European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right?...

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're the one who went off on some friggin' tangent about grammar,

Not true. You are either lying to us on purpose, or lying because you're too stupid to even pay attention to your own conversations. Which is it?

Relax. I know you're a blithering moron who can't be expected to scroll up a few posts to see that you're wrong, and a liar, so I'll quote the relevant posts here.

First, you made a fucktarded statement, to which G.T. replied:

Putting that terrible misuse of the English language aside,

Then, you responded with:

Putting aside your baloney about grammar,

YOU brought up grammar. YOU have attempted to derail this thread with petty squabbling over an argument you imagined.

YOU are lying, either on purpose, or due to your own inattentiveness in the very conversations YOU choose to involve yourself in. Now which of those two is it? Are you a deliberate liar, or just a complete idiot?

And because I'm not a petty, self-centric, thread-derailing twit like you, I'll comment on the actual subject of the thread. Because I am, however, inherently a good pyrsyn, I will teach you how to make good posts so you don't run around shitting up pyrfyctly good threads in the future. See my next post for related instructions.

No, you retard. The exchange begins at post #14 with G.T. claiming that there is no such thing as a fundamental right of marriage, and it is G.T. who first brings up grammar in post #17, making baby talk about a sentence linguistically constructed with a pertinent logical distinction in mind. My post is both grammatically and linguistically correct, and it is pertinent to the claims he is making. Shut the hell up, Twilight-Zone Jane of the feminazi Y. It's not my fault you're too stupid to grasp these things, retard.

You're both dumbasses of the first order, and G.T. is clearly conscious of the fact that he is denying the reality of natural law, but all he's got to back that up with are slogans, apparently; and he is clearly conscious of the fact that I am alluding to an imperative of natural law, retard. At least he get's that much right, retard. But it flies right over your head, doesn't it, Twilight-Zone Jane of the feminazi Y.

This is the entire context and the order of the exchange, retard. Obviously, G.T.'s prattle about the "misuse of the English language" in this instance goes to a supposed error in grammar, YOU DROOLING RETARD. That would be G.T., not I, retard. I know the difference between grammar and linguistics, retard. The statement wouldn't have thrown me, retard.

POST #14

No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

Whaaaaaa?

The marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is the most fundamental natural right of all.

POST #17

"The marriage of heterosexual union."

Marriage is a union.


Putting that terrible misuse of the English language aside, I'm not sure how a human made concept could be a natural right.

Shit, to even start with that I'd have to have the long discussion on whether Natural Rights even exist and, if so, what they are.

But it's 2:30 on a Thursday (Friday for me this week, I have tomorrow off).

Putting aside your baloney about grammar, given the fact that the matter is actually one of linguistics, in this instance regarding the logical concerns of syntax, as the indispensable qualifying adjective heterosexual goes to the fact that nature's marital arrangement is not synonymous with the other forms of "marriage" dreamt up by mindless pagan yahoos . . . what's your problem with the facts of biology, Einstein?

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

Look. I'm busy on this end with other things, so stop wasting my time with bullshit. First you confound the concerns of grammar with those of linguistics concerning a perfectly grammatical sentence; now you pretend that the term marriage and the phrase the marriage of heterosexual union are synonymous.

I never said marriage as such is reproduction or that marriage as such is fundamental to survival. That's obviously stupid, Mr. Straw Man. The thrust of my original statement pertains to a fundamental right bottomed on the facts of biological reproduction.

Now you implied that you had the goods to overthrow the reality of natural law. Let's have it, professor.

Then you're in the wrong conversation, snot nose.

Because my buddy mal and I were discussing the SCOTUS's ruling in which they called marriage fundamental to survival.

Talk about wasting people's time.


Now, when you fuck off, don't get preggers.

Look, you're the one who claimed that no marriage of any kind is a right (POST #14). Moreover, you insinuated that this was the ontological foundation of the European Court's decision.

G.T.: No marriage "really" is a fundamental right so I'd say they're observing reality quite astutely.

I directly addressed your claim on the very same terms, i.e., human rights, which is precisely what the OP is about.

You're the one who went off on some friggin' tangent about grammar, stupidly confounded with the concerns of linguistics, and then you further confounded the matter in a lame attempt to cover up your stupidity.

