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

[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, cultural sustaining principles inherent in the Judeo-Christian values on which America is founded...

Why not let the record reflect what is true?

That is precisely what the record reflects... as noted above.

Can you identify this ideological left for us?

Sure... No problem... and while I'm at it, I'll note that you seem to need to imply through the question that there is no ideological left or that I've misrepresented what ever you 'feel' that it is... and that whatever it is that you feel the ideological left is, that it is not the vessel in which the advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy is 'progressed'...

Which tends towards indicating that you're not going to enjoy this much...


The ideological left is the cultural vessel which transports the irrational perspective wherein Fairness is erroneously felt to bear equality... It is the ideology which spawned the French revolution and the ensuing "Terrors..." along with the 6 distinct Republics which have all failed to validate this absurd notion; thus the basis for having to constantly replace the former and assign new, ever more detailed, ever more counterproductive 'rules and regulations to ensure 'fairness'... in the ensuing latter...

"Leftism" is considered by it's sycophants to be a form of intellectual enlightenment; but in reality is a form of intellectual delusion...

As wherever equality is implemented, equality bears fairness... while the inverse, will ever be realized; as "Fairness" is a term of relevance; equality a term resting in objectivity.

Thus where the Left comes, it's irrational view of fairness follows right along with it, and the advertised advocacy of FREEDOM, which stands as the left's eternal goal, is soon found to be a ruse; as the soft tyranny of exponentially rising regulation soon passes into the hard tyranny of oppressive control; and such is the only potential result of the advancement of policy which seeks to establish "FAIRNESS"...

Thus Leftism stands antithetical to the thesis of viable, self sustaining liberty... as it contests the immutable principles and rejects the responsibilities which sustain them; thus it is to be avoided; and where such is not possible, it is to be destroyed, at all cost... as once they establish root, the death of life sustaining liberty is assured.

What is sexual deviency?

First, 'deviancy' is a term of relevance... in this instance, the relevance of the term deviancy is set against the context of sexuality... which is also a term of relevance... which, in this instance, sexuality is set against the biological imperative of the intrinsic biological design of the species...

Thus in this context, the compounding of the two words sexual and deviancy rests against that which deviates from that intrinsic design, which establishes the biological imperative. What's more homo-sexuality not only deviates from that biological imperative; it contests it in it's entirety... thus competing against that imperative; further, this competing trait, establishes an abnormal condition, distinct from the normailty sustained by the intrinsic design of the human biology; which provides for the recognition of the aforemention biological imperative and in so doing establishes homo-sexuality as abnormal.

What are American cultural standards?

American Cultural Standards, are those standards which sustain the principles on which the concept "America" rests... not the least of which are that 'all men are created equal... that this equity rests upon the endowment, from our Creator, Nature's God; the endowment of life; the life which provides our fundamental right to that life and the right to be free to pursue the fulfillment of that life; that governance is a necessary element of a civil society; that civility comes with and is joined from the responsibilities inherent in those endowed rights... and that part and parcel of the fulfillment of those responsibilities is the vigilant defense of that life and the rights inherent in that life; which includes but is not limited to the defense of the immutable reason that sustains all of it and the defense of that which contests that reasoning... The relevant point here is that this reasoning to which you're adhering, represents such a contest and my efforts represent such a defense.

What are these immutable principles that are so under attack?

As one would expect the immutable principles are those which provide for the recognition of our inalienable human rights... Specifically, the endowment of life which provides for the inalienable rights and the reasoning on which those rights rest...

Most notably that every human being is vested with the same rights... none superior to the next, none inferior to the next... that each of those rights come with sustaining responsibilities to not exercise one's right to the detriment of another's and to defend their neighbors rights with the same totality of commitment that one is tasked with defending their own.

In the sense of sexuality... the immutable principles relate to the biological imperative, born of the biological design which establishes normality...

You seem to have an awful lot of fear, and spend an awful lot of time thinking about homosexuals.

LOL... the old tried and blue... "I know you are, but what am I" defense... Always a sure sign of the flaccid characteristics born from an impotent argument...

This is where I'll do you the courtesy of ignoring the balance of your commentary, as such is framed on the presumption that the above posers could not be adequately answered; at least in a way which sustained my argument... and given that such a presumption has been discredited... perhaps you'd like to come at this discussion from another perspective.

 

[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?

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?

