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

[PubliusInfinitum]

And where on asks for a sustainable argument... one gets empty platitudes...

Again friends... if THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEIR STANDARD FROM CONTESTS WHICH WILL COME RESTING UPON THE EXACT SAME BASIS AS THEIR ARGUMENT PRESENTLY COMES... then is it reasonable to conclude that they intend that ANY STANDARD IS REASONABLE?

What we have here is precisely what I have asserted... this contest represents NOTHING SHORT, than the attempt to NORMALIZE SEXUAL DEVIANCY OF ALL STRIPES...

Not the least of which is 'loving and consensual sexual relationships with children...'

Every fiber is intrinsic to the whole cloth... As the ONLY SUSTAINABLE CONTEST WHICH STANDS AGAISNT SUCH: IS THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... as such is that from which everything else is measured. The advocates of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy are simply complaining that ti isn't FAIR that they be considered ABNORMAL and suffer a social stigma, because of this standard... and as such, they come to render that standard... MOOT; NULL AND VOID... they just can't admit that... because even the most a-political moderate, who couldn't care less about ANY OF THIS, because they've got their OWN PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH, would readily recognize THAT as DANGEROUS ABSURDITY.

We've shown that the advocates of what they claim to be the simple, singular, wholly distinct desire to simply allow homosexuals to be accepted as being suitable for marriage... provides that the standard itself will be IRREVERSIBLY DESTROYED... PROVEN through their inability to DEFEND THAT REVISED STANDARD FROM A CONTEST BY THE NEXT LOGICAL CHALLENGER... those who would revise marriage to include three or more people...

They've no means to defend it; because they've NO DESIRE TO DEFEND IT; BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DEFENDING IT.

It's not a complex issue folks... it's simply vulgar; thus unpleasent to consider...

But if you think that THIS is unpleasent, how do you think it is going to feel when the popular concensus is that Marriage is open to every stripe of debauchery which can be imagined... and your children and grand children are being legally pursued, enticed, courted, dated and are otherwise actively invloved in a consensual, loving, sexual relationship with their teacher, counselor or guardian... as a result of your having kicked the shit out of that individual because you found them fondling that child and were summarily convicted of a HATE CRIME and sentenced to prison on the scale of a capital crime?

I expect that will be vastly more 'unpleasent.'

There is no potential calamity and there is no "normalization agenda". Marriage laws are antiquated and subject to change state by state. The "potential calamity" of treating all citizens equally is only in your imagination as marriage laws have absolutely NOTHING to do with pedophilia laws.

More empty assurancesfrom the individual who REFUSES, NOW for the FIFTH TIME, to simply defend her would-be standard from the next logical contest OF THAT REVISION... of this 'antiquated' standard...

And again it must be noted that her refusal rests upon the certainty that her goal is to dismantle the notion OF THE STANDARD THAT IS "NORMALITY"... that she has NO INTENTION OF REVISING THE PRESENT STANDARD TO ANOTHER STANDARD...

This is not an attempt towards PROGRESSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT... it is an overt ATTACK ON THE CONCEPT OF NORMALITY ITSELF... in which she feels that ALL of humanity is NORMAL without regard to their sexual appetites... With no concern for the given 'sexual orientation'... or the potential for the certaint 'unintended consequences which are the ever present shadow of such advocacies...

It's a concept which rests in the pure absence of reason; it is evil personified.

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

Actually, pedophilia and homsoexuality are both incontestbale examples of sexual deivant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

 

[Ravi]

More empty assurancesfrom the individual who REFUSES, NOW for the FIFTH TIME, to simply defend her would-be standard from the next logical contest OF THAT REVISION... of this 'antiquated' standard...

And again it must be noted that her refusal rests upon the certainty that her goal is to dismantle the notion OF THE STANDARD THAT IS "NORMALITY"... that she has NO INTENTION OF REVISING THE PRESENT STANDARD TO ANOTHER STANDARD...

This is not an attempt towards PROGRESSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT... it is an overt ATTACK ON THE CONCEPT OF NORMALITY ITSELF... in which she feels that ALL of humanity is NORMAL without regard to their sexual appetites... With no concern for the given 'sexual orientation'... or the potential for the certaint 'unintended consequences which are the ever present shadow of such advocacies...

It's a concept which rests in the pure absence of reason; it is evil personified.

