An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

Huh... So the issue here is 'is Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder;

That is your uneducated and untrained opinion.

Which is your opinion. And it sure seems like you're trying to say that opinion has no kinship with fact.

Oh my... now that IS quite the pickle ya have there.

I mean, there you are implying what you clearly want the reader to believe is a fact, despite you own implication that opinion cannot be fact.

Oh well... such is the nature of deviant reasoning.

In truth, medical science has established that Homosexuality not only deviates from the human physiological norm, but it deviates as far FROM the human standard as is humanly possible.

Such is not even a debatable point... I mean, let's be honest, it doesn't actually take a medical professional to know that inees aren't well suited for sex with other inees... with the same being true with outees and in terms of the broad picture, the biological imperative is certainly not served by such behavior... and in terms of just simple common sense (normal, sound reasoning), the joining of two members of the same gender, is pointless... beyond friendship and companionship.

And no one of reason has a problem with friendship... it's the most natural thing imaginable... yet you people have managed to even **** that up.

Now, I ask ya... and be honest: what else BESIDES the disordered mind could turn simple friendship into a hostile point of cultural contention?

Now, did ya need anything else? Because if ya do, I want ya to know that I'm here for ya... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More accurately, I don't see ...

So to contest the assertion that you're a relativist; which is to say you're a person which operates upon reasoning which serves PURELY YOU OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... your response is to double down on the things that are important to YOU!??

ROFLMNAO! Oh that's BRILLIANT!

(Reader, I do the best I can to advocate for the truth. But WHAT could I have done to better prove the point? Honestly, this one belongs to the opposition, as I could NOT have proved this point without it.

Again... the key to defeating Leftist in debate rest upon two essential elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get it to speak.)

 

[Skylar]

Such is not even a debatable point... I mean, let's be honest, it doesn't actually take a medical professional to know that inees aren't well suited for sex with other inees... with the same being true with outees and in terms of the broad picture, the biological imperative is certainly not served by such behavior... and in terms of just simple common sense (normal, sound reasoning), the joining of two members of the same gender, is pointless... beyond friendship and companionship.

You're always so considerate in highlighting exactly where you know your argument is weakest by prefacing the bullshit to follow with 'such is not even a debatable point'. And then followed by your go-to fallacy, the predictable 'Appeal to Authority'. This time with you pretending you speak for medical science.

The worst thing that can be said of homosexual sex from a scientific perspective is that it doesn't produce children. That's it. All your babble about how gays are 'abhorred' and 'despised' and 'loathed', all your jabbering about how they may all have to be killed....that's just you. Citing you.

And you don't know what you're talking about. All you can do is express your subjective, relativistic personal opinion....which you amusingly insist is infallible truth.

Alas, we're not stripping any gay or lesbian or any right because of your personal opinion. Get used to the idea.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

I live in San Francisco- we have several parades a year- including a Gay Pride Parade, a Carnaval Parade and the Chinese News Parade.

All use the same process to apply for- and get a permit for a parade.

And none of the parades are either right or wrong- they are parades of people celebrating.

POINT MISSED!​

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, I don't see ...

So to contest the assertion that you're a relativist; which is to say you're a person which operates upon reasoning which serves PURELY YOU OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... your response is to double down on the things that are important to YOU!??

You seem confused. The assertion that I'm contesting is that your personal opinion is 'objective truth'. Personal opinions aren't objective....but subjective. And your processes are far too inconsistent to ever produce truth. Let me demonstrate:

You insist that from observing nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when presented with predation of the sick, the old or the young......something very common in nature......you ignore it entirely, refusing to incorporate it into your conception of 'natural law', as it doesn't match what you already believe. As you do any part of nature you don't like. You cite nature if you agree with it. And ignore it if it doesn't.

That's just a run of the mill Confirmation Bias fallacy. A classic blunder of logic. And a demonstration of the uselessly inconsistent processes you use. Where your sole criteria for credibility is that something agree with what you already believe.

Your logical fallacies aren't 'sound reasoning'. And your conclusions are based on those fallacies. Rendering them dubious at best. And meaningless clap trap at worst.

So beyond Appeal to Authority and Confirmation Bias fallacies.....what else have you got?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Such is not even a debatable point... I mean, let's be honest, it doesn't actually take a medical professional to know that inees aren't well suited for sex with other inees... with the same being true with outees and in terms of the broad picture, the biological imperative is certainly not served by such behavior... and in terms of just simple common sense (normal, sound reasoning), the joining of two members of the same gender, is pointless... beyond friendship and companionship.

