Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No man has a right to marry anyone...
A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.
Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.
Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.
However, you have to prove that the viability of the culture is undermined...and you have not done that.
Nope... that's established bydefault, through the natural tendency of the species to dry right up where homosexuality catches on... add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy... as a rule... those things are not the things which sustain a viable culture.
No man has a right to marry anyone...
A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.
Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.
Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.
However, you have to prove that the viability of the culture is undermined...and you have not done that.
Nope... that's established bydefault, through the natural tendency of the species to dry right up where homosexuality catches on... add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy... as a rule... those things are not the things which sustain a viable culture.
A man has the right to marry a man.
No man has a right to marry anyone...
A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.
Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.
Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.
So you believe the viability of the culture as a whole is more important than the liberty of the individual?
No man has a right to marry anyone...
A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.
Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.
Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.
So you believe the viability of the culture as a whole is more important than the liberty of the individual?
Oh my... the power of your intellect is just too much for me...
ROFL... Oh I'm sorry sis... I can't even pretend to lend credence to this inane farce.
I was tempted to play along with the lil 'collectivist' trap... but it's just too damn tired and much more wear and it might just give out and its so entertaining, that it's not worth the risk.
Liberty is ONLY POSSIBLE, and can only be assured through the diligent maintenance of the RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in one's INDIVIDUAL rights. Where each individual tends to their responsibilities to not infringe upon the rights of another, the collective remains free. There is no right to undermine one's culture and the culture of their neighbor, through the advocacy of and engaging in those behaviors which usurp the means of another to exercise their rights; such as the right to live in a viable, sustainable culture.
Where on advocates for the normalization of sexual abnormality, one subjects the culture to ever lowering depths of behavior... no up side to that Sis.
<bullshit clipped out>No man has a right to marry anyone...
A valid right is that which where such is exercised that such does not usurp the rights of another.
Where such undermines the viability of the culture, such is rendered morally unjustifiable and as such is not a right of any kind.
Its not a complex issue sis... its just one which falls beyond your means to comprehend.
So you believe the viability of the culture as a whole is more important than the liberty of the individual?
Liberty is ONLY POSSIBLE, and can only be assured through the diligent maintenance of the RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in one's INDIVIDUAL rights. Where each individual tends to their responsibilities to not infringe upon the rights of another, the collective remains free. There is no right to undermine one's culture and the culture of their neighbor, through the advocacy of and engaging in those behaviors which usurp the means of another to exercise their rights; such as the right to live in a viable, sustainable culture.
<bullshit clipped out>So you believe the viability of the culture as a whole is more important than the liberty of the individual?
Liberty is ONLY POSSIBLE, and can only be assured through the diligent maintenance of the RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in one's INDIVIDUAL rights. Where each individual tends to their responsibilities to not infringe upon the rights of another, the collective remains free. There is no right to undermine one's culture and the culture of their neighbor, through the advocacy of and engaging in those behaviors which usurp the means of another to exercise their rights; such as the right to live in a viable, sustainable culture.
How does a man marrying a man usurp the means of a heterosexual neighbor from exercising their rights? I fail to see the connection.
Essentially, you are saying that society cannot infringe on an individual's rights, unless the society decides to infringe on an individual's rights.
I have the right to not own a gun. I come from a gun-free culture. If my neighbor shoots target practice in his yard, he is undermining my culture and my right to live a gun free life. Yet he is still allowed the right to keep the gun.
However, you have to prove that the viability of the culture is undermined...and you have not done that.
Nope... that's established bydefault, through the natural tendency of the species to dry right up where homosexuality catches on... add to that the promotion of debauchery, hedonism and general degeneracy... as a rule... those things are not the things which sustain a viable culture.
Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...
There is nothing preventing a man, who is married to another man, from reproducing with a woman.
In addition, you are mixing up the concept of species with culture. If you were concerned with a species "drying up", you would not allow heterosexual marriages where the couple decides to not have children.
And do you agree with me, that its hysterical how one ideology can advocate for sexual anarchy in one breath and lament the direct result of that idiocy in the same breath?
..
<bullshit clipped out>
Liberty is ONLY POSSIBLE, and can only be assured through the diligent maintenance of the RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in one's INDIVIDUAL rights. Where each individual tends to their responsibilities to not infringe upon the rights of another, the collective remains free. There is no right to undermine one's culture and the culture of their neighbor, through the advocacy of and engaging in those behaviors which usurp the means of another to exercise their rights; such as the right to live in a viable, sustainable culture.
How does a man marrying a man usurp the means of a heterosexual neighbor from exercising their rights? I fail to see the connection.
Essentially, you are saying that society cannot infringe on an individual's rights, unless the society decides to infringe on an individual's rights.
I have the right to not own a gun. I come from a gun-free culture. If my neighbor shoots target practice in his yard, he is undermining my culture and my right to live a gun free life. Yet he is still allowed the right to keep the gun.
I know what his bullshit sounds like!
How does a man marrying a man usurp the means of a heterosexual neighbor from exercising their rights? I fail to see the connection.
Essentially, you are saying that society cannot infringe on an individual's rights, unless the society decides to infringe on an individual's rights.
I have the right to not own a gun. I come from a gun-free culture. If my neighbor shoots target practice in his yard, he is undermining my culture and my right to live a gun free life. Yet he is still allowed the right to keep the gun.
I know what his bullshit sounds like!