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

Actually, pedophilia and homsoexuality are both incontestbale examples of sexual deivant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

For perhaps the millionth time, there is no protection for pedophiles in this bill.

Pedophilia is illegal.

Homosexuality is legal.

Heterosexuality is legal.

In other words...






































































































Epic Fail!

 

[Valerie]

More empty assurancesfrom the individual who REFUSES, NOW for the FIFTH TIME, to simply defend her would-be standard from the next logical contest OF THAT REVISION... of this 'antiquated' standard...

And again it must be noted that her refusal rests upon the certainty that her goal is to dismantle the notion OF THE STANDARD THAT IS "NORMALITY"... that she has NO INTENTION OF REVISING THE PRESENT STANDARD TO ANOTHER STANDARD...

This is not an attempt towards PROGRESSIVE ENLIGHTENMENT... it is an overt ATTACK ON THE CONCEPT OF NORMALITY ITSELF... in which she feels that ALL of humanity is NORMAL without regard to their sexual appetites... With no concern for the given 'sexual orientation'... or the potential for the certaint 'unintended consequences which are the ever present shadow of such advocacies...

It's a concept which rests in the pure absence of reason; it is evil personified.

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

Actually, pedophilia and homsoexuality are both incontestbale examples of sexual deivant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

There is no doubt that homosexuality deviates from the norm, as does pedophilia. This commonality does not constitute any potential calamity by nature of their both being defined as abnormal or deviate. The government should never have the power to treat law abiding adult citizens as second class citizens by virtue of their sexuality alone. Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

 

[Ravi]

It's kind of funny...Pubic is of the mind that beating someone up that molests his child would result in having hate crime charges brought against him. That means Pubic would only beat up the person because he was a pedophile and not because Pubic's son was molested.

In other words, if his son is molested it doesn't really matter to him.

What a strange person he has turned out to be.

 

[Valerie]

It's kind of funny...Pubic is of the mind that beating someone up that molests his child would result in having hate crime charges brought against him. That means Pubic would only beat up the person because he was a pedophile and not because Pubic's son was molested.

In other words, if his son is molested it doesn't really matter to him.

What a strange person he has turned out to be.

Now, THAT is some tortured logic!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

Actually, pedophilia and homsoexuality are both incontestbale examples of sexual deivant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

There is no doubt that homosexuality deviates from the norm, as does pedophilia. This commonality does not constitute any potential calamity by nature of their both being defined as abnormal or deviate. The government should never have the power to treat law abiding adult citizens as second class citizens by virtue of their sexuality alone. Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

Now the 7th or is it 8th object refusal to defend the proposed standard against the logical contest TO THAT Standard by those who would change that standard to provide for marriage of THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS... further solidifying the certainty that the member simply rejects the notion of A STANDARD...

Of course, this member returns to repeat a long discredited assertion that the standard of Normalcy somehow renders citizens to some lower class... when in fact, it is the abnormal triats exhibited by the deviant which does so... all the standard of normalcy provides is the baseline which represents the original point by which the deviancy is measured...

In point of FACT; AGAIN, there is NO DISCRIMINATION, in terms of the irrational left-think understanding of 'fairness', of ANYONE as a result of the normalcy standard, which the standard of marriage rests...

ANYONE, without regard to their race, creed, religion or dubious sexual orientation has their application rejected by virtue of their 'class'... they either meet the standard in their application or they do not... PERIOD.

As a hetero-sexual male... I cannot apply for a license to marry my 'most special' male friend in order that they should enjoy the benefit of my insurance, my pension, my desirable area code... or so that I can visit them in hospital after visiting hours...

I cannot apply for a license to ADD my 'most special good friend to my existing marriage; nor can my 'life partner', my 'significant other... or my wife add he 'most special good friend to our marriage...

So we enjoy PRECISELY that same rights and privileges of marriage as EVERYONE ELSE.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

And the reason is that those incorporated unions do NOT BRING THE LEGITIMACY, of Marriage... which does NOTHING if it does NOT demonstrate IN PERFECTION, the indisputable goal of the homosexual lobby to normalize their particular deviancy, which is virtually indistinguishable from pedophilia, in terms of the degrees by which the two notions are separated.

As has been noted MANY times... the worlds most prolific advocate of adult/child sex is NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) which was originated and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of Homosexuals, both male and female, despite the male oriented title...

Keep those platitudes coming gals... you're REALLY making "Progress" now...

You girls SURE that you don't want to delve into the SCIENCE on which your advocacy is founded?

