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

[Joe_Penalty]

PI supports Muslims and their beliefs ... it's simple, he's a terrorist.

What do Muslims believe?

 

[Oddball]

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

State licensing of marriage is of objectively demonstrable harm to all who enter into that adhesion contract with the given state.

No matter your sexual preference, who needs state (or any other corporate entity for that matter) permission to give your devotion to one another validity??

I seriously cannot understand what's so important about getting outside validation, from peeps whose battle cry is "I just gotta be me".

 

[Joe_Penalty]

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Bad analogy.

Not so much...

Please explain.

 

[Oddball]

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Huh......WHAT??

Jim Crow racists are the ones who imposed marriage licensing, in order to assure "racial purity".

Dude....Why would anyone interested in "equality" and "diversity" demand a piece of the Jim Crow era??

 

[Toro]

PI supports Muslims and their beliefs ... it's simple, he's a terrorist.

What do Muslims believe?

That gay people are an abomination.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Thank God most people have the common sense to know right from wrong. Thank God most people don't buy this MORONIC idea that if DOGS lick each others ASSES, then HUMANS SHOULD TOO! How STUPID does one have to be to try and forward such an IDIOTIC idea? I would HATE to see what kind of a world we'd live in if a person that believes THAT crap actually got the power to make it so. People might as well take up residence in their TOILET!

Well that's easy...

It's not the perfect illustration, but it's close enough...

Now if one needs to know what such would realize... here's what happens when a culture becomes weak and unsustainable. Just remember, THIS was a tiny little group of a few dozen determined individuals and NOT a determined, organized, capable sovereign nation:

Could you please be more specific about how this illustration relates to the crux of your argument.

Sure Joe...

The Advocacy for Homosexual Marriage is a function of cultural devolution... where a culture strips itself of moral standards; such is a sign that the culture has lost, or is tending towards losing it's means to reason...

Here... Let's try it this way...

When such issues come to the table; one of the first challenges I set to the opposition is for them to cite from human history, the cultures which are known to them to have embraced such debauchery; who took to normalizing Homosexuality for example...

There are two consistent points to be found in the chronic response... and I encourage you to test this... I've done so dozens of times in dozens of forums, as well in personal debates, face to face with such advocates... so there can be no doubt that you'll find the same...

The first point is that they never fail to return to report with some measured pride that MANY cultures embraced homosexuality... listing the Ancient Greeks, the Romans and so on...

The second point is that they NEVER recognize that every single one of those cultures which embraced debauchery, normalized homosexuality and so on... did so in the last stages of their existance; meaning THOSE CULTURES THAT EMBRACED SEXUAL DEVIANCY: NO LONGER EXIST...

Now I should add a third consistency.... which would, of course be, that to the individual they look at such as a sign that the culture "EVOLVING"... That somehow, relenting to base sexual instincts... setting aside discipline and encouraging the most powerful instinct in human biology other than that of panicked Fight or Flight... that this represents a function of enlightenment.

Anywho... the fact that such has historically come just prior to the demise of whatever culture which failed to avoid it, is the basis on which that post rests...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect that the ideological left has established through this thread, that their advocacy is nothing more than to normalize sexual deviancy; to destroy the American cultural standards, particularly those represented by the standards inherent in Marriage and that they serve no other purpose than to promote the irrational, cultural killing policies of the secular left, towards dislodging the immutable, culturual sustaining principles inherent in the Judeo-Christian values on which America is founded...

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

PI supports Muslims and their beliefs ... it's simple, he's a terrorist.

What do Muslims believe?

That gay people are an abomination.

Nice. People like Bin Laden hate Christians, Jews and Communists. In fact, they seem to hate each other. Sorry, this kind of hyperbole doesn't cut the mustard. It's typical . Gays aren't being harmed, no pink triangles and no death sentences. You just can't marry ANYONE you love. We all have the same rights. But, that doesn't seem to be enough. It's easy to post tripe like this, but nobody (gays included) are being harmed in any way . All societies are based on heterosexual unions and pro-creation. And that is all marriage is about. It's silly, gays might as well ask we turn off the laws of physics , biology or let blind folks drive. Sorry. The magic 8 ball sez: Try again. I'm sure you will.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

Being Gay isn't comparable to being left handed. Left handed people have a few challenges. They may be a minority, but they still have the same rights right handed folks do. They manage to marry, have children, and thrive. Gays, in all fairness, have the same rights and they can't, by definition, have children by the very definition HOMOSEXUALITY. Gays have the same rights a dwarf does to play in the NBA. Same damned rights. But do we hear about small people petitioning to play in the NBA? I am sure there may a few small people at basketball, but statistics keep them off the NBA rosters. There may be a few gays with kids, but NONE of them are by another homosexual. And marriage isn't about the parents, its about the children. It's the kids, not gay rights, that are more important. Hell, some of those same kids might even be homosexual.

