A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

[PaintMyHouse]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

But in your defense, as a Relativist of the lowest order, there is NO WAY you could ever understand that.

Don't go with nature, she doesn't believe in the bullshit you do.

No? Huh...

So, you're saying that Nature is a fan of the homosexual?

But.... Paint old man... if that's true, then why is Nature culling the homosexual from the human herd; genetically speaking, of course?

You'd think that if Nature was as you imply, it would be promoting the interests of the homosexual and not presently leading it to its certain destruction... .

Break this down for me, so I can understand what you're saying.

(Reader, best put on your seat belt here... we're may be looking at a series of inexplicable irrational twists and turns. Just get ready, to be on the safe side.)

It isn't culling them. As long as there as heterosexuals there will be homosexuals, that's where they come from, mostly.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And being 'dealt out of the gene pool' defines immorality?

It defines the natural order of selecting the best examples of the breed to promote the likelihood of the survival the species. Could not be more objective, thus more moral.

Nature doesn't have a morality. She simply is. She is amoral.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you don't like a particular part of nature. Then it arbitrarily doesn't define morality.

That's SO true. Natural law is objective... not arbitrary.

You ignoring any part of nature you don't like isn't objective.

No.... and those traits of the lower species are wholly objective... as they serve the interests of the WHOLE.

Nope. That's just another arbitrary label you apply to any portion of nature you don't like. With you applying the absurdly self contradictory mess that nature only tell us natural law if nature agrees with you.

Um, Keys.....you're nobody. Agreement with you defines nothing objectively. Instead, you're using the same old Confirmation Bias fallacy and Cherry Picking fallacy you always do.

No objective valid morality would be based on logical fallacies. Yet your subjective opinion on 'morality' is based on two such fallacies.

No thank you. You've again demonstrated why you citing you is objectively meaningless.

 

[Skylar]

And being 'dealt out of the gene pool' defines immorality?

It defines the natural order of selecting the best examples of the breed to promote the likelihood of the survival the species. Could not be more objective, thus more moral.

But what does that have to do with morality? Again, you're applying arbitrary moral judgments to the productivity of sexual strategies. And that's not objective. That's subjective.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And now we get your arbitrary excuses for why you ignore nature on 'natural law'.

No... what we are getting is you pretending that the argument does not exist and you creating an argument which you prefer exists... the ancient Greeks first observed this and described it as 'reason made from straw', which the Roman thinkers revised as 'standing up straw men'... and is today known as 'the straw man fallacy'.

I've not dismissed anything you've offered regarding 'observation of nature'. Yet you demand that such is true.

This is you presenting: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

And that disorder is OKA: Delusion.

 

[Skylar]

And now we get your arbitrary excuses for why you ignore nature on 'natural law'.

No... what we are getting is you pretending that the argument does not exist and you creating an argument which you prefer exists

Oh, you've definitely ignored nature as defining 'natural law'. You've ignored infanticide, you've ignored the predation of the sick or old, you've ignored homosexual behavior in nature.

You dismiss any of these 'observations of nature' as defining 'natural law'. Why? Because they make you uncomfortable. So you make up all new arbitrary labels and then ignore any observation of nature that doesn't match what you already believe.....based on how you feel.

Your feelings aren't objective evidence. Just like your faith isn't objective. Both begin and end in you. And define nothing objectively.

By any rational standard, if 'observations of nature' defined natural law, then any observation of nature would be as valid as any other. You reject this, insisting that only those 'observations of nature' that agree with you define natural law.

Laughing......that's not how objectivity works.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No.... and those traits of the lower species are wholly objective... as they serve the interests of the WHOLE. You're only capable of looking at it from the perspective of the sick old dog... you feel that it's not fair that it must be consumed by the panther. In truth, it is entirely fair. First, it feeds the panther..., second it removes the dog's suffering, third it relieves by one dog, the stress on the available resources.

Nope. That's just another arbitrary label you apply to any portion of nature you don't like. With you applying the absurdly self contradictory mess that nature only tell us natural law if nature agrees with you.

Does anyone need anything else?

The Relativist is incapable of recognizing the objective distinction between the laws of the lower species, which lack the means of higher reason, thus the purpose for the laws, as they relate to the intellectual means of those creatures and the moral lessons to be learned from the laws that regulate their behavior.

The salient point here, is that neither do the lower species... who have absolutely no means to recognize that their behavior is set upon them from a greater, organized, wholly objective plan which serves to sustain their species. They only know their own needs and the base instincts which they use to provide for those needs.

Not at all distinct from Skylar and her cult... .

Which is the basis for the recognition of such, for what it is: an example of base; or sub-standard humanity; which is to say: Sub-humanity.

At best, they enjoy a station which is barely distinct from: "FOOD".

 

[Dragonlady]

Keys ignores nature and says adopted children aren't loved. Maybe he didn't love his adopted child but children know when they are loved and BOTH of my parents loved me as if I were their own, which of course I am.

The author of the book in the original post complained of the secrets and her father's shame and the effect it had on their lives.