I think by refusing to discuss THAT, you're REALLY missing the big one...

 

[KittenKoder]

We already overstepped your point, after turning it into a dead horse, it's just easier to swallow when it's tenderized.

You still sound like Laden though. Damn, I like that analogy, it just fits.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

We already overstepped your point, after turning it into a dead horse, it's just easier to swallow when it's tenderized.

You still sound like Laden though. Damn, I like that analogy, it just fits.

 

[KittenKoder]

We already overstepped your point, after turning it into a dead horse, it's just easier to swallow when it's tenderized.

You still sound like Laden though. Damn, I like that analogy, it just fits.

No more than yours ....

 

[Ravi]

We already overstepped your point, after turning it into a dead horse, it's just easier to swallow when it's tenderized.

You still sound like Laden though. Damn, I like that analogy, it just fits.

hmmm

PubicInBinLadin might be a good name for him.

 

[Valerie]

Actually, pedophilia and homsoexuality are both incontestbale examples of sexual deivant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

There is no doubt that homosexuality deviates from the norm, as does pedophilia. This commonality does not constitute any potential calamity by nature of their both being defined as abnormal or deviate. The government should never have the power to treat law abiding adult citizens as second class citizens by virtue of their sexuality alone. Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

Now the 7th or is it 8th object refusal to defend the proposed standard against the logical contest TO THAT Standard by those who would change that standard to provide for marriage of THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS... further solidifying the certainty that the member simply rejects the notion of A STANDARD...

Of course, this member returns to repeat a long discredited assertion that the standard of Normalcy somehow renders citizens to some lower class... when in fact, it is the abnormal triats exhibited by the deviant which does so... all the standard of normalcy provides is the baseline which represents the original point by which the deviancy is measured...

In point of FACT; AGAIN, there is NO DISCRIMINATION, in terms of the irrational left-think understanding of 'fairness', of ANYONE as a result of the normalcy standard, which the standard of marriage rests...

ANYONE, without regard to their race, creed, religion or dubious sexual orientation has their application rejected by virtue of their 'class'... they either meet the standard in their application or they do not... PERIOD.

As a hetero-sexual male... I cannot apply for a license to marry my 'most special' male friend in order that they should enjoy the benefit of my insurance, my pension, my desirable area code... or so that I can visit them in hospital after visiting hours...

I cannot apply for a license to ADD my 'most special good friend to my existing marriage; nor can my 'life partner', my 'significant other... or my wife add he 'most special good friend to our marriage...

So we enjoy PRECISELY that same rights and privileges of marriage as EVERYONE ELSE.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

And the reason is that those incorporated unions do NOT BRING THE LEGITIMACY, of Marriage... which does NOTHING if it does NOT demonstrate IN PERFECTION, the indisputable goal of the homosexual lobby to normalize their particular deviancy, which is virtually indistinguishable from pedophilia, in terms of the degrees by which the two notions are separated.

As has been noted MANY times... the worlds most prolific advocate of adult/child sex is NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) which was originated and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of Homosexuals, both male and female, despite the male oriented title...

Keep those platitudes coming gals... you're REALLY making "Progress" now...

You girls SURE that you don't want to delve into the SCIENCE on which your advocacy is founded?

I think by refusing to discuss THAT, you're REALLY missing the big one...

Did you mean abject refusal? The only standard I am defending is the personal freedom of individual adult citizens and their respective equal citizenship. I can't help it if you're so afraid of the evolution of real people. Ironically, you purport to be "all about the personal freedom". Speaking of platitudes, feel free.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

Actually, every facet of such has not been rejected every single time, as these real cases of real couples have challenged the existing statutes and the respective state supreme courts have ruled the discriminatory statutes unconstitutional.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is no doubt that homosexuality deviates from the norm, as does pedophilia. This commonality does not constitute any potential calamity by nature of their both being defined as abnormal or deviate. The government should never have the power to treat law abiding adult citizens as second class citizens by virtue of their sexuality alone. Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

Now the 7th or is it 8th object refusal to defend the proposed standard against the logical contest TO THAT Standard by those who would change that standard to provide for marriage of THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS... further solidifying the certainty that the member simply rejects the notion of A STANDARD...

Of course, this member returns to repeat a long discredited assertion that the standard of Normalcy somehow renders citizens to some lower class... when in fact, it is the abnormal triats exhibited by the deviant which does so... all the standard of normalcy provides is the baseline which represents the original point by which the deviancy is measured...