ROFLMNAO... isn't the precious?
It's a collectivist coming to project collectivism through the referencing of a collectivist icon... upon one who unapologetically opposses collectivism...
LOL... Animal farm...
HYSTERICAL! (and in at least two concepts; and on several levels...)
Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...
Yeah man, I hear ya... just hetero-sexual vaginal intercourse and conception are mutually exclusive. All ya need to get there is reject any premise which recognizes the moral imperative.
In fact, if you wanted the species to proliferate, you would not allow monogamy.
BTW... would you do my a favor and PM me, when you find yourself lamenting the perils of overpopulation? I'd like to chime in with my thoughts on the moral imperative, sustainable principles, monogomous marital relationships... and how such promotes regulatory growth...
I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...
Where does this right to property come from?
And do you agree with me, that its hysterical how one ideology can advocate for sexual anarchy in one breath and lament the direct result of that idiocy in the same breath?
..
Can you spell that out for me? Just want to double check what you are saying....
A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.
You have no rights.
Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.
You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.
I know what his bullshit sounds like!
ROFLMNAO... isn't the precious?
It's a collectivist coming to project collectivism through the referencing of a collectivist icon... upon one who unapologetically opposses collectivism...
LOL... Animal farm...
HYSTERICAL! (and in at least two concepts; and on several levels...)
I thought it was funny too. But there's no way you'll ever get the joke.
And do you agree with me, that its hysterical how one ideology can advocate for sexual anarchy in one breath and lament the direct result of that idiocy in the same breath?
..
Can you spell that out for me? Just want to double check what you are saying....
Well there is a limit to the level which some issues can be stupified... but I'll try.
Would you agree that where one advocates for the lifting of restrictions on those things which are highly sought, that the certainty is that the highly sought thing will come to be engaged in at excellerated levels?
Meaning, for instance, that if people want a product... but there are restrictions which make it difficult to get that product, that the restrictions regulate how many people get that product...
Now the restriction might be the natural availability... which of course drives up the price, which limits the people who will get that product to those with the means to purchase it...
Well, Sexual gratification is a fairly coveted 'thing'... and cultural mores, taboo, standards... morals... call it whatever ya prefer... but THOSE are the ONLY things which stand between people and this highly coveted 'thing...'
With me so far? I mean, there's two genders... sexual gratification is already promoted through biology... the lion's share of the species has the means... so... REALLY... the only thing between 'sexual anarchy' or a sexual free-for-all, are the cultural standards of morality that generate the mores by which each individual is expected to respect in terms of behavior.
Now with that said... of the two fundamental ideologies... that of the Right... and the Wrong... oka: the Left; would you not agree that it is the ideological left which advocates that the culture should disregard those standards... that contest the moral standards which otherwise limits people getting there 'thing' on?
And would you also not agree that it is the same ideological left which spends so much of it's energy lamenting the 'exploding human population'.... the dimenishing rescources and all of that which is so very predictably, part and parcel of a policy which sets aside ANY personal responsibility for any damn thing...
Add to that the unintended consequences of projecting a right to murder those you conceive... which leads to the undermining of the perceived value of human life... which can only lead to the natural, unavoidable mayhem... where all those people simply come to a point where they can no longer stand the stink of one another and begin to wage war on each other... which leads to the further irony, wherein the SAME ideology claims to detest all forms of violence... despite everything they propose leading with no alternative, directly to the most viscious form of it.
Now is that simple enough for ya?
You have no rights.
Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.
You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.
And do you agree with me, that its hysterical how one ideology can advocate for sexual anarchy in one breath and lament the direct result of that idiocy in the same breath?
..
Can you spell that out for me? Just want to double check what you are saying....
Well there is a limit to the level which some issues can be stupified... but I'll try.
Would you agree that where one advocates for the lifting of restrictions on those things which are highly sought, that the certainty is that the highly sought thing will come to be engaged in at excellerated levels?
Meaning, for instance, that if people want a product... but there are restrictions which make it difficult to get that product, that the restrictions regulate how many people get that product...
Now the restriction might be the natural availability... which of course drives up the price, which limits the people who will get that product to those with the means to purchase it...
Well, Sexual gratification is a fairly coveted 'thing'... and cultural mores, taboo, standards... morals... call it whatever ya prefer... but THOSE are the ONLY things which stand between people and this highly coveted 'thing...'
With me so far? I mean, there's two genders... sexual gratification is already promoted through biology... the lion's share of the species has the means... so... REALLY... the only thing between 'sexual anarchy' or a sexual free-for-all, are the cultural standards of morality that generate the mores by which each individual is expected to respect in terms of behavior.
You have no rights.
Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.
You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.
This ^
Not sure if this has been posted yet, the point of the video is a bit in:
4:00 and beyond
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E]YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin[/ame]
Note the question got sidestepped in lieu arguing over whether someone has a right to a license.Most often, property is the end product of applying your life's energy to available resources.I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...
Where does this right to property come from?
If you don't freely offer them for sale, in what way does another have claim to the products of your efforts?
HELLOoooooooooo HUMANISTS!
Dude's asked a question... I couldn't help but to notice that no one wanted to answer it.
Now I wonder what the sudden reticence stems from, given the bold certainty that you idiots were so eager to trot out regarding your feelings on what rights ARE.
Of course the question is rhetorical, as Humanist ARE NEVER ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, where they want to hide their anti-American 'feelings'.