The one thing I have noticed about my gay friends since they have achieved full legal rights in Canada is they are more relaxed, less fearful of being outed, of losing their jobs or their homes if anyone found out.

That can only be better not only for gays but for their children as well.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, you've definitely ignored nature as defining 'natural law'. You've ignored infanticide, you've ignored the predation of the sick or old, you've ignored homosexual behavior in nature.

Did I?

(ROFLMNAO

Reader I told you she'd need to pretend the argument didn't exist...

LOL! I say it HERE and it come out THERE.)

Let's review:

#335

... Infacide exists in nature. Homosexual behavior exists in nature. The predation of the sick, the old, the young exists in nature.

Yes... all those things exist in nature and are all common to the lower species.

Now, within the scope of Humanity, let's examine these lower traits and see if we can find any kinship, by taking them one at a time:

1- Infanticide: In humanity we refer to that as "The Right to Choose".

Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess claims a "RIGHT" to murder the pre-born human life?

And which states that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with rights SO CERTAIN that such are inseparable from one's being, thus contests the notion that such a right is even possible?

What's next? Let's see... OH YES!

2 - Homosexuality...

Hmm... This seems rather obvious, but formalities require we ask: Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promotes Homosexuality, despite such being a presentation of Mental Disorder?

And finally:

3 - The predation of the sick, the old, the young.

Now of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promotes the notion that only the viable are worthy of care, as demonstrated by the routine malfeasance of that OKA: Socialized Medicine?

Which promotes the abuse of programs established to care for the aged, by introducing greater and more egregious authorizations for subsidies to those who must apply through ever declining standards, inherently exhausting the resources of those programs?

Which undermines the standards regarding publicly acceptable thresholds regarding sexual intercourse, rejecting all sense of moral authority relevant to the responsible participation in such, until such time that the parents are living in a committed relationship, in which they intend to raise and care for their YOUNG?

And which recently passed, through illicit means, a series of laws which have now cost HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE, by economic policy which pushed the cost of such beyond their means to sustain such policies?

In my specific case, my health insurance premium is over $700/mo... with deductibles and co-pays that cost another $5000, which for the Asians in the group, is $13,400 EVERY ******* YEAR! Whether I get sick or NOT.

Now, before Healthcare was fixed, my premium was less than $400 month and co-pay and deductibles were less than $2000. Which I felt was outrageous, before I learned otherwise.

Now... of the competition between the Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right, which would you guess promoted THAT BOONDOGGLE MESS that serves a predation upon the young, the sick and the aged?

Don't feel like you need to admit it... as everyone that read it, knew the answer as they were reading it, including YOU... .

(Reader, now... understand, Skylar will now pretend that this argument never happened.

That said, of the two competing sets of ideas and values, which do you find reflects the higher purpose of humanity and which more closely reflects the lower, sub-standard of humanity, OKA: Sub-humanity ?)

 

[Skylar]

No.... and those traits of the lower species are wholly objective... as they serve the interests of the WHOLE. You're only capable of looking at it from the perspective of the sick old dog... you feel that it's not fair that it must be consumed by the panther. In truth, it is entirely fair. First, it feeds the panther..., second it removes the dog's suffering, third it relieves by one dog, the stress on the available resources.

Nope. That's just another arbitrary label you apply to any portion of nature you don't like. With you applying the absurdly self contradictory mess that nature only tell us natural law if nature agrees with you.

Does anyone need anything else?

The Relativist is incapable of recognizing the objective distinction between the laws of the lower species, which lack the means of higher reason, thus the purpose for the laws, as they relate to the intellectual means of those creatures and the moral lessons to be learned from the laws that regulate their behavior.

You ignoring any portion of nature that doesn't match your beliefs isn't 'objective'. Nor does it define 'natural law'. Its just you citing yourself. Again, by any rational standard if 'observations of nature' defined 'natural law', then any observation of nature would be as valid as any other in defining 'natural law'.

Instead, any portion of nature that makes you uncomfortable or conflicts with what you already believe is discarded. With your *feelings* being your criteria of willful ignorance.

That's hopelessly arbitrary. With your 'sub-human' shtick being yet another subjective label you apply, made up by you, that you insist we must accept as 'objective truth'.

Nope. Subjective isn't objective. And you citing your subjective opinion defines no 'objective truth'. No matter what arbitrary labels you make up.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys ignores nature and says adopted children aren't loved.

More straw reasoning... as a means to avoid reality.

Which is to say an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(Reader, do you see the trend?

Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder... and the Advocacy to Normalize Homosexuality is found in Chronic Demonstration of mental disorder.

Anything gettin' through here?)

 

[Skylar]

Oh, you've definitely ignored nature as defining 'natural law'. You've ignored infanticide, you've ignored the predation of the sick or old, you've ignored homosexual behavior in nature.

Did I?

Obviously you did. Unless you're willing to admit that per your own standards infacide, the predation of the sick and old, and homosexual behavior are all part of your conception of 'natural law', as they are all based on the same 'observations of nature' you've insisted define natural law.