In point of FACT; AGAIN, there is NO DISCRIMINATION, in terms of the irrational left-think understanding of 'fairness', of ANYONE as a result of the normalcy standard, which the standard of marriage rests...

ANYONE, without regard to their race, creed, religion or dubious sexual orientation has their application rejected by virtue of their 'class'... they either meet the standard in their application or they do not... PERIOD.

As a hetero-sexual male... I cannot apply for a license to marry my 'most special' male friend in order that they should enjoy the benefit of my insurance, my pension, my desirable area code... or so that I can visit them in hospital after visiting hours...

I cannot apply for a license to ADD my 'most special good friend to my existing marriage; nor can my 'life partner', my 'significant other... or my wife add he 'most special good friend to our marriage...

So we enjoy PRECISELY that same rights and privileges of marriage as EVERYONE ELSE.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

And the reason is that those incorporated unions do NOT BRING THE LEGITIMACY, of Marriage... which does NOTHING if it does NOT demonstrate IN PERFECTION, the indisputable goal of the homosexual lobby to normalize their particular deviancy, which is virtually indistinguishable from pedophilia, in terms of the degrees by which the two notions are separated.

As has been noted MANY times... the worlds most prolific advocate of adult/child sex is NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) which was originated and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of Homosexuals, both male and female, despite the male oriented title...

Keep those platitudes coming gals... you're REALLY making "Progress" now...

You girls SURE that you don't want to delve into the SCIENCE on which your advocacy is founded?

I think by refusing to discuss THAT, you're REALLY missing the big one...

... The only standard I am defending is the personal freedom of individual adult citizens and their respective equal citizenship. I can't help it if you're so afraid of the evolution of real people.

LOL... WHOA! So do I understand that you're now implying that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution?

As in:

ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh'n, və lsh'n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

ROFLMNAO?

Now do I understand that to be the point your trying to impart here?

And if so, how would this new facet in what stands for your argument, jibe with the position which you've chronically advanced that you were not aware, that anyone was trying to normalize sexual deviancy...

I mean if, as you've implied above, that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution; wouldn't it be of critical necessity for this new and improved version of humanity to be normalized before it can realize it's maximum potential?

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves...

Are you or are you not trying to convey your opinion that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution... and what context of that word are you using? 1, 2, 3...

Ironically, you purport to be "all about the personal freedom". Speaking of platitudes, feel free.

Yes... I am 'all about the freedom...' and in so being, I’m all about the valid and sustainable human rights which provide for such and the essential responsibilities which sustain those rights. But you don’t seem very interested in rights and their inherent responsibilities… you seem more focused on some irrational notion of FREE-dom… which is to say you, at least seem to feel the FREEDOM is free… that it is sustained at no expense… that one is just entitled to it and can do with it, what ever flitters across your mental screen… without regard to how doing so, effects others; this is an erroneous understanding which has no potential to sustain freedom; and must lead to those oft-mentioned calamities… which are what you people generally refer to as ‘unintended consequences’ in the wake of whatever leftist policy failure is at issue at any given moment.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

Actually, every facet of such has not been rejected every single time, as these real cases of real couples have challenged the existing statutes and the respective state supreme courts have ruled the discriminatory statutes unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

You seem to pride yourself on being as cryptic as possible...

What are you saying here? That Homosexuals have embraced non-marital 'legal unions?'

Where has this happened? Cite the specific examples... what states have provided for non-marital legal unions where the homosexual lobby has accepted such. And to what specific rulings are you're referring?

Why is it that you're so determined to avoid advancing the case specifics? Is it perhaps that the decisions rested on conclusions which you'd prefer to avoid having to debate?


Look, if your position is as noble as you clearly feel that it is... just state your argument. There's no need for these semi-points; just gather your cases, where non-marital civil unions have been established and summarily accepted by the homosexual community... and state, if you believe that such is the case, where you feel some state or municipality has discriminated against homosexuals; and in so doing, denied their application for marriage, despite their having applied within the well reasoned, sustainable and long-standing standards ... then just post the specific examples.

