Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Skylar]

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... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

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.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

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

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Unkotare]

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!

Go north, as far as possible actually. You should be happy there.

No, I just want to live in Colorado unmolested by outlanders, otherwise I am just fine-didly dooo. ZZZZZZ.

When were you made Queen of Colorado?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is the Joining of One man and One Woman... and Americans do NOT make THEIR problems, a problem for others, because that is how individual responsibility.

Are you espousing that King David and Solomon would not have had your approval.
Was the fact that Lot slept with his daughters and offered them up as whores wrong?

I am espousing that nature defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman... and I am doing so upon the reasoning that has been set forth in excruciating detail.

You're equating fucking with marriage. And they aren't the same thing. Worse, history contradicts you again and again. With the definition of marriage changing to meet the needs of the society that created it. Marriage is a social construct. We invented it. And it is whatever we say it is.

And there is no requirement in any marriage in this country that the participants have children or be able to have them. Not one state, not one marriage.

Your defining requirement....isn't a requirement. You've imagined it. And your imagination is objectively irrelevant.

I am espousing that where one is an ancient King, ordained by God... and God blesses you with hundreds of wives and concubines, that God has a specific purpose for such and God, being supreme in universal authority... you, as an ancient King are compelled to follow God's will. The reasons for such being known to God and God's reasoning is undeniable, as your will is quite irrelevant.

Which God? Vishnu? Amaterasu? Yawheh? Allah? Zeus and his pantheon? The million gods of Hinduism? Zarathustra?

Remember, your logical and rational basis for God is luxuriously inconsistent. As most religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be Jesus AND a greek Pantheon of gods. Its one or the other if its either. Which means that if one mutually exclusive religion got it right, ALL the others throughout history got it wrong.

Meaning that according to the logic of religion.....that virtually every follower of every religion is self deluded, following fictitious imaginary nonsense. Despite using the *exact* same process that you do. They pray. They have faith. They have scriptures. They have creation mythos. Yet they're self deluded and followers of fallacies.

Demonstrating that the process that you're using has an almost perfect record of failure in discerning the nature of God. This by the very logic of religion.

And worse for you is the elephant in the living room: that NONE of you got it right. That you're all self deluded, following your own imagination. And on this foundation you insist we 'take your word for it' and do whatever you say we have to do?

Laughing.......um, no.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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 emotional nature of the respective genders compliment 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.

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.

 

[Skylar]

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... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

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.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

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

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter. Same sex marriage happens if your eyes are open, or if they're closed. As you play no role in anyone else's marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which God? Vishnu? Amaterasu? Yawheh? Allah? Zeus and his pantheon? The million gods of Hinduism? Zarathustra?

So you feel that the name of those who describe God from their perspective changes God, or requires that God be separate beings?

I am seen from many perspective, I am friend, who is known as W.R.... a Husband known as "Sweetheart" "BabyCakes", "Stud-Muffin", "Thor..."; I am a Father, known as Dad... a Brother, an Uncle, a Boss, a Coach, a Vender, Contractor, Consultant, Client, Customer...

According to you, the perspectives of those who know me from their respective perspectives, requires that I be a dozen separate beings, while in REALITY, such is not the case at all... .

But because such serves your own subjective needs, you are quite clearly incapable of reasoning beyond the scope of those needs.

This equates you with the intellectual means of the lower species, placing you into the category of that which otherwise is known in greater nature, as "FOOD!"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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... .

Marriage a social construct. We invented it to meet the needs of society. Some societies used romantic love as their basis of marriage. Others arranged marriages with the participants not even meeting until the wedding. Some had two participants. Others had polygamy. Some recognized marriage as a joining of equals. Some recognized marriage as an inherently dominant and subbordinate relationship.

And each of them was marriage. Marriage is our invention. And it is whatever we say it is. You've concluded that marriage is whatever YOU say it is, and that all law, culture, and civilization is bound to abide your assumptions.

Laughing......um, no. They're not. As all the same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states demonstrates. You are gloriously irrelevant to this process.

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.

Again, just because humanity exists in nature doesn't mean that any batshit you make up is 'natural law'. You're running into the same simple problem with your every argument:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

Back in reality, marriage is our invention. We made it up to serve our needs. And we define it. Not you.