But you ignore them all, discarding any of them as defining 'natural law'. Why? Because you've made up yet another arbitrary, subjective label defined by you. In this case 'sub-humanity'. With you insisting that your arbitrary value judgments based on your personal feelings are now 'objective truth'.....because you made up another label.

Its the same shtick every time, Keyes. You offer us your subjective opinion. You label your subjective opinion. You insist your subjective opinion is now 'objective truth' because of the label.

Nope. Its still just you citing you. Which is objectively meaningless.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... Its just you citing yourself. ... [sic]

LOL! I just adore the sweeter Irony.

 

[Skylar]

Keys ignores nature and says adopted children aren't loved.

More straw reasoning... as a means to avoid reality.

Which is to say an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

(Reader, do you see the trend?

Homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder... and the Advocacy to Normalize Homosexuality is found in Chronic Demonstration of mental disorder.

Anything gettin' through here?)

Keyes, you ignore nature all the time. The only part of nature that you recognize as defining 'natural law' are those parts that agree with you.

That's the cherry picking fallacy and the Confirmation Bias fallacy. No objectively valid morality would be based on logical fallacies.

Yet your conception of morality is based on two such fallacies. Thank you for again demonstrating why you citing yourself defines nothing objectively.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow. You're just straight up spamming.

You're a Nazi queer.

 

[bripat9643]

Golly... the Cult doesn't seem to eager to address this... I wonder why?

My guess is that they've had no success in defending their advocacy, and less than usual where Americans are present, and since the OP article destroys the BIG DEVIANT LIE... they'd prefer this thread just sort of fade away.

Not to worry kids, I'll be here for ya.

Address what? You just block spammed 6 times in 4 minutes.....without a single comment. If even you have nothing to say about your spam, why would you expect us to?

Address the Experience of Canadians, who've lost their right to speak freely because of the Relativist Cult, Advocating to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents sexual deviancy, as described by the Author of the Article in the OP Skylar.

You know... the lady who was raised by Homosexuals and who as a result 'knows' homosexuals, thus is qualified to speak on the issue, but who can't say such in Canada, without fear of being treated like a US Baker; which is to say being financially ruined by a violent, intolerant cult.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Golly... the Cult doesn't seem to eager to address this... I wonder why?

My guess is that they've had no success in defending their advocacy, and less than usual where Americans are present, and since the OP article destroys the BIG DEVIANT LIE... they'd prefer this thread just sort of fade away.

Not to worry kids, I'll be here for ya.

Address what? You just block spammed 6 times in 4 minutes.....without a single comment. If even you have nothing to say about your spam, why would you expect us to?

Address the Experience of Canadians, who've lost their right to speak freely because of the Relativist Cult, Advocating to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents sexual deviancy, as described by the Author of the Article in the OP Skylar.

You know... the lady who was raised by Homosexuals and who as a result 'knows' homosexuals, thus is qualified to speak on the issue, but who can't say such in Canada, without fear of being treated like a US Baker; which is to say being financially ruined by a violent, intolerant cult.

Sorry Keys, you've passed the Bripiss test, which means you're a complete moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Ran across this article which conveys what I have been saying about the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality Cult and what we should expect as a consequence of its effect on our culture, from people who have experienced the effects on theirs.

What a load. Same sex marriage has done nothing to our culture but make it kinder. I realise however you prefer society as a feeding frenzy.

Oh! So in Canada, you're advisong the Reader Los of this board that it is legal for one to publicly profess that homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, thus the nornalization of such is tantamount to normalizing mental disorder which is nothing short of cultural suicide...

Huh... Which given that it is illegal in Canada to do so... That would make you a liar.

Proving once again, that if its a Leftist or a Muslim and it is speaking, it's lying.

Please seek out the mental health treatment you so clearly need.

The APA considers being servile, craven and authoritarian to be perfectly well adjusted.

Congratulations! Officially, you're well adjusted!

 

[bripat9643]

Golly... the Cult doesn't seem to eager to address this... I wonder why?

My guess is that they've had no success in defending their advocacy, and less than usual where Americans are present, and since the OP article destroys the BIG DEVIANT LIE... they'd prefer this thread just sort of fade away.

Not to worry kids, I'll be here for ya.

Address what? You just block spammed 6 times in 4 minutes.....without a single comment. If even you have nothing to say about your spam, why would you expect us to?

Address the Experience of Canadians, who've lost their right to speak freely because of the Relativist Cult, Advocating to Normalize the Mental Disorder that presents sexual deviancy, as described by the Author of the Article in the OP Skylar.

You know... the lady who was raised by Homosexuals and who as a result 'knows' homosexuals, thus is qualified to speak on the issue, but who can't say such in Canada, without fear of being treated like a US Baker; which is to say being financially ruined by a violent, intolerant cult.

Sorry Keys, you've passed the Bripiss test, which means you're a complete moron.

Right. Says the guy who gloats about Jews being gassed in Nazi concentration camps.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sorry Keys, you've passed the Bripiss test, which means you're a complete moron.

Well now THAT is BRILLIANT... one can't help but to admire the detail inherent in that profound analysis...

Once again, Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.