I personally, try to keep up with such and while I am not aware of any such circumstances... I'm prepared to admit that I am not aware of every application which has been filed for marriage in the last 30 years and it's possible that I missed something…

Now don't confuse the circumstances wherein the applicants came to apply outside of the scope of the marriage standard, were predictably rejected and some left-thinking judge, 'ruled' in favor of the plaintiffs on specious 'fairness' grounds and this somehow stands as an indicator of that long sought legitimacy; as such is no more legitimate than the impotent retorts of our thread-mates, who declare flaccid little victories in the absence of cogency, validity and reason... by demanding that objective evidence has not been presented and this because, they're not convinced.

Such rulings are a sign of the weakness of the judiciary... not its strength. As there is no potential for discrimination in US marital standards... they are applied equally to ALL applicants... but equality is not sufficient when one is only interested in satisfying their own twisted notions of fairness...

And let the record reflect that Valerie here has YET to respond ot the simple challenge wherein she is asked to defend these would-be evolutionary standards from the next logical contestant; those advocating for marriage to include 3 or more individuals… and that reason is served that the reason she needs to avoid doing so is that Valerie has no intentions of defending that evolutionary standard because her intention is to strip ANY measure of standard from the concept… thus reducing marriage to MEANINGLESS…

 

[Valerie]

Now the 7th or is it 8th object refusal to defend the proposed standard against the logical contest TO THAT Standard by those who would change that standard to provide for marriage of THREE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS... further solidifying the certainty that the member simply rejects the notion of A STANDARD...

Of course, this member returns to repeat a long discredited assertion that the standard of Normalcy somehow renders citizens to some lower class... when in fact, it is the abnormal triats exhibited by the deviant which does so... all the standard of normalcy provides is the baseline which represents the original point by which the deviancy is measured...

In point of FACT; AGAIN, there is NO DISCRIMINATION, in terms of the irrational left-think understanding of 'fairness', of ANYONE as a result of the normalcy standard, which the standard of marriage rests...

ANYONE, without regard to their race, creed, religion or dubious sexual orientation has their application rejected by virtue of their 'class'... they either meet the standard in their application or they do not... PERIOD.

As a hetero-sexual male... I cannot apply for a license to marry my 'most special' male friend in order that they should enjoy the benefit of my insurance, my pension, my desirable area code... or so that I can visit them in hospital after visiting hours...

I cannot apply for a license to ADD my 'most special good friend to my existing marriage; nor can my 'life partner', my 'significant other... or my wife add he 'most special good friend to our marriage...

So we enjoy PRECISELY that same rights and privileges of marriage as EVERYONE ELSE.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

And the reason is that those incorporated unions do NOT BRING THE LEGITIMACY, of Marriage... which does NOTHING if it does NOT demonstrate IN PERFECTION, the indisputable goal of the homosexual lobby to normalize their particular deviancy, which is virtually indistinguishable from pedophilia, in terms of the degrees by which the two notions are separated.

As has been noted MANY times... the worlds most prolific advocate of adult/child sex is NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) which was originated and is comprised EXCLUSIVELY of Homosexuals, both male and female, despite the male oriented title...

Keep those platitudes coming gals... you're REALLY making "Progress" now...

You girls SURE that you don't want to delve into the SCIENCE on which your advocacy is founded?

I think by refusing to discuss THAT, you're REALLY missing the big one...

... The only standard I am defending is the personal freedom of individual adult citizens and their respective equal citizenship. I can't help it if you're so afraid of the evolution of real people.

LOL... WHOA! So do I understand that you're now implying that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution?

As in:

ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh'n, və lsh'n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

ROFLMNAO?

Now do I understand that to be the point your trying to impart here?

And if so, how would this new facet in what stands for your argument, jibe with the position which you've chronically advanced that you were not aware, that anyone was trying to normalize sexual deviancy...

I mean if, as you've implied above, that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution; wouldn't it be of critical necessity for this new and improved version of humanity to be normalized before it can realize it's maximum potential?

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves...

Are you or are you not trying to convey your opinion that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution... and what context of that word are you using? 1, 2, 3...

Ironically, you purport to be "all about the personal freedom". Speaking of platitudes, feel free.

Yes... I am 'all about the freedom...' and in so being, I’m all about the valid and sustainable human rights which provide for such and the essential responsibilities which sustain those rights. But you don’t seem very interested in rights and their inherent responsibilities… you seem more focused on some irrational notion of FREE-dom… which is to say you, at least seem to feel the FREEDOM is free… that it is sustained at no expense… that one is just entitled to it and can do with it, what ever flitters across your mental screen… without regard to how doing so, effects others; this is an erroneous understanding which has no potential to sustain freedom; and must lead to those oft-mentioned calamities… which are what you people generally refer to as ‘unintended consequences’ in the wake of whatever leftist policy failure is at issue at any given moment.

