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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

It works as well in person as it does here.

The only difference is that face to face, this discussion would have resulted in a homo-riot.

Which is about the funniest dam' thing you've ever seen. You have GOT to try it. It is hysterical...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that's hysterical. luckily normal people know that rightwing "think tanks" generally distort reality.

So ... What is the reality that the article distort Jillian?

I couldn't help but to notice that where you had the opportunity to state the specifics you opted not to do so and lean upon the vacuous implication, instead.

 

[HappyJoy]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

It works as well in person as it does here.

The only difference is that face to face, this discussion would have resulted in a homo-riot.

Which is about the funniest dam' thing you've ever seen. You have GOT to try it. It is hysterical...

Oh, please, tell this imaginary person how you tried gay rioting. (and whatever you personally mean by that...go for it)

 

[HappyJoy]

that's hysterical. luckily normal people know that rightwing "think tanks" generally distort reality.

So ... What is the reality that the article distort Jillian?

I couldn't help but to notice that where you had the opportunity to state the specifics you opted not to do so and lean upon the vacuous implication, instead.

Distorts reality as though the author shares a majority opinion for kids who have gay parents.

 

[jillian]

that's hysterical. luckily normal people know that rightwing "think tanks" generally distort reality.

So ... What is the reality that the article distort Jillian?

I couldn't help but to notice that where you had the opportunity to state the specifics you opted not to do so and lean upon the vacuous implication, instead.

the point, my dear, is that your source's opinion isn't reality. it is rightwing OPINION.

We all know what righwing opinions are worth.

as to the specifics... no. i'm not going to validate bigotry. who consenting adults marry isn't your business.

and once again, if you wish to limit someone else's rights, it is incumbent on you to show that yours are somehow violated by their rights being enforced. other than bigoted ignorant rants against gay marriage I haven't seen anything indicating what is diminished by their rights being enforced.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

is that what the voices in your head are telling you that was?

no rightwingnut has ever shown what aspect of marriage is "eroded" by marriage equality.

if you don't want to get "gay married" don't. and please leave other people alone.

thanks.

No?

LOL!

What color is the sky in your world? Maybe if you can describe it, we can find you.

In REALITY... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

This the consequence of design intrinsic in human physiology, wherein nature provided two distinct but complimenting genders, each respectively designed both physically and emotionally with the other; wherein two bodies are joined into one sustainable body.

There is nothing about the attempt to qualify homosexuals for entry into marriage that does not erode marriage... As marriage is about nothing except the standards that define it. And such requires the standards be erased. And erasing is pretty much all erosion is.

As most of your fellow cultist have already indicated... All that needs to happen to qualify homosexuals is marrige to be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which again... Is fairly erosive.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

that's hysterical. luckily normal people know that rightwing "think tanks" generally distort reality.

So ... What is the reality that the article distort Jillian?

I couldn't help but to notice that where you had the opportunity to state the specifics you opted not to do so and lean upon the vacuous implication, instead.

the point, my dear, is that your source's opinion isn't reality.

Yeah that's the second time you've wished that...

What I asked fo wasn't you to double down on what you wish reality was... I challenged you to cute reality... .

Which you clearly recognized was a trap... Wherein once you trotted out what you wish reality was again... I would just set reality next to it and laugh and laugh at you... Belittling you for the head case that you are.

Now once again... Define reality and show in specific terms where the article in the OP misrepresents such... Or concede by default for your three failures to do so.

 

[HappyJoy]

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

is that what the voices in your head are telling you that was?

no rightwingnut has ever shown what aspect of marriage is "eroded" by marriage equality.

if you don't want to get "gay married" don't. and please leave other people alone.

thanks.

No?

LOL!

What color is the sky in your world? Maybe if you can describe it, we can find you.

In REALITY... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

This the consequence of design intrinsic in human physiology, wherein nature provided two distinct but complimenting genders, each respectively designed both physically and emotionally with the other; wherein two bodies are joined into one sustainable body.

There is nothing about the attempt to qualify homosexuals for entry into marriage that does not erode marriage... As marriage is about nothing except the standards that define it. And such requires the standards be erased. And erasing is pretty much all erosion is.

As most of your fellow cultist have already indicated... All that needs to happen to qualify homosexuals is marrige to be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which again... Is fairly erosive.

See how that works?

In other words, gay marriage is a thing, it's legal and hasn't hurt anybody else's marriage. You personal definition doesn't matter.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

<----that

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

is that what the voices in your head are telling you that was?

no rightwingnut has ever shown what aspect of marriage is "eroded" by marriage equality.

if you don't want to get "gay married" don't. and please leave other people alone.

thanks.

No?

LOL!

What color is the sky in your world? Maybe if you can describe it, we can find you.

In REALITY... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

This the consequence of design intrinsic in human physiology, wherein nature provided two distinct but complimenting genders, each respectively designed both physically and emotionally with the other; wherein two bodies are joined into one sustainable body.

There is nothing about the attempt to qualify homosexuals for entry into marriage that does not erode marriage... As marriage is about nothing except the standards that define it. And such requires the standards be erased. And erasing is pretty much all erosion is.

As most of your fellow cultist have already indicated... All that needs to happen to qualify homosexuals is marrige to be rendered MEANINGLESS.

Which again... Is fairly erosive.

See how that works?

In other words, gay marriage is a thing, it's legal and hasn't hurt anybody else's marriage. You personal definition doesn't matter.

(Reader, do you see what stands as 'Reality' for the Cult seeking to normalize sexual deviancy?

The Reality of that cult is the same alas it is for every cult. Their Reality is pretense... The deceit that they conjure in their imaginations.

The above post is a classic demonstration of just that, wherein the cultist comes to state what it feels is real... By stating what it read ... Which has absolutely no kinship with that was actually said.

