PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #241
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.