Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

The question the courts are addressing is whether or not same sex couples can be denied marriage licences. ... [sic]

Yep... and there is no potential that homosexuals must be denied a license for marriage as Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

According to you, citing you. But remember, the courts have no idea who you are and care even less. So your personal opinion has no relevance to the outcome of the case.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're confused. I'm not the one deciding this issue.

OH! Was that the court making those assertions?

I see...

We don't define our laws on what you're 'convinced of'

Oh now that is SO true. And the coolest part is that the same would-be principle... applies every BIT to you as well.

or what you believe is a right.

As marriage is a right.

LOL! You can NOT make this crap up.

It really does get easier, when the opposition both asserts and refutes its own argument.

 

[Skylar]

I am agnostic. I got no dog in this fight. I read, particularly a couple of tomes by Oliver Sacks. The mind is all about the link between physiology and biology. Sexuality is a innate . I am not convinced homosexuality is NOT a biological malfunction like that man that mistakes his wife for a hat. Or the guy that can't recognize the left side of his own body and thinks it is alien. Homosexuality is not a human right, it is a sign of a broken mind. we all have the same rights, period.

Being gay is alternative, not dysfunctional or maladaptive. Thinking your wife is a hat, now we have a problem.

Well, thinking your wife is a hat, that actually happened. Look it up. Awakenings....The mind plays trick on us. Funny about that. Homosexuality may just be another trick of the mind...and, besides, they have all the same rights as the rest. So what is the big deal?

Or it may not be. The question the courts are addressing is whether or not same sex couples can be denied marriage licences. Or if their marriages in other states must be recognized in by States that ban such marriages.

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

It really doesn't. In fact, the questions before the court have nothing to do with anything you just said.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

 

[Skylar]

You're confused. I'm not the one deciding this issue.

OH! Was that the court making those assertions?

That marriage is a right? You bet. 4 times in 4 different cases.

or what you believe is a right.

As marriage is a right.

LOL! You can NOT make this crap up.

It really does get easier, when the opposition both asserts and refutes its own argument.

And again, the court has found that marriage is civil right.

You can ignore the court if you wish. But your willful ignorance will have zero relevance to the outcome of any case. As the court's won't ignore themselves just because you omit any mention of their rulings from your reply.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, meaning an error in logic, AKA rational thought. That is you alright but it's never considered worthy, which is why it has a name.

 

[Skylar]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

Save of course that whether or not a state can deny same sex couples a marriage license has nothing to do with Sharia law.

Utter irrelevance tends to trump your 'slippery slope'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

My word, unlike yours, is my bond, but that doesn't mean it matters when here, no one here does and in reality no human does. When you die, based on the numbers, no one will give a damn and that is true for everyone.

 

[Skylar]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist. You offer us your subjective opinion, based on your culture, your experience, your society, your personal context.......as 'objective truth'.

That's about relativistic as it gets.

Even your audience is relativistic, as the 'reader' you keep addressing is just you talking to yourself, as you cite yourself. Your entire argument is subjectively self contained inside your head.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist. You offer us your subjective opinion, based on your culture, your experience, your society, your personal context.......as 'objective truth'.

That's about relativistic as it gets.

Even your audience is relativistic, as the 'reader' you keep addressing is just you talking to yourself, as you cite yourself. Your entire argument is subjectively self contained inside your head.

He has no idea what any of those terms mean, obviously.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy,...

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is only fallacious where there is no evidence sustaining the existence of a slippery slope.

We're here discussing the consequences of decisions made generations ago, which lead directly, inevitably to the heretofore unimaginable circumstances where Sexual deviants would be demanding the right to marry people of the same gender...

Those numerous decisions established the slippery slope that lead us to this unenviable point in modern human history.

The declaration that slippery slopes do not exist is as foolish as it is ludicrous.

 

[Skylar]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist. You offer us your subjective opinion, based on your culture, your experience, your society, your personal context.......as 'objective truth'.