 

[del]

Being Gay isn't comparable to being left handed. Left handed people have a few challenges. They may be a minority, but they still have the same rights right handed folks do. They manage to marry, have children, and thrive. Gays, in all fairness, have the same rights and they can't, by definition, have children by the very definition HOMOSEXUALITY. Gays have the same rights a dwarf does to play in the NBA. Same damned rights. But do we hear about small people petitioning to play in the NBA? I am sure there may a few small people at basketball, but statistics keep them off the NBA rosters. There may be a few gays with kids, but NONE of them are by another homosexual. And marriage isn't about the parents, its about the children. It's the kids, not gay rights, that are more important. Hell, some of those same kids might even be homosexual.

adjust your meds.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

Is that the best you can do, Del? "adjust your meds"? Yer not quoting some obscure Latin crap any more? Yer starting sound like Agnost. Ravi. Skydancer. You don't have a clue, do ya, boyo? Debate , not insult. Yer better than that, ostrich boy. ZZZZZZ.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Is that the best you can do, Del? "adjust your meds"? Yer not quoting some obscure Latin crap any more? Yer starting sound like Agnost. Ravi. Skydancer. You don't have a clue, do ya, boyo? Debate , not insult. Yer better than that, ostrich boy. ZZZZZZ.

No, it's not the best Del can do, it's simply the extent of the intellectual liability which she's prepared to risk.

Not a GULF of difference, but it's a measured distinction.

You're right on track... stay on 'em.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

What people do behind close doors should be kept private. If homosexuals kept their lifestyle within the confines of their own homes, then there would be less criticism.

This type of argument is not set up to be won or contested by someone in favor of homosexuality. The attempt is illogical in itself.

How does someone think they can argue for homosexuality and win?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What people do behind close doors should be kept private. If homosexuals kept their lifestyle within the confines of their own homes, then there would be less criticism.

This type of argument is not set up to be won or contested by someone in favor of homosexuality. The attempt is illogical in itself.

How does someone think they can argue for homosexuality and win?

DELUSION... They simply lack the means to reason... once ya get past THAT... understanding them and the 'WHY DO THEY DO THIS...' is easy.

 

[Gurdari]

In other words, he has to "dumb it down" for you to be able to understand it.

YOU can simply state the claim/argument since you clearly understand it... or do you?

If I have to do that for you, then you're not intelligent enough to be here debating it.

Ha! That sure was a nice dodge, mister!

Also, it is on HIM to support his claim - not on us to disprove his claim...

 

[Gurdari]

The Advocacy for Homosexual Marriage is a function of cultural devolution... where a culture strips itself of moral standards; such is a sign that the culture has lost, or is tending towards losing it's means to reason...

Devolution is a tough one to prove - CHANGE is more like it. Change you do not like, sounds like devolution.

No moral standards are being stripped either - they are changing, like morals about how we treat children, or women, or animals, or do business, or hold trials, or regulate advertising.

Those change, and if you feel a certain way about it, you can call it devolution.
But really, it's just in your head.

Someone else can (and with equal legitamacy) call it evolution.

 

[Gurdari]

What people do behind close doors should be kept private. If homosexuals kept their lifestyle within the confines of their own homes, then there would be less criticism.

This type of argument is not set up to be won or contested by someone in favor of homosexuality. The attempt is illogical in itself.

How does someone think they can argue for homosexuality and win?

Sounds like you really mean what GAY people do behind closed doors should be kept private. or do you feel the same way when you see people kiss on TV - gay or straight?

The attempt was to make a claim and support it, I assume - I don't see much evidence that took place - sorry PI.

 

[Gurdari]

Being Gay isn't comparable to being left handed. Left handed people have a few challenges. They may be a minority, but they still have the same rights right handed folks do. They manage to marry, have children, and thrive.

Gays, in all fairness, have the same rights and they can't, by definition, have children by the very definition HOMOSEXUALITY.

They don't have the same rights though, do they? To marry, that is?

Gays have the same rights a dwarf does to play in the NBA. Same damned rights. But do we hear about small people petitioning to play in the NBA? I am sure there may a few small people at basketball, but statistics keep them off the NBA rosters.

Not true, and shame on your illogic. If you're good, you can play. There is no sports restriction that says people under 5'6" or whatever cannot play - they just tend not to make it. There is no marriage 'obstacle course' that Gays keep tripping through in poor time, so they do not qualify for marriage - it is a sexual orientation prejudice, enforced by law.

And marriage isn't about the parents, its about the children.