But more to the point is that, the issue here is NOT the legal 'access to the 'benefits of marriage, legal, financial or otherwise...' as the incorporated legal unions which have CHRONICALLY been trotted out to appease the advocates of sexual deviancy provide every facet of such and they are REJECTED out of hand, every single time...

Actually, every facet of such has not been rejected every single time, as these real cases of real couples have challenged the existing statutes and the respective state supreme courts have ruled the discriminatory statutes unconstitutional.

You seem to pride yourself on being as cryptic as possible...

What are you saying here? That Homosexuals have embraced non-marital 'legal unions?'

Where has this happened? Cite the specific examples... what states have provided for non-marital legal unions where the homosexual lobby has accepted such. And to what specific rulings are you're referring?

Why is it that you're so determined to avoid advancing the case specifics? Is it perhaps that the decisions rested on conclusions which you'd prefer to avoid having to debate?


Look, if your position is as noble as you clearly feel that it is... just state your argument. There's no need for these semi-points; just gather your cases, where non-marital civil unions have been established and summarily accepted by the homosexual community... and state, if you believe that such is the case, where you feel some state or municipality has discriminated against homosexuals; and in so doing, denied their application for marriage, despite their having applied within the well reasoned, sustainable and long-standing standards ... then just post the specific examples.

I personally, try to keep up with such and while I am not aware of any such circumstances... I'm prepared to admit that I am not aware of every application which has been filed for marriage in the last 30 years and it's possible that I missed something…

Now don't confuse the circumstances wherein the applicants came to apply outside of the scope of the marriage standard, were predictably rejected and some left-thinking judge, 'ruled' in favor of the plaintiffs on specious 'fairness' grounds and this somehow stands as an indicator of that long sought legitimacy; as such is no more legitimate than the impotent retorts of our thread-mates, who declare flaccid little victories in the absence of cogency, validity and reason... by demanding that objective evidence has not been presented and this because, they're not convinced.

Such rulings are a sign of the weakness of the judiciary... not its strength. As there is no potential for discrimination in US marital standards... they are applied equally to ALL applicants... but equality is not sufficient when one is only interested in satisfying their own twisted notions of fairness...

And let the record reflect that Valerie here has YET to respond ot the simple challenge wherein she is asked to defend these would-be evolutionary standards from the next logical contestant; those advocating for marriage to include 3 or more individuals… and that reason is served that the reason she needs to avoid doing so is that Valerie has no intentions of defending that evolutionary standard because her intention is to strip ANY measure of standard from the concept… thus reducing marriage to MEANINGLESS…

You are too much. I work for a living, how 'bout you?

One thing at a time. For starters, NO, you misunderstood what I meant about evolution. The evolution is the acceptance. The evolution is the lack of denial. The evolution is the not shoving people into closets or chopping off their heads. You want to talk about the embodiment of evil, do you?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's "evil personified" to not demonize and marginalize people for who they love?

Your OP posits the slippery slope from gay marriage to the normalization of pedophilia and since the two have absolutely nothing to do with the other, your logic fails, not mine.

Actually, pedophilia and homosexuality are both incontestable examples of sexual deviant orientations, BOTH of which are being protected through the Pedophile Protection act; thus the two facets of sexual deviancy have 'their common deviancy in common'...

And the simple fact is that the objective, indisputable evidence conclusively establishes that the slope is incomprehensibly slippery...

Which brings us to the SIXTH opportunity wherein this member has CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE CHALLENGE wherein she would defend the standard for which she advocates against the next logical challenge to THAT STANDARD...

Again... this refusal is simply a function of this member's desire not to just 'revise the standard of normality'... but to DESTROY THE STANDARD OF NORMALITY... thus they've no means to defend that which they've NO INTENTION TO DEFEND.

It's a raw default concession, which their inability to reason simply precludes their means to realize it.

For perhaps the millionth time, there is no protection for pedophiles in this bill.

Pedophilia is illegal.

Homosexuality is legal.

Heterosexuality is legal.

In other words...
Epic Fail!

Well there ya have it folks... "Pedophilia is ILLEGAL and homosexuality is NOT"

So we're faced with two fairly simple solutions... we can either return homosexuality to illegal... or legalize pedophilia...