That's about relativistic as it gets.

Even your audience is relativistic, as the 'reader' you keep addressing is just you talking to yourself, as you cite yourself. Your entire argument is subjectively self contained inside your head.

He has no idea what any of those terms mean, obviously.

His argument, his sources, his audience....its all Keyes. Honestly, I don't think any of us even need to be here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy,...

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is only fallacious where there is no evidence sustaining the existence of a slippery slope.

We're here discussing the consequences of decisions made generations ago, which lead directly, inevitably to the heretofore unimaginable circumstances where Sexual deviants would be demanding the right to marry people of the same gender...

Those numerous decisions established the slippery slope that lead us to this unenviable point in modern human history.

The declaration that slippery slopes do not exist is as foolish as it is ludicrous.

Nothing slippery about granting equality, expect to your kind which abhors that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist.

Am I?

Tell me, what subjective needs of mine are being served by my holding to these natural principles?

Now please be specific Skylar, at least as specific as your intellectual means allow.

 

[g5000]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Nope. And you should learn something about case law which answers those questions.

But I am fairly certain you don't want to know the difference between cannibalism and two consenting adults in a relationship, and you will continue on in your willful ignorance.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now, what value are you to this or any other message board if your word is not trustworthy?

This board, and most of the Internet, is of little to no value.

Well Reader, there ya have it... You need not concern yourself with the would-be 'Contributions' of the above cited user of this board, as it sets no value in anything said here... .

This perverse species of reasoning is a consequence of what is known as 'Relativism'.

You should understand that the same individual sets no value on its word, anywhere. But in fairness to it, Relativism rejects the elements critical to truth, thus it rejects the very idea of 'honor'.

See how that works?

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist. You offer us your subjective opinion, based on your culture, your experience, your society, your personal context.......as 'objective truth'.

That's about relativistic as it gets.

Even your audience is relativistic, as the 'reader' you keep addressing is just you talking to yourself, as you cite yourself. Your entire argument is subjectively self contained inside your head.

He has no idea what any of those terms mean, obviously.

His argument, his sources, his audience....its all Keyes. Honestly, I don't think any of us even need to be here.

Yep. He would banter with himself perfectly fine since that's mostly what he does anyway.

 

[Skylar]

That leads to a deeper question, say can muslims use freedom of religion to institute sharia law? can say, head hunting cannibals change to their favor in spite of the American spirit of freedom? Apparently so.

Such is the nature of the Slippery Slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy,...

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is only fallacious where there is no evidence sustaining the existence of a slippery slope.

Yeah, but you have no evidence. You merely have assertions that fail an even casual test of logic or reason.

A case in point:

We're here discussing the consequences of decisions made generations ago, which lead directly, inevitably to the heretofore unimaginable circumstances where Sexual deviants would be demanding the right to marry people of the same gender...

You can't actually prove any of that. You can't establish causation, you can't even establish a mechanism for how it could happen. You merely assert that it does.....citing yourself. That's not evidence. That's Begging the Question. Yet another fallacy of logic.

You're using the Begging the Question fallacy as your backing for the Slippery Slope fallacy. There's no objective standard that is based on fallacies of logic. But you just used 2 as your basis. Demonstrating elegantly that your process and your conclusions are objectively meaningless.

Its just you ...citing you...making shit up as you go along. And that's not evidence.

 

[MaryL]

Colorado. Used to be a great place to live. Illegal aliens and outlanders spoilt the place. A circle jerk going on there. And the gay rights thing, a totally artificial outgrowth of outsider influence. Oh, not to mention the light rail fiasco. AND the NEED to move the bloody airport and put a scary red eyed horse in front of it? Gay!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't get your disdain for relativism given that you're a flagrant relativist.

Am I?

Tell me, what subjective needs of mine are being served by my holding to these natural principles?

Disdain for others, AKA, egoism, solipsism, vanity, narcissism, your guiding light.

And you don't hold to them at all, since what you say about them isn't true.