That's exactly what he means... as what they do is their business, despite what they are doing is engaging in deviant actitivty... We can't legislate away their right to do so... but we can maintain sound cultural standards which do not promote abnormality as being at equity with normality; thus promoting such to acceptable behavior...

Capiche?

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

Your order of support is up... Now get to work advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid contest of it... or concede by default, through your failure to do so.

 

[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?

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.

Exactly. Based solely on DECENCY, people should keep what they should be doing behind closed doors private. All people, no exceptions.

Looking at what is morally accepted by the culture as a whole, how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?

Furthermore, what is the percentages of known homosexual indulgences in the United States?

Lastly, what is the percentage of people in favor of this practice (homosexuality)?

 

[Father Time]

"how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?"

That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

The fact that the majority thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so.

Now please stop using the ad populum fallacy.

 

[KittenKoder]

So far all this has done is shown me that marriage as a whole should be banned from the government. We have a lot of Islamic/Muslim practitioners in the country. Also we will never be rid of hate crime laws at this rate. Oh well, maybe the next millennium will look brighter for our society.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

"how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?"

That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

The fact that the majority thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so.

Now please stop using the ad populum fallacy.

That is based on decency.

How am I using an appeal to the people?

 

[Father Time]

"how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?"

That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

The fact that the majority thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so.

Now please stop using the ad populum fallacy.

That is based on decency.

How am I using an appeal to the people?

Because only the majority determines what is "morally accepted by the culture as a whole"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?"

That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

The fact that the majority thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so.

Now please stop using the ad populum fallacy.

That is based on decency.

How am I using an appeal to the people?

Because only the majority determines what is "morally accepted by the culture as a whole"

Oh it does the heart good to see a leftist argue for valid reasoning... If we could only get THAT to be accepted by a majority... wouldn't THAT be swell?

Sadly of course, the entire advocacy to normalize homosexuality is a massive appeal to popularity... The entire argument, the movement itself, as are ALL leftist movements amount to little more THAN... ad populum...

Of course... A majority do not accept homosexuality as moral... which is neither here nor there are far as the validity of the argument that homo-sexuality competes with the biological imperative is concerned... It's just that a majority understand that when something competes with the inherent design of nature... that it is a fool who rushes in to test it... as the concesquences are often devastating, and rarely provide for second chances.


Therefore caution is prescription of the sound culture in such regards...


Most people understand that Homo-sexuality is abnormal behavior, which is the antithesis of normality; thus declaring it normal and acceptable is not possible in a viable, sustainable culture; and that such flies in the face of common sense; ergo, those that demand otherwise cannot be advancing sound judgment, thus are to be avoided, ignored and where such becomes intolerable to the culture; banished or destroyed.

Which bears out another rule of nature; "Everything has it's limits..."

 

[Joe_Penalty]

"how can one argue in favor of something (homosexuality) that is not morally accepted by the culture as a whole?"

That has to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

The fact that the majority thinks something is moral or immoral does not make it so.

Now please stop using the ad populum fallacy.

That is based on decency.

How am I using an appeal to the people?

Because only the majority determines what is "morally accepted by the culture as a whole"

Apparently, you have a misinterpretation of what is an appeal to the people. An appeal to the people is either a bandwagon argument, an appeal to vanity, or an appeal to snobbery. My argument is not based on either. Though, it can be easily misinterpreted as a bandwagon, by the way it was worded. I am not here to confuse anyone. I am here to learn. If I had typed; "The majority of people does not accept homosexuality. Therefore, people should not practice homosexuality." That in fact would be an invalid ad populum.

This time I will try to use deductive reasoning. By definition, decency is behavior that CONFORMS to accepted standards of morality or respectability. Homosexuality is a practice or behavior that does not CONFORM to accepted standards of morality or respectability. You draw your own conclusion.

That is one of the problems with taking one line out of an argument. Besides, it was a question not an argument.

How does one determine who is actually homosexual and who is not?

 

[Oddball]

so far all this has done is shown me that marriage as a whole should be banned from the government.

Bingooooooo!!!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

That is based on decency.

How am I using an appeal to the people?

Because only the majority determines what is "morally accepted by the culture as a whole"

Apparently, you have a misinterpretation of what is an appeal to the people. An appeal to the people is either a bandwagon argument, an appeal to vanity, or an appeal to snobbery. My argument is not based on either. Though, it can be easily misinterpreted as a bandwagon, by the way it was worded. I am not here to confuse anyone. I am here to learn. If I had typed; "The majority of people does not accept homosexuality. Therefore, people should not practice homosexuality." That in fact would be an invalid ad populum.