Clearly, the member wants to imply that she is ALL ABOUT THE LAW...

So where the culture were to return homosexuality to illegal, she implies here that she would immediately shut down her advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy... IMMEDIATELY.

She's clearly wanting to give us the impression that her objection to pedophilia rests on its legal status... Which begs the question; "If pedophilia were 'decided,' by say a judicial 'RULING,' to be legal, would she then accept pedophilia?

I think the answer there is a hysterically predictable “OH YEAH…”

We can be sure, that where 'SCIENCE' was said to have 'determined' that: 'many children actually benefited from consensual sexual relationships with adults; and that many decades of 'research' had shown that former attitudes about such, wherein it was believed that child sexual abuse produced long-term psychological damage; were simply WRONG... that 'studies show' that few, if ANY children, who suffer sexual abuse as a child suffer any serious damage, psychological or otherwise...' that this member would adhere to that SCIENCE in a New York minute... and there would be absolutely NOTHING which you could offer which would rise to sufficient level to represent objective evidence... And how do we know? How can we be SO sure? Well when “SCIENCE” declared that the Homo-sexual orientation did NOT deviate from the biological baseline norm… she BIT HARD ON THAT ONE…

What’s the difference?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... The only standard I am defending is the personal freedom of individual adult citizens and their respective equal citizenship. I can't help it if you're so afraid of the evolution of real people.

LOL... WHOA! So do I understand that you're now implying that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution?

As in:

ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh'n, və lsh'n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. biology developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

ROFLMNAO?

Now do I understand that to be the point your trying to impart here?

And if so, how would this new facet in what stands for your argument, jibe with the position which you've chronically advanced that you were not aware, that anyone was trying to normalize sexual deviancy...

I mean if, as you've implied above, that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution; wouldn't it be of critical necessity for this new and improved version of humanity to be normalized before it can realize it's maximum potential?

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves...

Are you or are you not trying to convey your opinion that homo-sexual orientation is a function of human evolution... and what context of that word are you using? 1, 2, 3...





Yes... I am 'all about the freedom...' and in so being, I’m all about the valid and sustainable human rights which provide for such and the essential responsibilities which sustain those rights. But you don’t seem very interested in rights and their inherent responsibilities… you seem more focused on some irrational notion of FREE-dom… which is to say you, at least seem to feel the FREEDOM is free… that it is sustained at no expense… that one is just entitled to it and can do with it, what ever flitters across your mental screen… without regard to how doing so, effects others; this is an erroneous understanding which has no potential to sustain freedom; and must lead to those oft-mentioned calamities… which are what you people generally refer to as ‘unintended consequences’ in the wake of whatever leftist policy failure is at issue at any given moment.





Actually, every facet of such has not been rejected every single time, as these real cases of real couples have challenged the existing statutes and the respective state supreme courts have ruled the discriminatory statutes unconstitutional.

You seem to pride yourself on being as cryptic as possible...

What are you saying here? That Homosexuals have embraced non-marital 'legal unions?'

Where has this happened? Cite the specific examples... what states have provided for non-marital legal unions where the homosexual lobby has accepted such. And to what specific rulings are you're referring?

Why is it that you're so determined to avoid advancing the case specifics? Is it perhaps that the decisions rested on conclusions which you'd prefer to avoid having to debate?


Look, if your position is as noble as you clearly feel that it is... just state your argument. There's no need for these semi-points; just gather your cases, where non-marital civil unions have been established and summarily accepted by the homosexual community... and state, if you believe that such is the case, where you feel some state or municipality has discriminated against homosexuals; and in so doing, denied their application for marriage, despite their having applied within the well reasoned, sustainable and long-standing standards ... then just post the specific examples.

I personally, try to keep up with such and while I am not aware of any such circumstances... I'm prepared to admit that I am not aware of every application which has been filed for marriage in the last 30 years and it's possible that I missed something…

Now don't confuse the circumstances wherein the applicants came to apply outside of the scope of the marriage standard, were predictably rejected and some left-thinking judge, 'ruled' in favor of the plaintiffs on specious 'fairness' grounds and this somehow stands as an indicator of that long sought legitimacy; as such is no more legitimate than the impotent retorts of our thread-mates, who declare flaccid little victories in the absence of cogency, validity and reason... by demanding that objective evidence has not been presented and this because, they're not convinced.

