doesn't exist in nature..

Nope. That's you citing yourself pretending to be me.

I said that there's no marriage in nature. We invented marriage as a social construct to benefit our societies. And that it is whatever we say it is. Marriage exists only within human society. Not outside of it. As human society defines marriage. Not nature.

There is no such thing as a 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

Nor is procreation the only valid basis of marriage. As demonstrated by all the infertile or childless couples marrying or being allowed to stay married. There's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them.

Nor is marriage immutable or unchanging. It changes whenever the society that defines it want it to change. As all the different variants of marriage and the changing standards of marriage over time demonstrates.

Feel free to quote me.

 

[Skylar]

Which... I hesitate to point out, given the existential nature of the discussion... and the evidence at hand.... that sets you as previously diagnosed, as being; Crazier than a shit-house rat.

Says the guy who claims to speak for nature, god, natural law, and objective truth.

Is observing it, the same thing as speaking for it?

Yet you're ignoring any observation that contradicts you. For example....predation of the sick, the young, the old. It happens all the time in nature. Is that 'natural law'?

You've rejected it, despite it being a clear and obvious observation of nature. Eliminating 'nature' as your authority.

Your subjective opinion and personal beliefs are your only authority. And you'll ignore any part of nature that doesn't match what you already believe. That's just the Confirmation Bias fallacy. And it defines nothing objectively. Just as your personal opinion defines nothing objectively.

You're stuck, Keys.

So Isaac Newton then, he was speaking for gravity?

And Einstein, he was speaking for 'space/time'?

And Copernicus he was speaking for the construct of the solar orbit?

Marriage isn't gravity. Marriage isn't space-time.

Marriage is a social construct that we invent and we define. You insist marriage is defined only by you, citing whatever Appeal Authority fallacy you wish.

You're obviously wrong. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance on the matter is as gloriously irrelevant as your attention. As you define nothing in anyone else's marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

They are not hated in America. There are some folks in America that just want the gay thing to be swept under the rug. These people were brought up to believe that gay acts are a sin, it's one of those religious tenants, like eating the meat of a cloven animal, and blood sacrifices. This small group of people is getting smaller by the day as they wake up to realize that their parents were wrong about this topic.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then without that assumption, there can be more than one valid basis of marriage.

We've covered this and the answer is still 'No.' Marriage has one basis and one basis only.

That people get married who do not procreate and raise their children to become productive members of society, does not alter the basis for marriage. As those people are comprised of One Man and One Woman, each designed by nature to join with the other....

Now clearly you 'feel' that society has provided for them, an exception; which you 'feel' in order for you to be 'treated equally under the law', requires that there be an exception carved out for you.

I want you to know that your cry for your exception has been heard... and summarily rejected.

You simply do not qualify for the exception, UNLESS! You find someone of the distinct gender who you can talk into marrying you... then we welcome you to the institution, with open arms.

(Although, I should point out that Marriage is not the institution that best suits your glaring needs.)

See how easy that is?

 

[Skylar]

Then without that assumption, there can be more than one valid basis of marriage.

We've covered this and the answer is still 'No.' Marriage has one basis and one basis only.

Says you, citing you. Reality demonstrates otherwise. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have children in order to get married or stay married. If procreation was the only valid basis of marriage then anyone who couldn't or wouldn't procreate couldn't marry or stay married.

Yet your made up 'procreation only' standard doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Eliminating procreation as the only valid basis of marriage. As a marriage is still valid even when no procreation exists or is possible.

Logic trumps your baseless assertions yet again.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 sense some of the hate is based on a backlash of people feeling like this issue is being forced down their throat in a one-sided fashion. At least that is the feeling I sense from a few I know who seem to take everything as some sort of conspiracy issue.

Yes well there is a "conspiracy" in the form of a concerted effort to shut down these people who would make themselves kings over this minority group. This group of homophobes used to be a majority group.. and is now finding themselves in the minority. Their complaint is equivalent to a robber complaining that we won't let him continue robbing people. Yes it is that dumb. They think stopping them from harming gays is a harm on them. It's as if we're supposed to believe they get some sort of gratification from harming gays... and if we stop them they will loose their fix hmmm

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

They are not hated in America. There are some folks in America that just want the gay thing to be swept under the rug. These people were brought up to believe that gay acts are a sin, it's one of those religious tenants, like eating the meat of a cloven animal, and blood sacrifices. This small group of people is getting smaller by the day as they wake up to realize that their parents were wrong about this topic.

Huh... I wonder how small that group of people actually is?

My experience says that the estimates of the size of that group are severely under-estimating its size, just as the estimates of the number of sexual deviants is grossly over-estimated.

In fact... humanity understands that sexual deviancy is WRONG... as a function of INSTINCT.

And this is readily demonstrated at any kindergarten where the subject of two boys kissing is brought up... and the incessant giggling kicks in... if that's too complex for ya, around christmas time, find a group of kids and have them listen to "Deck the Halls" and watch the expression on their faces when the "Gay Apparel" thing kicks in.

Is sexual deviancy a sin? Of course it is, because it's deceitful, resting entirely in DELUSION... it's a lie, designed to be overcome, not embraced.