This time I will try to use deductive reasoning. By definition, decency is behavior that CONFORMS to accepted standards of morality or respectability. Homosexuality is a practice or behavior that does not CONFORM to accepted standards of morality or respectability. You draw your own conclusion.

That is one of the problems with taking one line out of an argument. Besides, it was a question not an argument.

How does one determine who is actually homosexual and who is not?

I understand the bandwagon argument effect. Yet, in our republic that is what you are left with. As I said before, there is no perfectly sound method by which to judge right or wrong. Should we appeal everything to tradition? No. Are there absolutes? If so, then who is to decide what the absolutes are? I played with absolutes and found that I could usually come up with a scenario in which I would question the value of my absolute. Should we appeal to a popular authority (the Bible)? I found some pretty questionable sentences of advice in the Bible. Should we use natural law? If so, then who is to decide what is natural? Some natural things that our bodies have are unnecessary. What is the purpose of the small toe? Cancer is a natural phenomenon. Is it natural to smoke? Finally, I concluded that the best, though not perfect, way to decide right from wrong, is your own personal opinion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Because only the majority determines what is "morally accepted by the culture as a whole"

Apparently, you have a misinterpretation of what is an appeal to the people. An appeal to the people is either a bandwagon argument, an appeal to vanity, or an appeal to snobbery. My argument is not based on either. Though, it can be easily misinterpreted as a bandwagon, by the way it was worded. I am not here to confuse anyone. I am here to learn. If I had typed; "The majority of people does not accept homosexuality. Therefore, people should not practice homosexuality." That in fact would be an invalid ad populum.

This time I will try to use deductive reasoning. By definition, decency is behavior that CONFORMS to accepted standards of morality or respectability. Homosexuality is a practice or behavior that does not CONFORM to accepted standards of morality or respectability. You draw your own conclusion.

That is one of the problems with taking one line out of an argument. Besides, it was a question not an argument.

How does one determine who is actually homosexual and who is not?

I understand the bandwagon argument effect. Yet, in our republic that is what you are left with. As I said before, there is no perfectly sound method by which to judge right or wrong. Should we appeal everything to tradition? No. Are there absolutes? If so, then who is to decide what the absolutes are? I played with absolutes and found that I could usually come up with a scenario in which I would question the value of my absolute. Should we appeal to a popular authority (the Bible)? I found some pretty questionable sentences of advice in the Bible. Should we use natural law? If so, then who is to decide what is natural? Some natural things that our bodies have are unnecessary. What is the purpose of the small toe? Cancer is a natural phenomenon. Is it natural to smoke? Finally, I concluded that the best, though not perfect, way to decide right from wrong, is your own personal opinion.

ROFLMNAO.. Put the bong down Matt... it's not that complicated.

There are absolutes... and nature determines what they are. There are absolute judgments and the individuals who come to conclude them determine what they are...

Your argument has just been eviscerated by such... the absolute certainty that the biological design of the human species stands in direct opposition to homo-sexuality... the absolute certainty that homsoexuality deviates from that biological design and the absolute judgement that homo-sexuality is antithetical to that normality... which provides absolutely that homo-sexuality is AB-FREAKIN'-NORMAL and thus not suitable in being recognized as non-deviant; normal behavior which should be included in the standards which serve to sustain the biological imperative of the human biological design.

See how easy that is?

 

[mattskramer]

There are absolutes... and nature determines what they are. There are absolute judgments and the individuals who come to conclude them determine what they are...

Nature does not determine asolutes. If anythng, nature might make recommendations. I like your next sentence that I quoted. People decide. I agree with that comment. Imperfect people decide based on their collective opinions.

Your argument has just been eviscerated by such... the absolute certainty that the biological design of the human species stands in direct opposition to homo-sexuality...

the absolute certainty that homsoexuality deviates from that biological design and the absolute judgement that homo-sexuality is antithetical to that normality... which provides absolutely that homo-sexuality is AB-FREAKIN'-NORMAL and thus not suitable in being recognized as non-deviant; normal behavior which should be included in the standards which serve to sustain the biological imperative of the human biological design.

See how easy that is?

