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

[PubliusInfinitum]

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...

Which would be such a great point, if there were ANYTHING in this thread which I've asserted and failed to support...

you claim that the "ideological left" (however ill defined) is advocating normalizing deviancy

Huh... Isn't it odd that you've implied a rejection of the definition I provided, DIRECTLY in the wake of your lament for that which is asserted and not supported... without offering ANY support for this implied rejection... Usually when I reject something... say a posted definition, I offer my understanding of the term... and provide a supporting reason... but, fo course, such is the nature of delusion.

LOL... Leftists...

- which is basically adapting the idea of what is normal to be more flexible and inclusive -

Uh huh... which is the basis of my reasoning... that to adapt the inclusion of abnormality into the conceptual basis of NORMALITY... reduces the concept of normality to MEANINGLESS... which is the goal of doing so; which is a function of delusion; which is a function of cognitive deficiency... OKA: A MENTAL DISORDER.

which is what normal is. 'Normal' includes as much as it needs to, to serve the function of its definition.

Normal, in the sense which you're using it is a term of relevance. Normality on the other hand is the objective term which, in the sense which I am using it describes that which sustains the BIOLOGICAL DESIGN; which provides for the BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE; against which Homo-sexuality COMPETES; or contests...

This is true whether or not you are pro- or anti-gay marriage.

It's not 'true'... period.

As for 'destroying cultural standards' - that is alarming language which really means 'changing cultural standards'.

Yes... destroying something would tend to change it... MY you're a real sharpy aren't ya?

It becomes 'bad' if you use a pejorative term, and it becomes 'good' if you use different terminology, like 'evolving cultural standards'.

No, if something is BAD... then it remains bad no matter what term you use to describe it.

For instance, when the left changed the label of the lowly fag to 'gay'... they didn't alter the pathetic sexual deviant, who lacks the means to control their base sexual instincts from engaging in abnormal, deviant behavior... they simply provided a distraction through which the apolitical would not discern the threat.

Nothing changed... except the perception; and contrary to popular belief, perception is NOT reality...

For instance, were you to hop in a plane and fly to 20,000 ft and jump... you'd quickly have the perception that you're flying... because from 4 miles the initial visual interpretation, born from the perspective of that height is that one is barely closing, if at all with the earth; further, one can manipulate ones body to cause one to manuever laterally... thus indusing the ILLUSION of flight...

However at about 12,000 feet, the visual perception begins to change dramatically... and at 5000 ft, the visual perception of the earth is wholly different... until @ 2000 ft, what was a wide WIDE world is now a very close and quickly closing reality, which transforms the perception of flight to 'falling' in the most peremptory of terms...

Homo-sexuals are sexual deviants; their sexuality is ABNORMAL and that wouldn't change if you changed the label from GAY to "PERFECTLY NORMAL NON-DEVIANTS"... the result of which would be that, as is the case with "gay", you simply changed 'perfectly normal, non-deviant' to meaningless...

And sooner or later, after ytou've run out of innocuous little labels and dilluted to langauge to useless... the lowly fag would still be the same abnormal deviant they were back when they were just odd and unusual: QUEERS.

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'.

If that in some way spoke to ANY facet of my point... it wouldn't be an absurd non sequitur.

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?

Post a definition and we'll see... not only will such be entertaining, it will heap yet another dose of humiliation on your sorry ass...

You seem to affirm before you support.

So you feel that an assertion should not be followed with supporting argument... How positively absurd...

LOL... Lefitist...

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 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.

Nonsense... Fairness does not, cannot and never will bear equality... as fairness is subjective; equality OBJECTIVE... You simply choose to strip that from the argument and ya do so for the overt purpose of obtuse obfuscation.

I certainly like freedom, but I also like laws that keep some freedoms in check - perhaps that excludes me from being truly 'left'?

Is that as vague as you can get? If you'd left out the subject noun... there'd be absolutely no means to know WHAT you were pointing towards...

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?

Of course... you're FREE to do as you please... but where you're pleased by activity which usurps the rights of another, you've failed to uphold and maintain the RESPONSIBILITY which sustains your freedom... which is the basis of Western juriprudence.

Can you rephrase that, because it sounds like you're saying the left is too into freedom

Sure... be happy to... The ideological left is the ideology through which the stupid project a political voice... They are ALL ABOUT THE FREEDOM... but have no concept of the responsibilities which sustain such.

Feel better?

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

The immutable principles that human rights are endowed from the Creator; resulting from the endowment of life... and that with every RIGHT come sacred responsibilities to not exercise those rights to the detriment of others to exercise their rights; and that where the RESPONSIBILITY IS CONCEDED, so goes the RIGHT.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFL... providing a pension to one's 'most special friend' is not a right... it's a legal privilege... one which comes to those who are able to meet the standards required by MARRIAGE... Homo-sexuals do not measure up sis...

Now if the homo-sexuals were to Incorporate their Union and through their articles of Incorporation, state common ownership of all assets, then they'd have legal standing to contest any decision wherein someone contested such... as A CORPORATION IS EVERY BIT AS LEGALLY BINDING AS IS MARRIAGE...

Of course it isn't Marriage... it isn't approaching Marriage; it doesn't, nor will it ever provide the legitimacy of Marriage... but IT IS A LEGALLY BINDING INSTITUTION RECOGNIZED BY FEDERAL LAW AND AS SUCH BY EVERY STATE...

And where such is contested, you gals can use the SAME ANGST THAT YOU'RE USING TO TURN THE CULTURE ON IT'S HEAD TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE... to lobby congress to change any law which is interpreted to PREVENT SUCH... with the difference being that it would be FAR EASIER TO DO; AS NO ONE WOULD GIVE A DAMN!

This isn't a complex issue sis... it's just well beyond your intellectual means.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

What is wrong with preserving a tradition? How many midgets have a right to play in the NBA? How come, we don't see one? Please? Marriage is a ceremony bathed in all the holey rigamarole, but in the end, it's all about those happy bouncing babies and a happy Heterosexual couple that made that baby. Some of those kids may end up being gay. Great, congratulations. That is beautiful. And, what's wrong with preserving the species AND a tradition? Besides. Everyone of us STILL has the same rights. Whats next, blind people want the right to drive a motor vehicle?