It's suffuering delusion ....

Now... Reader ... Ask yourself, what are the potential
Upsides to allowing the delusional to speak publicly?

Now withy that in mind, what are the downsides?)

 

[Lilah]

No you idiot. I'm saying simply because a book is written does mean the author as any additional standing.

(Reader, do you see the trend? The above, would-be 'Contributor'; in order to oppose the published opinion of the author, who comes to convey her experiences within the homosexual movement; wherein she describes the movement as totalitarian, intending to prevent all form of public dissent, comes to project that this woman is "HITLER".

Now... does such a projection promote an environment of open and honest debate on the issue, or... does the projection tend to discourage debate?

If you had similar experiences and wanted to convey them publicly, would such discourse encourage you or discourage you?

Now, what did the author say of these people? Did she say that they intend to discourage debate?

She did, didn't she? So... well, you see how that works, )

Dig the narrative. Trust me, it doesn't make you look crazy at all and describing gay marriage as totalitarian....that is spot on, keep going there.

And yeah, nobody called the lady Hitler, you have a severe reading comprehension problem.

Please... You're embarassing yourself.

If that makes you feel better, please...go on.

Your position is consistently deceitful. It's a fraudulent attempt to influence the ignorant and a tactic typical of Relativism.

I know what the deceit is, you know what the deceit is... I know what you intended and you know what you intended... And the Reader knows as well.

So what, pray tell would be left to say on this?

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.
When will you ever learn?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

 

[Skylar]

Again... The Relativist is asked to define reality in terms of its own public profession and for a half an hour, it can't find the means to do so

You call anyone who won't accept your personal opinion as irrefutable universal truth a 'relativist'. You've kinda Chicken Little'd the term.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again... The Relativist is asked to define reality in terms of its own public profession and now, for well over an hour, it can't find the means to do so.

Now look at the definition and you ask yourself if it fits these creatures:

"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."

Post after post, they come to simply revise reality... demanding that things which were not said, were said, that circumstances that did NOT happen HAVE HAPPED and circumstances that ARE HAPPENING ... ARE NOT.

This is the mental disorder that presents in some as Sexual Deviancy... in others it presents as a severe obsession with entitlement to those things which they have not earned, the demand that because others have 'things', that those people having those things prevents others; such as themselves from having them.

They're sick, demented and dangerous... and they're running most of Europe, all of Canada and the United States... and they're doing everything in their considerable power to alter the NUCLEUS OF OUR CIVILIZATION; Marriage... and their intention is to render the core of civilization meaningless.

Now Reader, you ask yourself, "What are the potential upsides to THAT?"

 

[Skylar]

Again... The Relativist is asked to define reality in terms of its own public profession and now, for well over an hour, it can't find the means to do so.

Now look at the definition and you ask yourself if it fits these creatures:

"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."

Rejecting your subjective personal opinion as 'objective truth' isn't delusional. Quite the opposite. As subjective isn't objective. As you citing you defines nothing objectively.

Do you have anything beyond you inventing random Appeal to Authority fallacies?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

It works as well in person as it does here.

The only difference is that face to face, this discussion would have resulted in a homo-riot.

Which is about the funniest dam' thing you've ever seen. You have GOT to try it. It is hysterical...

Yes--pointing at you and laughing is VERY easy!

 

[Lilah]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

Really?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

Really?

Once again... The Relativist is incapable of answering the question, which to remind you was simply to define the basis on which it's would-be point was resting... OKA: Reality.

Yet ANOTHER clue... provided in evidence of the mental disorder common to that cult.

 

[Lilah]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

Really?

Once again... The Relativist is incapable of answering the question, which was for it to simply define the basis on which it's would-be point was resting... OKA: Reality.

Yet ANOTHER clue... provided in evidence of the mental disorder common to that cult.

Read carefully your posting, and if you possess an ounce of intelligence, you will discover your answer, which by the way, I've already given you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

Really?

Once again... The Relativist is incapable of answering the question, which was for it to simply define the basis on which it's would-be point was resting... OKA: Reality.

Yet ANOTHER clue... provided in evidence of the mental disorder common to that cult.

Read carefully your posting, and if you possess an ounce of intelligence, you will discover your answer, which by the way, I've already given you.

Now Reader, you may be asking yourself: "How many times does one need to demonstrate their delusion, before they become aware of it?"

And it's understandable that you would... but in the question, you demonstrate the most common misnomer about the mental disorder at issue.

Delusion means that they cannot be aware of it. Because friends... they're deluded.

See the problem?

They look like you and I... they drive cars, own homes, pay bills... just like you and I. But they live in a sense of reality which stands apart from ... reality.

They're nuckin' futs.

 

[Skylar]

If as you say, everyone knows what the deceit is, and you are definitely ignorant, you've just dispelled your hypothesis.

How so?

Really?

Once again... The Relativist is incapable of answering the question, which was for it to simply define the basis on which it's would-be point was resting... OKA: Reality.

Yet ANOTHER clue... provided in evidence of the mental disorder common to that cult.

Read carefully your posting, and if you possess an ounce of intelligence, you will discover your answer, which by the way, I've already given you.

Now Reader, you may be asking yourself: "How many times does one need to demonstrate their delusion, before they become aware of it?"

And it's understandable that you would... but in the question, you demonstrate the most common misnomer about the mental disorder at issue.

Delusion means that they cannot be aware of it. Because friends... they're deluded.

See the problem?

They look like you and I... they drive cars, own homes, pay bills... just like you and I. But they live in a reality apart from ... reality.

They're nuckin' futs.

Deluded according to who? You citing you. And you citing yourself isn't reality.

Remember, Keyes.....your personal opinion establishes nothing objectively. And you arbitrarily labeling anyone who rejects your personal opinoins as 'delusional' is just lazy debate.