You are rambling with non sequiturs. Biological design does not stand in direct opposition to homosexuality. They can coexist. Allowing for gay marriage will not halt this biological design. Some homosexuals will not nave babies regardless. There will continue to be heterosexual couples. Life will go on. There will not be that much of an impact on nature or humanity. Anyway, who said that thou must be normal? You are not normal. You must be removed. If everything and everyone had to be perfectly normal, what a dull and small population we would have.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There are absolutes... and nature determines what they are. There are absolute judgments and the individuals who come to conclude them determine what they are...

Nature does not determine asolutes.

False... take yourself to the top of the highest building you can find... place yourself at the edge of the precipice... take one step forward...

You're going to find, immediately, the application of a natural absolute... this the natural absolute certainty, that what goes up... must come down.

If anythng, nature might make recommendations. I like your next sentence that I quoted. People decide. I agree with that comment. Imperfect people decide based on their collective opinions.

Yes, Nature is all about suggestions... for instance, THE HIV is natures 'suggestion' that you keep your penis, out of the rectum of your 'most special friend'... of course you're not obligated to refrain from such, as a result of that suggestion... but Nature is known to impart a slow and agonizing death on those who fail to heed her suggestion.

As is the case with the suggestion that one find another way down from the aforementioned precipice...

Now you may say that you could use a Condom... where you're desire is to avoid heeding nature's suggestion to avoid intercourse with your 'most special friend'... as you might claim that a parachute would suffice to work around nature's suggestion in that regard...

Which would be suitable to those who only want to "REDUCE" the chances of meeting the necessary end of nature's inherent design.

Sadly, reducing the chances of severe consequences is hardly at equity with the solution which avoids the consequences all together...

Your argument has just been eviscerated by such... the absolute certainty that the biological design of the human species stands in direct opposition to homo-sexuality...

the absolute certainty that homsoexuality deviates from that biological design and the absolute judgement that homo-sexuality is antithetical to that normality... which provides absolutely that homo-sexuality is AB-FREAKIN'-NORMAL and thus not suitable in being recognized as non-deviant; normal behavior which should be included in the standards which serve to sustain the biological imperative of the human biological design.

See how easy that is?

You are rambling with non sequiturs.

Am I?

Well lets'see if you sustain this assertion... It's a shame we're not face to face where I would advance a wager requiring you to set $1000 on the table against my $1000 where upon your failure to do so, would result in the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that I would be up a grand in the next 5 minutes...

Biological design does not stand in direct opposition to homosexuality.
They can coexist.

OHhhh... Sadly, the co-existance of antithetical concepts does not negate their antithetical natures....

For instance... UP exist in direct relation to DOWN... Two diametrically oppossing concepts... which co-exist in nature...

But where one is essential to the existance of another inthe case of spacial relevance... such is DECIDEDLY NOT THE CASE with regard to the biological design of the species.

The Human biological design provides that the male join with the female... for the purposes of sustaining the species. This is a biological fact; it's not a subjective opinion which one takes to impart injustice on the lowly homo-sexual...

Thus, the standard created by the biological design; born on the imperative that suchis necessary to sustain the species.

Now where the species is stressed... due for instance to famine or over population, as is the case in most urban population centers where homosexuality is most commonly 'accepted'... reason requires that nature has provided for such... to REDUCE the population... and to do so by stripping from the human herd the least capable specimens. Thus the assertion, by the least capable, that their opposition demands that homosexuality is NOT NATURAL, which is what you're saying here; is decidely FALSE...

Homo-sexuality is decidely a natural function of Nature culling the herd... which is a fairly strong signal from Nature that something is wrong... that changes need to be made, that cultural standards have failed to maintain cultural viability...

Your solution to those signs is to INCREASE THE POLICY WHICH WROUGHT THE CALAMITY... to double down on the cultural failure and NORMALIZE THE NATURAL REACTION TO CULTURAL FAILURES...

I'm guessin' that this is a REALLY bad idea...

Allowing for gay marriage will not halt this biological design.

There's no suggestion by anyone of your opposition, on this thread or any other to the best of my knowledge... thus your assertion of such seems to serve as a straw dog... by which to distract the argument.

Marriage is an instrument wherein the culture ENCOURAGES NORMALITY... it is a cultural vehicle which provides for the sustaining of the biological imperative.

The argument of the advocates to normalize sexual deviancy is in effect that 'marriage is so screwed up right now, with runaway divorce and the rates of infidelity that it really doesn't mean what it used to, so lets just kill it off by completely wiping away any antiquated symbols of long dead religiousity... homop-sexuality can't make it any worse...'