Now, you want to throw a fit with blown up text and blatantly lie as if no one will notice.



You ain't foolin' nobody. Now, that sentence would be an intentional abuse of proper grammar. See the difference?

Now, are you going to substantiate your original claims or not?

If not, shut the hell up.

__________________________________________________________________


Do you have something pertinent to say about G.T.'s claims in post #14 or not, retard?

If not, shut the hell up, retard.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I understand you are talking about biology, but...

It may well prove to be fundamental to the survival of society as we know it.

Of course. Marriage is a social (inter-personal) contract fyrst [sic] and foremost, and lays the basis for families, which in turn lay the basis for a society.

Do you suffer from some peculiar disorder or is there a reason you keep spelling words like that? Just being an asshole, maybe?

My guess. It stems from the feminist's rejection of the supposed oppression of patriarchal culture. Hence, womyn, instead of woman. She's our resident Twilight-Zone Jane of the feminazi Y. It's either that or she's pulling on our legs. I've asked her about her posts before, for she's either the stupidest poster on this board, with only a few exceptions, a pathological lair (the above being a prime example) or a troll.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

This is my favorite sport, knocking down know-it-alls. It's like bowling.

Species survival does NOT rest only on reproduction, for it is crucial that the offspring be raised to sexual maturity and in turn be prepared to give birth to offspring.

Pair coupling is a very successful mating strategy in a number of species, not because it aids in giving birth but because it aids in RAISING the offspring.

Marriage is just such a mating strategy - it is phenomenally more successful in preparing human offspring for starting their own families.

A single mother without any government or social support has such a difficult time in gathering the resources to care for herself and her offspring that the MOST effective survival strategy for such women was to find a mate to take her as a mate.

 

[Silhouette]

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

This is my favorite sport, knocking down know-it-alls. It's like bowling.

Species survival does NOT rest only on reproduction, for it is crucial that the offspring be raised to sexual maturity and in turn be prepared to give birth to offspring.

Pair coupling is a very successful mating strategy in a number of species, not because it aids in giving birth but because it aids in RAISING the offspring.

Marriage is just such a mating strategy - it is phenomenally more successful in preparing human offspring for starting their own families.

A single mother without any government or social support has such a difficult time in gathering the resources to care for herself and her offspring that the MOST effective survival strategy for such women was to find a mate to take her as a mate.

That certainly is the European view, or the majority view of the 49 country/states of Europe according to the verdict handed down by that Court. It said [between the lines] "If you're gay, you cannot use the loophole of marriage to access kids". And the particular case they ruled on was so obviously a poster-child for the rampant mental illness apparent in the LGBT cult that their decision was quite easy I'm sure.

"Put a child in that home as a matter of law/equality to man/woman"? Nope. No way.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Biological "survival" depends on reproduction, not marriage.

Marriage is not reproduction, reproduction is not marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to survival, reproduction is. Biologically. Einstein.

Let that simmer for a bit before a knee jerk again.

This is my favorite sport, knocking down know-it-alls. It's like bowling.

Species survival does NOT rest only on reproduction, for it is crucial that the offspring be raised to sexual maturity and in turn be prepared to give birth to offspring.

Pair coupling is a very successful mating strategy in a number of species, not because it aids in giving birth but because it aids in RAISING the offspring.

Marriage is just such a mating strategy - it is phenomenally more successful in preparing human offspring for starting their own families.

A single mother without any government or social support has such a difficult time in gathering the resources to care for herself and her offspring that the MOST effective survival strategy for such women was to find a mate to take her as a mate.

Indeed. But G.T.'s biggest problem is that he can't seem to keep the categorical distinctions of things straight in his mind. Is he talking about marriage as a right . . . in the state of nature or in the state civil society, which is what he started babbling about, before he started babbling about the efficacies of marriage, arguing the obvious, that the term marriage as such is not synonymous with the terms reproduction and survival.

Eureka!

All the while the pragmatic realities of heterosexual marriage, as Rikurzhen astutely demonstrates, fly right over his head.

When in the history of man has the marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction NOT been a fundamental right in the state of nature . . . as a matter of sheer necessity?