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

Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. As same sex marriage in 37 of 50 States demonstrates. You insist none of it happening.

Shrugs...ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter. Same sex marriage happens if your eyes are open, or if they're closed. As you play no role in anyone else's marriage.

Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works Circular Reasoning works Because Circular Reasoning Works ...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

UPDATE!​

Skylar has trotted out another pre-refuted RESPONSE:

Rejecting your subjective opinion isn't rejecting natural law. As your opinion isn't natural law. Its just your personal opinion. Which defines nothing objectively.

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 emotional nature of the respective genders compliment 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.

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.

 

[Skylar]

Which God? Vishnu? Amaterasu? Yawheh? Allah? Zeus and his pantheon? The million gods of Hinduism? Zarathustra?

So you feel that the name of those who describe God from their perspective changes God, or requires that God be separate beings?

If their god is different than yours, wouldn't that make one of the two of you wrong?

I am seen from many perspective, I am friend, who is known as W.R.... a Husband known as "Sweetheart" "BabyCakes", "Stud-Muffin", "Thor..."; I am a Father, known as Dad... a Brother, an Uncle, a Boss, a Coach, a Vender, Contractor, Consultant, Client, Customer...

Um, you're not god, keys.

And of course, you've already rejected other faiths as invalid. Take....Islam. You've denounced it as evil. Yet they do what you do. They pray. They have faith in their 'Allah'. They have scriptures. Yet using the exact same process you have, they ended up with a false faith and an imaginary religion... per you.

So clearly not all 'perspectives' are valid per your own reasoning. With many of them being mutually exclusive. If Islam is correct then all other faiths would have to be wrong, as they have an exclusive religious interpretation. Likewise, if the Ancient Greeks got it right, then all faiths that followed would have to be wrong. And almost all faiths are mutually exclusive.

So by your own reasoning, virtually every faithful religious person using your processes....is self deluded, following an invalid perspective, false teachings and an invalid conception of 'God'.

Which of course you know. Which is why you refuse to discuss it and omit any mention of it from any reply you offer. Despite the fact that the post you're replying to is addresses this issue repeatedly.

Shrugs....keep running. Its not like by ignoring the issue of faith producing almost universally false results is going to disappear.

 

[quorthon]

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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

As animals, we're biologically wired for 'fight or flight' responses to stimulus. Or, hate or flee. People not wishing to appear weak and flee from the gay issue go the other way and fight it, oppose it, resist it, etc.

More philosophically, it's easier to hate than love. Love comes from empathy and understanding and being able to see other people's points of view. That requires a lot more effort and time than "I hate gay people." Being among the most lazy people on this planet, Americans often opt for the path of least resistance.

 

[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.

If our society can progress with marriage for the infertile, it can progress with marriage for gays and lesbians.

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.

More gays and lesbians married than 10 years ago. Conservatives should consider this a win. They've been arguing for years of the benefits of monogamy, commitment and marriage. They made their argument so well that gays and lesbians want in on it too. The result will be more monogamy, commitment and marriage among gays and lesbians. Which is a good thing, both for those getting married, their children, and society.

There's simply no downside.

 

[Skylar]

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.

As animals, we're biologically wired for 'fight or flight' responses to stimulus. Or, hate or flee. People not wishing to appear weak and flee from the gay issue go the other way and fight it, oppose it, resist it, etc.

Human interactions involve far more than 'fight or flight'. That's a reaction to immediate life threatening situations. Outside those situations, they're a myriad of reactions possible by humans. Comprimise, jealousy, tolerance, indifference, avarice, honesty, interest, repulsion, attraction, motivation, etc. The full spectrum of human emotions and reactions.

Gays getting married isn't an immediate threat to your life. Thus, you're capable of far more than just 'fight or flight'.

More philosophically, it's easier to hate than love. Love comes from empathy and understanding and being able to see other people's points of view. That requires a lot more effort and time than "I hate gay people." Being among the most lazy people on this planet, Americans often opt for the path of least resistance.

Depends on how you're looking at it. In the short term, negative emotions manifest easier. But in the moderate or the long term they require tremendous energy to sustain. They're exhausting. And they tend to bleed over into other parts of your life.