Wherein the symptoms to which this advocacy refers are strong indicators that what is needed is a substantial INCREASE in the standard... yet you're suggestion is to simply kill off the idea of standards, in it's entirety.

Again... I'm guessin' that this is a REALLY bad idea.

Some homosexuals will not nave babies regardless.

ROFL... Some homosexuals will not have babies? So you're not really all that familiar with the concept of 'homosexuality' then...

Here's the thing... homosexuality... precludes procreation... Meaning two homosexuals can engage in coitus until leftism finds reason and they will not conceive a child.

One presumes that you're wanting to imply that because a homosexual is not genetically predisposed to being unable to have sex with a member of the opposite gender... thus engage in NORMAL sexual intercourse, as per the BIOLOGICAL DESIGN... that this somehow takes the heat off of their otherwise staunchly defended ABNORMAITY?

LOL... Hilarious...

There will continue to be heterosexual couples. Life will go on.

Yes... and where someone purs gasoline on themselvs and ignites it, this doesn't preclude the balance of the species who managed to avoid such foolish notions to continue along... that such is the case, does not an argument make that the culture should normalize the folly of pouring gasoline on themselves and igniting it... $

There will not be that much of an impact on nature or humanity.

OH! Looky! An ASSURANCE!... Just like the assurances which were advanced in the 70s which stated that Homo-sexuals would NEVER even THINK about contesting the sanctity of marriage, if the culture 'just tweaked' the standard a litt bit and didn't persecute homosexuals for their 'special cinrcumstances'...

Again... I'm guessin' that lending credence to such assurances is A REALLY FOOLISH IDEA... Historically, they've proven to be something worth vastly less than BULLSHIT.

Anyway, who said that thou must be normal?

Nature said it... if the issue is the biological imperative and the goal is the sustenance of the species...

You are not normal.

False... I'm down the middle NORMAL...

You must be removed.

Well we can rest assured that I will be... as that too is the natural order and serves the biological imperative.

If everything and everyone had to be perfectly normal, what a dull and small population we would have.

What a wonderful non sequitur... and offered to close a position which opened through the lamenting of non sequiturs...

BRILLIANT.

Normality is designed into the species through its biological design... That you need to equate that design to traits of personality, physical means, intellectual means and so on... is a failure in reasoning which does not follow from the perfection which exist in the biological design.

Oh you're ALL OVER IT MATT!

 

[midcan5]

I have to admit to me your writing is too turgid and disjointed and the upper case useless. Do you read out loud what you write? You should.

But if I understand the gist of it you are saying gay marriage is a slippery slope to demonstrable bad consequences? If that is the case don't you think heterosexual marriage also demonstrates bad consequences and more of them? Actually one can probably focus in on sex in all its beauty and craziness as the cause and thus the real culprit behind bad consequences. But since we can't ban sex let's ban heterosexual marriage. Consider how good that would be for so many abused, neglected, or murdered children, and instead allow gays to marry. Since gays can't have children easily, you have reduced pain in the world greatly, and will be seen as a great evangelist for goodness.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have to admit to me your writing is too turgid and disjointed and the upper case useless.

I'm crushed... how shall i ever move on? An imbecile find my writing turgid and lacks an appreciation of emphasis...

Do you read out loud what you write? You should.

Would it help you appreciate my work, if I did? Should I stand on my head and read it upside down? Backwards perhaps...

But if I understand the gist of it you are saying gay marriage is a slippery slope to demonstrable bad consequences?

Declines usually slope and they're often slippery... such is clearly the case of US Cultural standards over the past 40 years... If you're wanting to contest those facts, you're off to a poor start; looks like more a rationalization to continue to normalize deviancy to me, but let's not pre-judge you... as easy as your record makes doing so.

If that is the case don't you think heterosexual marriage also demonstrates bad consequences and more of them?

More of them than what? Marriage only provides for hetreo-sexuality...

With regard to such produces consequences, I don't see how they can be avoided; the certainty is that where those involved hold themselves to high moral standards, the negative consequences are vastly, exponentially fewer than the marriages where the individuals hold themselves to low standards... What's your point?

Are you suggesting that Marriage is already screwed up, so there's no reason not to just destroy the standard and let the homos in? I'd say that it would be hard to drag a sound basis out of that species of reasoning. Given what you've written, I'd say that the solution would be to tighten the standards, not lower them.

Actually one can probably focus in on sex in all its beauty and craziness as the cause and thus the real culprit behind bad consequences. But since we can't ban sex let's ban heterosexual marriage.