Answer: Never!

When in the history of man has the marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction NOT been a fundamental right in the state of civil society, including totalitarian societies, once again, as a matter of sheer necessity, regardless of what utterly artificial claim such societies might make about it in terms of rights?

Answer: Never!

When in the history of man has the "marriage" of homosexual union, which has no reproduction or survival value whatsoever with regard to the human species, been a fundamental right in the state of nature, especially, or in the state of civil society?

Answer: Never!

Until the historically recent rash of hysteria in Western Europe, Canada and America in particular, when has the marriage of heterosexual union ever been regarded as merely a civil right not bottomed on nature?

Answer: Never!

You see Lefty is always confounding the categories of things. You paying attention, G.T.? The fundamental right of marriage and the slate of civil rights attached to it in the state of civil society as a matter of the state's official approbation of it are not synonymous. The facts of nature precede civil society.

Indeed, the ultimate essence of the fundamental rights of nature is necessity!

Why is so-called homo marriage never spoken about in any other terms but civil rights?

While heterosexual union is necessary for reproduction, it is not, in and of itself, a right. But the marriage of heterosexual union and reproduction is. With regard to the survival of the species or the survival of any given society, the latter is indispensable. Only morons don't know that from historical experience. Humans need the security of family structure.

 

[G.T.]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually 3 logical fallacies.

3rd: appeal to authority.

Im sure the court is impressed with your "logic"

 

[The Rabbi]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

There has never been a society that existed without a concept of marriage. So historically you lose.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

The pronouncements of the Supreme Court are irrelevant to the matters of natural law. The facts of reality are not bottomed on speculative premises, judicial or otherwise.

Without fundaments? Meaning? There are no absolutes? What are you talking about?

No, punk. You and LiberalMedia went off on some tangent over nothing. I addressed your original thought respectfully. You chose to be a smartass, so I drilled you into the ground.

Everyone of your posts to those who have challenged you are sneering dismissals without a coherent argument in sight. Insecurity? You're a lunatic.

 

[G.T.]

Shaddup dork

 

[bodecea]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

There has never been a society that existed without a concept of marriage. So historically you lose.

Based on property (the wife or wives).

 

[G.T.]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

There has never been a society that existed without a concept of marriage. So historically you lose.

No, that supports my argument that there's no evidence of the viewpoint that society somehow needs marriage for survival.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bloviation and naked assertions are not good arguments.

The problem is that you cannot draw a conclusion based on speculative premises: such as what the Supreme Court did: fundamental to our survival.

Without fundamentals, things quite fall apart. Saying that they would - absent marriage - is mere speculation.

Youre having a nice circle jerk of ad hom assertion ad hom assertion ad hom assertion but really ---- youre quite telling everyone youre an insecure ass hole. Sleep with it, dunce.

There has never been a society that existed without a concept of marriage. So historically you lose.

No, that supports my argument that there's no evidence of the viewpoint that society somehow needs marriage for survival.

It actually refutes your notion. But logic was not your strong point anyway. I am not sure what your strong point is, to be honest.

 

[G.T.]

My assertion is that theres no evidence society falls apart without marriage.

That its never been tried refutes me?

Yea logic is weak on SOMEones part, Gomer Pile.

 

[The Rabbi]

My assertion is that theres no evidence society falls apart without marriage.

That its never been tried refutes me?

Yea logic is weak on SOMEones part, Gomer Pile.

Since no society has ever not had a concept of marriage, it would seem to prove the case. You're not very bright, are you?

 

[G.T.]

Thats not how logic works, genius.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats not how logic works, genius.

Yeah, actually it does. You say marriage is not necessary for society but cannot produce a single example of a society that did not have marriage. That pretty much is a loser.

 

[G.T.]

No, you dont conclude outcomes of experiments before the experiment, your majesty. Bc even in Rabbi-derp world, thats retarded.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Marriage is not a human right anyway.

All marriage is is a property contract.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you dont conclude outcomes of experiments before the experiment, your majesty. Bc even in Rabbi-derp world, thats retarded.

Human history is the experiment. Human history shows there has never been a society without marriage of some sort. Ergo your assertion remains an unproven assertion with nothing to back it up.