Such rulings are a sign of the weakness of the judiciary... not its strength. As there is no potential for discrimination in US marital standards... they are applied equally to ALL applicants... but equality is not sufficient when one is only interested in satisfying their own twisted notions of fairness...

And let the record reflect that Valerie here has YET to respond ot the simple challenge wherein she is asked to defend these would-be evolutionary standards from the next logical contestant; those advocating for marriage to include 3 or more individuals… and that reason is served that the reason she needs to avoid doing so is that Valerie has no intentions of defending that evolutionary standard because her intention is to strip ANY measure of standard from the concept… thus reducing marriage to MEANINGLESS…

You are too much. I work for a living, how 'bout you?

One thing at a time. For starters, NO, you misunderstood what I meant about evolution. The evolution is the acceptance. The evolution is the lack of denial. The evolution is the not shoving people into closets or chopping off their heads. You want to talk about the embodiment of evil, do you?

OH! ROFL... Ok... Ya had me goin' there...

You're saying that humanity is EVOLVING... back to the same 'acceptance and lack of denial, which stopped shoving people into closets... which the ancient Greeks and Romans realized... shortly before their cultural demise...

Just one question I guess... Can such fairly be described as EVOLUTION, where evolution as you've implied it here, is defined as:

A gradual development: "The acceptance of sexual deviancy is realizing the gradual development into a more complex or better form.

But I think we should come to grips with what you ACTUALLY mean by evolution... which is a pattern caused by movement: a pattern formed by a series of movements

Thus 'evolution' isn't much more than what the 'movement' can sustain and where the basis in reasoning on which that movement rests is invalid and unsound... and where such is a certainty; such movements are prone to stark reversals... and that's where we're at here...

 

[Valerie]

Whereas pedophilia is demonstrably harmful, consensual sex among adult citizens is not.

>

I suppose I should point out your failure to adequately respond to this post since it relates DIRECTLY to your OP.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA...Gays, minorities ,EVERYONE have the same rights, no more, no less. Pretending they don't is a lie. It's asking for something never intended in the Constitution. It asks more, and fairness doesn't include sexual perversions as a choice. It's not a right. Love anyone or anything you want. You just can expect the right MARRY ANYTHING YOU WISH. Sorry. Don't buy it.

 

[Valerie]

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA...Gays, minorities ,EVERYONE have the same rights, no more, no less. Pretending they don't is a lie. It's asking for something never intended in the Constitution. It asks more, and fairness doesn't include sexual perversions as a choice. It's not a right. Love anyone or anything you want. You just can expect the right MARRY ANYTHING YOU WISH. Sorry. Don't buy it.

Marriage laws are anecdotal..Stay tuned!

Life is anecdotal. You can't smell a flower on the internet.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

Gays want marriage symbolically, and for nothing else. The rest of us non-gays don't care. Gays are human beings, they can vote, they can't be subject to prosecution based on nothing more than their sexuality, yes yes yes. But they are pushing the envelope, for no obvious reason at marriage. We draw the line there, sorry. No can do. We draw the line THERE. And we don't need to justify anything.

 

[Toro]

If not, then I simply ask that the advocates of Homosexual Marriage DEFEND THEIR STANDARD AGAINST THE LOGICAL EXTENSION WHICH MUST RESULT SHOULD THE CULTURE ACCEPT THEIR PLEA...Gays, minorities ,EVERYONE have the same rights, no more, no less. Pretending they don't is a lie. It's asking for something never intended in the Constitution. It asks more, and fairness doesn't include sexual perversions as a choice. It's not a right. Love anyone or anything you want. You just can expect the right MARRY ANYTHING YOU WISH. Sorry. Don't buy it.

Banning gay marriage deprives people of their rights. It deprives individuals from freely entering a contract that everyone else is entitled to based upon their sexuality. It is no different than depriving individuals from freely entering the contract of marriage based upon their race or their religion. There is no evidence that gay marriage harms anybody anymore than black marriage or Jewish marriage harms anyone.

Gay marriage is inevitable for two reasons. First, young people are generally for it and older people are generally against. Old people die off so they won't matter anymore and society will adopt the dominant mores of the people at the time. Second, the actualization of the rights of individuals to do as they please has been relentless over time, whether that is full civil rights for women or for people of other religions or for minorities. Our great grandchildren will look back at us and see us the same way as we saw all those whites fighting against integration - they'll think "What was all the fuss about?"