Few non sequiturs have hit that level of idiocy...

Consider how good that would be for so many abused, neglected, or murdered children, and instead allow gays to marry. Since gays can't have children easily, you have reduced pain in the world greatly, and will be seen as a great evangelist for goodness.

ROFL... So Marriage is the reason behind abused, neglected and murdered children?

Damn sis, you are one loathesome ignoramous... I mean do you DRIVE? Given the means to reason you demonstrate on this board, you shoudl seriously consider staying off the highway; you're a dumbass of the first order.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. ..."

WOW! I see the problem; you're actually studying disjointed reasoning... and you feel SO strongly about it that you're compelled to cite the idiocy and share it with others... Wherein you actually topped your former discontinuity in less than a paragraph... Few people would subject themselves to such humiliation... BUT NOT YOU! You got NO PRIDE!

Well anywho... The Scriptures reject homosexuality in the strongest terms... it doesn't admonish homosexuals, it tells them straight up that they're an abomination to God and to turn from the practice or face the certainty of death and damnation of eternity in the absence of fellowship with the Father... That there's absolutely no future in the pratice or the life which sustains the practice...

Of course, my argument doesn't speak to the religious tenets... it speaks to the biological farce of the whole thing and the cultural destruction which is certain where abnormality is deceitfully cloaked as normality.

Anything else? Or will this heaping helping of humiliation suffice? FTR: It doesn't matter to me which way ya go... either way serves my purpose.

 

[midcan5]

Would it help you appreciate my work, if I did? Should I stand on my head and read it upside down? Backwards perhaps...

Declines usually slope and they're often slippery... such is clearly the case of US Cultural standards over the past 40 years... If you're wanting to contest those facts, you're off to a poor start; looks like more a rationalization to continue to normalize deviancy to me, but let's not pre-judge you... as easy as your record makes doing so.

This is clearer, was it the standing on your head or the reading backward?

If there is one thing you can be assured of, it will be that someone claims that standards are diminishing. And that may even be true in some areas, my wife and many teachers say students today are lazier and dumber than any time in the past 25 years. I'm not sure and I bet there are many who still care and still work hard. The smart will always do OK.

If gay couples are together today and they are, allowing them equal rights under the Constitution is not going to create a decline of any kind to marriage. Marriage started having problems (?) with the pill, equal rights in the workplace, lifestyle changes, especially the requirement to keep up with the Jones, and societal changes. No longer was marriage required and a bad one could be easily dissolved.

The sexual predators certainly don't look to any marriage right as a green light to perversion, they don't need lights. Your argument doesn't hold, you haven't proven your point. Kids today will change this prohibition, unlike us who grew up in another era, they know and respect gay people.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Would it help you appreciate my work, if I did? Should I stand on my head and read it upside down? Backwards perhaps...

Declines usually slope and they're often slippery... such is clearly the case of US Cultural standards over the past 40 years... If you're wanting to contest those facts, you're off to a poor start; looks like more a rationalization to continue to normalize deviancy to me, but let's not pre-judge you... as easy as your record makes doing so.

This is clearer, was it the standing on your head or the reading backward?

If there is one thing you can be assured of, it will be that someone claims that standards are diminishing. And that may even be true in some areas, my wife and many teachers say students today are lazier and dumber than any time in the past 25 years. I'm not sure and I bet there are many who still care and still work hard. The smart will always do OK.

If gay couples are together today and they are, allowing them equal rights under the Constitution is not going to create a decline of any kind to marriage. Marriage started having problems (?) with the pill, equal rights in the workplace, lifestyle changes, especially the requirement to keep up with the Jones, and societal changes. No longer was marriage required and a bad one could be easily dissolved.

The sexual predators certainly don't look to any marriage right as a green light to perversion, they don't need lights. Your argument doesn't hold, you haven't proven your point. Kids today will change this prohibition, unlike us who grew up in another era, they know and respect gay people.

Homosexuals have every right that anyone else has and are not limited in the exercising of ANY right...

Homosexuals are NOT ENTITLED to ANTHING, by virtue of a RIGHT, to which they are NOT qualified...

They aren't entitled to be Scientists, until they meet the defining traits of a scientist; they aren't ENTITLED to an ADVANCED DEGREE, until they meet the prerequisite qualifications required for such... and they aren't RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED TO BE ACCEPTED FOR MARRIAGE, until they meet the prerequisite requirements of such...