Marriage is about what the people involved make it about. Straight people are free to marry (many times) and not have any kids. Or have kids outside of marriage, and marry someone later and never have kids with them... we're free to do as we choose in that regard.

 

[Gurdari]

Let the record reflect that the ideological left has established through this thread, that their advocacy is nothing more than to normalize sexual deviancy; to destroy the American cultural standards, particularly those represented by the standards inherent in Marriage and that they serve no other purpose than to promote the irrational, cultural killing policies of the secular left, towards dislodging the immutable, culturual sustaining principles inherent in the Judeo-Christian values on which America is founded...

Why not let the record reflect what is true?
Can you identify this ideological left for us?
What is sexual deviency? A foot fetish? Anal sex? Oral sex?
What are American cultural standards?
What are these immutable principles that are so under attack?

You seem to have an awful lot of fear, and spend an awful lot of time thinking about homosexuals. Are you really that close to being one, that the law is the only thing holding you back? Or do you fear that is how most other people are? Just waiting for a crack in the stern vigilence of the righteous to go ass-pounding and flag burning?

I love your pedantic style - but string together some solid points and support your claims (however eroneous) and maybe stake out a gay couple who got married and see just how much they kill culture.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Advocacy for Homosexual Marriage is a function of cultural devolution... where a culture strips itself of moral standards; such is a sign that the culture has lost, or is tending towards losing it's means to reason...

Devolution is a tough one to prove

Is it really?

I've never found that to be the case... What I've found, more often than not is that homosexuals and their advocates just aren't happy with the idea that their 'special circumstances' are recognized as being a function of a de-evolving culture; which they erroneously conclude represents EVOLUTION...

Let's examine your argument and see what we find...

... - CHANGE is more like it. Change you do not like, sounds like devolution.

No moral standards are being stripped either - they are changing, like morals about how we treat children, or women, or animals, or do business, or hold trials, or regulate advertising.

Those change, and if you feel a certain way about it, you can call it devolution.
But really, it's just in your head.

Someone else can (and with equal legitamacy) call it evolution.

HEY! I know YOU! You're my old aquaitance who comes to erroneously conclude that the symptoms of de-evolution are actually signs of the human species and their inherent cultures EVOLVING....

So let's return to the reasoning, testing it for the trend which would support one of the two exclusive arguments...

Now one can't throw a rhetorical dead cat in ANY argument which considers homosexuality without someone declaring that 'homosexuality has ALWAYS been present in humanity... and I am sure that you'd agree; as to do otherwise would disqualify you as a viable candidate for such a discussion; conclusively proving that you've never engaged in such a discussion...

So given that the indisputable concensus is that 'homosexuality has always been with; thus a natural function of humanity... we must conclude that the trait itself is not relevant to evolution... at least where evolution is defined as: "biology develop via evolutionary change: in evolutionary theory, to develop from an earlier biological form"

This of course resting further upon the established certainty that there is no genetic component to homosexuality... ergo; 'evolution' in terms of biology, is disqualified.


Now given that homosexuality, just as indisputably, competes with the intrinsic biological imperative of the inherent design of the species... meaning that the trait wherein an individual seeks sexual gratification through sexual actiivty with a member of their same gender, that procreation is thus rendered impossible where homosexuality reigns as the standard; and where such is at equity with the biological imperative, thus not the exclusive standard; I'm sure we can agree that such would at the minimum reduce 'progeneration'...

Thus where homosexuality is raised to a cultural level, where it rests at equity with that standard which sustains the indisputable biological imperative; the culture subjects itself to de-evolving... at least where evolving is defined as: "develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development..." as the 'gradual development' of the population is necessarily discouraged...

And where such is advanced, the moral underpinnings of the culture; wherein that culture discourages the sustanance of the biological norm, it de-evolves from normality... thus encouraging abnormality and what function or facet of reason could rise to a suitable defense of normality in any context or sense, where such is encouraged at the base level of that culture?

And finally... given that every culture which has established something consistent with the normalization of homosexuality has passed from the cultural scene... having been conquered by competing cultures where no such self-obsorbed rationalizations were being considered; cultures which tended towards drawing hard lines in terms of public behavior... and this without adhering to or rejecting whatever those specific cultural standards may have been. Seeking only to note that the normalization of Homosexuality did not result in; and that the normalization of homosexuality did not sustain, thus could not be argued to have furthered the viability of cultures where such was the case; and those respective cultures have fallen into extinction.

Thus the advocacy of homosexuality is readily definable as a function of de-evolving... AKA: devolution... and decidedly NOT a function of cultural EVOLUTION.

Unless and until the definition of evolution is the evolving towards cultural decay... which is precisely what you're driving at... and such is a damnable abuse of the langauge.

I hope that helps...