Revised: Objective proof of demonstrable harm ... Marriage/Same sex

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PubliusInfinitum, May 13, 2009.

  1. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    This exchange is from the Protection of Pedophile Act, thread... http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-heads-to-senate-committee-9.html#post1210286.

    The Question posed projects that there is no demonstrable harm to be found in the normalization of Sexual Deviancy... the response shows otherwise... and what's more, those who are known to advocate for such, are decidely inclined to ignore this reasoning...

    And THAT is why it's posted here... Either there are substantial and incontestable 'harmful effects...' from the normaization of there are not... And while I believe this position demonstrates that such is the case... It's clear to me, that these effects are more along the lines of calamitous to catastrophic...

    But without regard to where you come to conclude they fall on that scale, surely we can agree that they exemplify the everpresent 'unintended consequences' which shadow every leftist consideration which finds its way into public policy.

    I offer it here for your consideration and discussion...


    Hmm... Oh that's a real show stopper... Demonstrable harm? Huh...
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    I wonder what that term could mean to a {the opposition}?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    I know what it means to me... "demonstrable harm" says 'harm which can be demonstrated...'
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Of course... the hazard here, is always in the noun...

    In this case "HARM"... and what {the opposition} is willing to admit that word defines...

    IF 'they were reasonable people'... this would be a non brainer... because 'harm' has a very clear and unambiguous meaning...

    harm [haarm]
    n
    damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration


    The problem comes in at the point where the secularist is not prepared to accept the definition of the nouns in THAT definition... as has been REPEATEDLY noted, in this and thousands of others... the left prefers to reinvent the meaning of such words, so as to use the revised meanings as a means to 'trim the edges' from the pieces of the rhetorical puzzle, to make it appear that the edges all fit right together...

    In this case it's the element of the definition wherein the word 'harm' means to impart damage of injury through 'moral impairment or deterioration'...

    Ya see kids, the whole argument against the normalization of the homo-sexual orientation... AKA: The 'Homo-Sexually Oriented Lifestyle'... is that such produces a lowering of the cultural standard of acceptable PUBLIC BEHAVIOR...

    Which the advocates of homosexuality have ALWAYS REJECTED on its FACE.

    We said, way back in the 1970s... "If we just accept homosexuals as 'decent people,' that will give the impression that Homosexuality itself is 'decent'... and such will subject the culture to ever wider acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle; where the impressionable will look at such as a viable alternative... inevitably such can only lead to the DEMAND that because homosexuals are considered and what will inevitably come to be known by future generations AS 'decent people', that this acceptance of homosexuality will IN AND OF ITSELF lead to the cultural understanding that HOMOSEXUALITY IS DECENT, thus normal, thus, FURTHER opening such up as a viable alternative; particularly for the young and impressionable youth, who will use it as a means of rebellion... until at some point, the fabric of the culture itself will begin to tear open a gulf which will provide that homosexuals will be seen as qualifying for Marriage... where the culture will have to redefine the scope of Marriage to include, NOT a MAN AND A WOMAN... but two men, or two women...

    And they DEMANDED THAT SUCH "IS NONSENSE..." that ALL they were asking for is for homosexuals to be treated well; to not be beaten just because of their 'sexual orientation'... to not lose their jobs, to not be denied housing and credit...

    "NO!" we said... it's absurd to believe that IF WE LOWER THE CULTURAL STANDARD THAT THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS SEt AGAINST THAT STANDARD WILL REACT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN TO REALIZE, A LOWER AVERAGE... And at some point, other deviants will begin to demand their 'equal rights'...


    All of these debates were taking place in the early to mid 1970s... And this was a debate that we frankly lost... the Apolitical who comprise: The Great Unwashed... succumbed to the idiocy of cultural subversion and simply grew weary of the chronic arguing and the slew of media reports designed to demonstrate the 'reasonable-ness of the homosexual advocacy... wherein homosexuals were being beaten due to their 'sexual orientation' eventually resulted a sifnificant percentage of the population simply coming to accept homosexuals as 'decent people'...

    Shortly after that, a new acronym came on the scene... NAMBLA... The National Man/Boy LOVE Association... which is a group that formed directly out of the Boston 'Gay' community... where 'decent men who were simply oriented differently, 'sexually speaking,' were found practicing a LIFESTYLE, which required them to "LOVE" young boys; and were found taking photos of their "LOVING" those young boys and distributing them to other "decent men" of this "sexually oriented lifestyle" whose only crime is that they tended to focus their LOVE by seducing young boys in CONCENSUAL sexual relations...