ANY Homosexual can marry ANYONE that they can convince to marry them... as long as the TWO individuals represent the two distinct GENDERS...

They are NOT being prevented from cohabitating, they aren't being prevented from 'loving one another' or from engaging in whatever activity they desire to express their 'love for one another' as long as that expression is limited to the PRIVACY... They aren't prevented from joining to form a legal entity which provides a distinct legal recognition of their singularity...

They are however being prevented from those activities... ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, WHICH ANYONE IS PREVENTED FROM< BY VIRTUE OF THEIR INHERENT DISQUALIFICATION; and where they change their behavior or their 'lifestyle' and CHOOSE to come to Marriage through the required threshold... they are immediately accepted.

Two homosexuals can get married in ANY state in this country, where ONE of the Homosexuals is MALE and the other a FEMALE...

And THAT sis, if what is known as EQUAL APPLICATION UNDER THE LAW. NO ONE be they hetero or homo may marry ANYONE who is of the same GENDER... FOR ANY REASON.

So this notion that homosexuals are being denied some rights... is BASELESS NONSENSE.

Capiche?

 

[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, cultural sustaining principles inherent in the Judeo-Christian values on which America is founded...

Why not let the record reflect what is true?

That is precisely what the record reflects... as noted above.

Saying something is not the same as supporting something... you claim that the "ideological left" (however ill defined) is advocating normalizing deviancy - which is basically adapting the idea of what is normal to be more flexible and inclusive - which is what normal is. 'Normal' includes as much as it needs to, to serve the function of its definition. This is true whether or not you are pro- or anti-gay marriage.

As for 'destroying cultural standards' - that is alarming language which really means 'changing cultural standards'. It becomes 'bad' if you use a pejorative term, and it becomes 'good' if you use different terminology, like 'evolving cultural standards'. Same actions, different use of language. Cultural standards change all the time, for better or worse is in the eye of beholder. I completely agree with you that you are alarmed at this sort of change. As for the ideological left choosing 'to promote the irrational, cultural killing policies of the secular left' that sounds like a mouthful of nonsense. As was your bizarre definition of the 'left'. You put the conclusion at the beginning of your argument sometimes, which leaves it sounding like a rant, as opposed to the argument it should be (I assume your goal is MORE clarity, not less - and that you wish people will understand your meaning and see why it is correct, or at least disagree for logical reasons).

Sure... No problem... and while I'm at it, I'll note that you seem to need to imply through the question that there is no ideological left or that I've misrepresented what ever you 'feel' that it is... and that whatever it is that you feel the ideological left is, that it is not the vessel in which the advocacy for the normalization of sexual deviancy is 'progressed'...

That is quite a lot you read into my question - which was simple and clear, and asking you to clarify who you meant by that term. SO, you mean:

"The ideological left is the cultural vessel which transports the irrational perspective wherein Fairness is erroneously felt to bear equality..."
(I trimmed it down - feel free to correct my interpretation)

Well, that basis of laws is to impose some sort of 'fairness' and 'equality', while not perfect, the point of moving away from 'might makes right' so we can exist in ways that do not always reward power and aggression is not the property of 'the left'.

And, are you to them submit to my definition of 'the ideological right' or are you too complex and layered to have such a label applied to you? If so, are there more than a few shades of the left - or is it one big stupid group?

Thus where the Left comes, it's irrational view of fairness follows right along with it, and the advertised advocacy of FREEDOM, which stands as the left's eternal goal, is soon found to be a ruse; as the soft tyranny of exponentially rising regulation soon passes into the hard tyranny of oppressive control; and such is the only potential result of the advancement of policy which seeks to establish "FAIRNESS"...

You seem to affirm before you support. You have not made any case that this view is irrational, nor have you supported this notion that it is the 'left' who has this eternal goal of freedom. I certainly like freedom, but I also like laws that keep some freedoms in check - perhaps that excludes me from being truly 'left'?

Thus Leftism stands antithetical to the thesis of viable, self sustaining liberty... as it contests the immutable principles and rejects the responsibilities which sustain them; thus it is to be avoided; and where such is not possible, it is to be destroyed, at all cost... as once they establish root, the death of life sustaining liberty is assured.