Love takes a little more to get started, but once that ball is rolling its a net producer of energy and is largely self sustaining. Plus, it bleeds over into other parts of your life as well, generally improving them. Making the ROI on love vastly superior to that of hate.

I mean, look at our most hateful posters. They're miserably fucks. Its not worth that kind of personal sacrifice in exchange for nothing. As the object of your hate rarely even knows you hate them. And usually cares even less.

You're philosophically slitting your own throat to spite them. And harming only yourself.

 

[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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

You mean they've always opposed giving "special" rights to other Americans.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I think it would be fairer to say that conservatives are always trying to either maintain the status quo or 'return' to some imaginary ideal of the past that never actually existed. But they imagine did.

The effects are exactly as you describe. Though the motivation I think has less to do with denying rights and more to do with maintaining what they view as 'tradition'.

To a lesser degree, to maintain hierarchies they think are valid. Hierarchies that place themselves at the top and whatever group is trying to gain rights in a lesser, subordinate position. There are some conservatives that genuinely seek to keep gays 'in their place'. To insure that the perception of the value of same sex relationships is recognized as qualitatively inferior to what conservatives themselves enjoy.

Its why they hang up on the word 'marriage'. They want a separate and inferior designation for gays..

To its a clinging to the past and clinging to privileged status that they seek. The former more consciously, the second less so.

 

[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.

You mean they've always opposed giving "special" rights to other Americans.

No one is demanding "Special Rights".. Oddly, the term 'special rights' is ALWAYS APPLIED TO THE OPPRESSED BY THEIR OPPRESSORS.

Somehow, the oppressive Conservative believes that his rights will somehow be eroded by extending those EXACT SAME RIGHTS to those he oppresses.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

I think it would be fairer to say that conservatives are always trying to either maintain the status quo or 'return' to some imaginary ideal of the past that never actually existed. But they imagine did.

The effects are exactly as you describe. Though the motivation I think has less to do with denying rights and more to do with maintaining what they view as 'tradition'.

To a lesser degree, to maintain hierarchies they think are valid. Hierarchies that place themselves at the top and whatever group is trying to gain rights in a lesser, subordinate position. There are some conservatives that genuinely seek to keep gays 'in their place'. To insure that the perception of the value of same sex relationships is recognized as qualitatively inferior to what conservatives themselves enjoy.

Its why they hang up on the word 'marriage'. They want a separate and inferior designation for gays..

To its a clinging to the past and clinging to privileged status that they seek. The former more consciously, the second less so.

Do you lefties lie awake at night dreaming up this goofy shit? Since the dawn of civilization marriage has always been a union of a man and a woman. PERIOD. Nobody is trying to do anything to the gays, or inflict anything on them. But the bottom line is marriage is not between two men or two women. This constant need by the left to redefine everything is getting tiresome... And here's another note to self, there are only two genders.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I think it would be fairer to say that conservatives are always trying to either maintain the status quo or 'return' to some imaginary ideal of the past that never actually existed. But they imagine did.

The effects are exactly as you describe. Though the motivation I think has less to do with denying rights and more to do with maintaining what they view as 'tradition'.

To a lesser degree, to maintain hierarchies they think are valid. Hierarchies that place themselves at the top and whatever group is trying to gain rights in a lesser, subordinate position. There are some conservatives that genuinely seek to keep gays 'in their place'. To insure that the perception of the value of same sex relationships is recognized as qualitatively inferior to what conservatives themselves enjoy.

Its why they hang up on the word 'marriage'. They want a separate and inferior designation for gays..

To its a clinging to the past and clinging to privileged status that they seek. The former more consciously, the second less so.

Do you lefties lie awake at night dreaming up this goofy shit? Since the dawn of civilization marriage has always been a union of a man and a woman. PERIOD.

So the traditions of the past are what you think we should cling to.

Huh. Where have I heard that before?

Nobody is trying to do anything to the gays, or inflict anything on them.

You may want to read a little deeper into the sick shit being posted here. Pay special attention to the 'natural right to eradicate homosexuals'.

As I don't think 'nobody' means what you think it means.

But the bottom line is marriage is not between two men or two women.

The bottom line is marriage is what we say it is. And if we say it involves two men or two women..it does. We invented marriage. We define it.

Its that simple. As all the same sex marriages in 37 of 50 States demonstrates.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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... 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.

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