    Of course at that time, and to a lesser degree, even today, such remains taboo... but here we sit... having 'crossed the bridge into the 20th century' and behind us is the Presidency which blazed a trail of sexual freedom, which instilled in that generation of middle-schoolers, the hot new trend of giving blow jobs... Which was perfectly 'decent' because we had been told by the highest of secular moral authorities that such 'isn't sex'... and besides... it's FUN and exciting and it pisses off their parents...

    Today, 'Freinds With Benefits' is a common phrase, used to describe the casual relationship where boys and girls pal about and when the lights go out, they just knock one off and no one's the worse for wear... after all, if the young lady conceives a child, she just takes a pill and kills it... or if she misses that, well she just pays the $600 bucks and has it crushed up and flushed into the clinic sink... NO BIG DEAL THERE! It's her RIGHT! And NO ONE can explain why these young kids are suffering 'low self esteem...' It's a real mystery... But SCIENCE is working on it... and there are MANY wonderful pharmaceuticals which can be used to lift those saggy esteems RIGHT ON UP!

    And finally... we sit here today and gaze upon the cultural landscape to witness the now FIVE STATES which have redefined marriage to include the joining of two men or two women...

    With the "TRIADS" in the wings, waiting to demand their RIGHTS... "TRIAD" of course are the friendly and all too 'decent' community of the 'polyamorous' {That's a SCIENTIFIC TERM, SO IT'S PERFECTLY VALID; meaning they're all decent people...} and similiar alternative lifestyle communities who are interested in decent, committed relationships of three or more people...

    Triad Marriage

    And finally… there’s the pending Bill which provides penalties comparable to CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for those citizens that assault a PEDOPHILE… Which is to say a Man or Women who joins with a child in a 'CONCENSUAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP'… In effect providing civil protections for such; making these ‘decent people’ a protected class of the citizenry…

    So where someone asks for PROOF of 'Demonstrable Harm' to the culture, from the normalization of sexual deviancy... I'd say that covers it... at least where HARM is defined, AGAIN, as:

    harm [haarm]
    n
    damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration


    Now let the record reflect, that {The Opposition} will not accept that definition; which is taken from Webster's Collegiate 2009... as it speaks to the subjective element of moral impairment or deterioration... as that implies RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE; and given that {The Opposition} erroneously believes that 'RELIGION is NEVER SUITABLE FOR LAW '... 'cause, after all... the Constitution says so...'

    Otherwise, that is what I like to call a kill shot... and except where people are not reasonable... it is accepted as such; and that is why they prefer to ignore this argument... as it establishes that their complicity is harmful and given their self image as an enlightened 'centrist', to allow such an awakening to enter their consciousness would require them to make a very difficult decision indeed... it would require they THINK and draw a line which establishes who they really are and when one wants to believe one is an American, one can't stand on the side of that line which they presently occupy and maintain that delusion.
     
  2. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30,322
    Thanks Received:
    5,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,110
    Location:
    your mother
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    Post too long.

    Not read.

    Next.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,328
    Thanks Received:
    12,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,769
    Pubic,

    How many threads are you going to start to discuss your favorite topic?
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    can you believe it actually wasted its time with that? :cuckoo:
     
  5. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    So we have thus far, two individuals who are known to advocate for such, wherein neither one is prepared to consider the issue.

    The former comes to lament the depth of the argument; stating in effect that 'it's just too hard to consider whether or not normalizing sexual deviancy is harmful to the culture...

    Thus the implied conclusion is that they will continue their advocacy which they now tacitly admit that there COULD be reason to believe that such COULD harm the culture... but they simply aren't prepared to apply the minimal cognitive effort to consider it... 'so let the chips fall where they may,' despite the potential for cultural disaster.

    Such is hardly evidence of a commendable character of citizenship... particularly where the member is tended towards the revising of the government model from a Constitutional Representative Republic, to a Social Democracy; wherein such issues would be determined by the public at large, thus providing the necessity that the average citizen be well informed of the issues and prepared to consider them at length... where such was revised and the citizenry NOT so prepared... the results would be catastrophic on an unprecedented scale.

    That such is presently in progress and the above something well beyond common and closer to typical, is frankly, terrifying.

    ----------------------------------

    The Latter is a flaccid attempt to project the impotent "I know you are, but what am I" defense, where the respondant seeks to project the notion that by considering the issue, contesting conventional wisdom, one is exhibiting signs of being a sexual deviant; thus the de facto evidence discredits the author and in do doing, their position.

    Sadly, unbeknownst to the respondant, such a position projects a denigration upon the author, which amplifies their belief that sexual deviancy IS a mental disorder; that those who exhibit such are unqualified to participate in a discussion of same; that any position which emanates from an individual suffering such a disorder, is necessarily, the product of a sick mind... therefore, it's automatically disqualified from consideration.