Not 'thus' at all.
Self-sustaining liberty is at odds with freedom? Can you rephrase that, because it sounds like you're saying the left is too into freedom, and that as freedom lovers, we are "antithetical to the thesis of viable, self sustaining liberty". The rest of your point(?) about leftism needing to be destroyed because it is rejecting responsibilities that sustain liberty sounds like liberty for some, nothing for the rest.

What are the immutable principles of liberty that we are contesting?

First, 'deviancy' is a term of relevance... in this instance, the relevance of the term deviancy is set against the context of sexuality... which is also a term of relevance... which, in this instance, sexuality is set against the biological imperative of the intrinsic biological design of the species...

Deviance is a term of relevance, I agree. I also would say that is a fairly negative way of describing something that is different. And that there are degrees of deviancy, as there degrees of normalcy (if that's a word). Which really are the same thing... much like hot and cold descriptions or short/tall, big/small. As for biological imperatives, we have certain imperatives like eating and drinking, maintaining body temperature that we need to do if we choose to keep on living.... but as for procreating, that is a disussion separate from gay marriage - and more about the mathematics of sustainable populations.

Thus in this context, the compounding of the two words sexual and deviancy rests against that which deviates from that intrinsic design, which establishes the biological imperative. What's more homo-sexuality not only deviates from that biological imperative; it contests it in it's entirety... thus competing against that imperative; further, this competing trait, establishes an abnormal condition, distinct from the normailty sustained by the intrinsic design of the human biology; which provides for the recognition of the aforemention biological imperative and in so doing establishes homo-sexuality as abnormal.

Sort of, I agree... but that is not really a case for or against anything. It is just a description of what is common, and what is less common. We do things all the time that are different than how we're biologically designed - if you are claiming that any deviation is bad, that also is separate from gay marriage or homosexuality, even if those things are included in that large group.

American Cultural Standards, are those standards which sustain the principles on which the concept "America" rests... not the least of which are that 'all men are created equal... that this equity rests upon the endowment, from our Creator, Nature's God; the endowment of life; the life which provides our fundamental right to that life and the right to be free to pursue the fulfillment of that life; that governance is a necessary element of a civil society; that civility comes with and is joined from the responsibilities inherent in those endowed rights... and that part and parcel of the fulfillment of those responsibilities is the vigilant defense of that life and the rights inherent in that life; which includes but is not limited to the defense of the immutable reason that sustains all of it and the defense of that which contests that reasoning... The relevant point here is that this reasoning to which you're adhering, represents such a contest and my efforts represent such a defense.

PI, you are contradicting yourself. You fear these standards are under attack, and then say that these standards include the very things the idiot left promote (paraphrased: "that 'all men are created equal... and the right to be free to pursue the fulfillment of that life").
Freedom and equality... good, bad?

What are these immutable principles that are so under attack?

Most notably that every human being is vested with the same rights... none superior to the next, none inferior to the next... that each of those rights come with sustaining responsibilities to not exercise one's right to the detriment of another's and to defend their neighbors rights with the same totality of commitment that one is tasked with defending their own.

In the sense of sexuality... the immutable principles relate to the biological imperative, born of the biological design which establishes normality...

Hmm... so gay people have the same rights (or they should according to you) as everyone else. Be they 'deviant', 'normal', or anything in between. I am biologically deviant because I cut my hair, and shave and take medicine...

You seem to have an awful lot of fear, and spend an awful lot of time thinking about homosexuals.

LOL... the old tried and blue... "I know you are, but what am I" defense... Always a sure sign of the flaccid characteristics born from an impotent argument...

This is where I'll do you the courtesy of ignoring the balance of your commentary, as such is framed on the presumption that the above posers could not be adequately answered; at least in a way which sustained my argument... and given that such a presumption has been discredited... perhaps you'd like to come at this discussion from another perspective.[/QUOTE]


That is not that at all. I suggested you seem to have a lot of fear (you do use alarming rhetoric about destruction) - not sure how that becomes "I know you are but what am I" in any way. You essentially say my argument is flaccid after making a far more long-winded, and illogical rant. Ironic? Maybe.


But I'll indulge you and come at you with another perspective anyhow!

There is no such things as right and wrong, good or bad - it's all based on personal feelings of what we like and dislike. So, relax!

 

[midcan5]

Homosexuals have every right that anyone else has and are not limited in the exercising of ANY right...

Capiche? , I like that, haven't heard it in years! But you lost in one sentence, a gay couple cannot provide pension benefits to a partner in most companies, marriage is required. Give it up, right are rights and Gay marriage is just another civil right's fight that will eventually change.