    Which I suppose would be a terrific point, if this member did not have an uninterupted, PERFECT record, on this very board, of advocating for the normalization of mental disorders which present through sexual deviancy... particularly those sexually oriented towards homosexuality; which is the orientation from which pedophilia often presents.

    So... well... you know...

    ------------------------

    A third popped in since I began this response and it exemplifies the same vacuous intellects as the first two... and from the same species of reasoning wherein the member is a chronic advocate of normalization of sexual deviancy...

    They're CERTAIN that no harm can come from it, friends; they simply lack the intellectual fortitude to argue such in the face of a contesting point of view... and prefer, as is typical, to simply dismiss the argument... for what are becoming obvious reasons.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  6. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,386
    Thanks Received:
    7,859
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,914
    It takes far less effort to insult you PI than it does to attempt to defend the indefensible.

    You can expect it from the same ones every time, and I guarantee you they'll invariably be liberals.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    you can defend the indefensible all you want, hon. It's a wacko... and I'm afraid I can't be bothered arguing with wacko stuff.

    Hope you're well.
     
  8. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,386
    Thanks Received:
    7,859
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,914
    PI's point needs no defending. It's based in fact and logic. Disputing it is defending the indefensible pard.

    Thanks, I'm well. Hope you are too. :D
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  9. PubliusInfinitum
    Offline

    PubliusInfinitum BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,805
    Thanks Received:
    725
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +726
    The member comes AGAIN... to the same thread wherein she previously established that such an argument was not worthy of consideration... yet here she is again; thus the conclusion is that she, in fact, does consider the argument worthy of consideration; as born out by her now indisputable consideration of it...

    Thus again she forces the simple poser; 'Why would someone who is clearly very upset over the points advanced within the argument, be so adamantly opposed to simply contesting those points, through the reasoning on which her angst rests?'

    The answer is just as clear... She has simply no means to contests those points, and to do so would expose her inadequacies and the facade she has built around the support of the normalization of sexual deviancy...

    Ya see friends, I'm sure that we've all advocated for something on a casual intellectual level; but when we were set to a position wherein we were forced to think it through; where we were found to have to verbalize our position; we found that what we had originally pieced together, had been so assembled in the absence of valid reasoning.

    Such is the case here... When the Advocate of the normalization of Sexual deviancy is forced to look at the processes by which such has come to pass and the timeline which account for the results... it becomes clear, TO THEM, that such was a poorly reasoned advocacy.

    The problem comes where one is so heavily invested in such an advocacy, their where the individual's character is deficient, they simply cannot bring themselves to admit that this thing which they have nourished and sustained for so long is WRONG...

    And that is where we presently find our opposition...

    IF they were as certain of their position as they desperately project... reason requires that they would readily advance the reasoning on which that certainty rests... PROUDLY display the superior argument in a virtuous defense of that which they hold so close... of that which is so much a part of them...

    Yet... they choose to avoid doing just that...

    This isn't a very complex issue... it's just one which many have not thought through and have invested much of themselves in defending it.

    Now this is where it gets ugly...

    This member claims to be an officer of the judiciary...

    We can assume that such a career path may well result in this member becoming a Judge... where she may perhaps, some day, hear such argument... and where the evidence indicates that when such comes to pass, that she will dismiss that argument; dismiss the evidence and rule on little more than her loosely assembled 'feelings'...

    Now imagine that you're a Father of a Son and you come across a male family friend who you knew to be a homosexual, but understood from conventional wisdom that such were normal people, who just had a distinct 'sexual orientation'... but who you find in the midst of consummating a 'consensual loving relationship' with your young son...

    Your rage was such that you took to beating Chester like a baby seal... and in the process your rage induced you to yell, sufficiently for witnesses to hear, that Chester was a FAG! and a PEDOPHILE...

    You walk into court... take your seat... "ALL RISE"... and who walks in to take her seat behind the bench? GUESS WHO...

    Now given the legislation which is presently working its way through the legislature, which is almost certain to pass both houses, having already passed through the congress... where it will go to the pen of a President who is most certain to sign it...

    YOU... the father of a son who you found being molested by a homosexual/pedophile... YOU, who justifiably took it upon yourself to teach Chester something about boundaries and sound judgment... in DEFENSE OF YOUR OWN SON... YOU are about to be treated to having your well funded arguments and the supporting evidence on which that argument rests; DISMISSED, as you go to prison for the absolute maximum sentence allowed by law...

    Because this member simply feels that there is NO ARGUMENT, NO REASONING, NO EVIDENCE... which could ever justify the opinions you expressed in defending the rights of your son.

    Need anything else?
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2009
  10. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,328
    Thanks Received:
    12,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,769
    I'm sorry to hear xxxxxxxx has been molested by a pedophile, Pubic. Was it anyone you knew?
     

Share This Page