You're always so considerate in highlighting exactly where you know your argument is weakest by prefacing the bullshit to follow with 'such is not even a debatable point'

.

Oh that's fascinating... No doubt that we're on the precipice of witnessing a plausible debate of that undebatable point. Let's see if we can spot it!

And then followed by your go-to fallacy, the predictable 'Appeal to Authority'. This time with you pretending you speak for medical science.

Nope... nothing plausible there. Surely it will be in the next paragraph! (FINGERS CROSSED!)

The worst thing that can be said of homosexual sex from a scientific perspective is that it doesn't produce children. That's it. All your babble about how gays are 'abhorred' and 'despised' and 'loathed', all your jabbering about how they may all have to be killed....that's just you. Citing you.

Huh... Nothing plausible there either. GOTTA BE IN THE CLOSER! Lets see if it is....

And you don't know what you're talking about. All you can do is express your subjective, relativistic personal opinion....which you amusingly insist is infallible truth.

Alas, we're not stripping any gay or lesbian or any right because of your personal opinion. Get used to the idea.

WOW~ So as expected, the point, truly is NOT debatable. Go figure, right?

Yes, reader... it IS as much of a blast being right ALL of the time, as it looks like it is.


.

.

.

OH! Almost forgot!


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More accurately, I don't see ...

So to contest the assertion that you're a relativist; which is to say you're a person which operates upon reasoning which serves PURELY YOU OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... your response is to double down on the things that are important to YOU!??

You seem confused. The assertion that I'm contesting ...

YOU... that's all that matters. Gotcha. You've made that clear.

Ya just need to understand that THAT is what Relativism IS. That's all I'm saying. And that Relativism is not a sustainable species of reasoning... thus it shouldn't be tolerated by culture's wherein the goal is VIABILITY!

 

[Skylar]

WOW~ So as expected, the point, truly is NOT debatable. Go figure, right?

Yes, reader... it IS as much of a blast being right ALL of the time, as it looks like it is.

So instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your reasoning, your pointless blunder of using fallacies of logic by pretending that you speak for 'medical science', your absurd presentation of your personal opinion as 'undebatable'...

......you run.

You're nothing if not predictable. And remain consistently irrelevant....as we're still not stripping gays or lesbians of any rights based on your personal opinion.

.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing....your tell already? Can I take it from your rout and bizarre declaration of victory that this topic isn't working for you?

You're really not very good at this, Keyes.

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, I don't see ...

So to contest the assertion that you're a relativist; which is to say you're a person which operates upon reasoning which serves PURELY YOU OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS... your response is to double down on the things that are important to YOU!??

You seem confused. The assertion that I'm contesting ...

YOU... that's all that matters. Gotcha. You've made that clear.

Ya just need to understand that THAT is what Relativism IS. That's all I'm saying. And that Relativism is not a sustainable species of reasoning... thus it shouldn't be tolerated by culture's wherein the goal is VIABILITY!

Says the poor hapless soul that couldn't even follow what was being discussed. Sorry, Keyes....but your subjective opinion isn't objective fact. Subjective is not objective, no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. And your processes are uselessly inconsistent. Where you claim to speak for nature....until you ignore nature. Where you claim to speak for the god....until you ignore anything 'god' said that you don't like.

Your only authority...is you. And you aren't nearly enough, my little relativist.

So what else have you got?

 

[beagle9]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

Neither of the times I went to Pride were there any gay sex in the parade. They keep that private.

As for keeping their sexual orientation a secret, no one is obligated to do that.

No but it's as close as one can get without actually having sex in the street from what silhouette said isn't it? It's also being raunchy in front of children isn't it? Some things are just hard to defend, but people these day's will try to defend anything just about won't they?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

HUH!

Ya know... I 'believe' such parades ARE public.

Of course, the problem there is that such is just my opinion... and well, yours... . And according to the gospel according to perverse reasoning, because it is our opinion and we're in the perceived minority, this has no bearing on the reality that exists within the fantasy that such is purely a private matter.

Such is the nature of delusion... it rests upon deception. Just as such is the nature of evil. And only evil would promote the idea that those who celebrate deviancy through chronic dupery, demanding sweeping changes to public policy while demanding that such is a private matter.

You've yet to cite one specific harm to society that legalizing same sex marriage causes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

Neither of the times I went to Pride were there any gay sex in the parade. They keep that private.

As for keeping their sexual orientation a secret, no one is obligated to do that.

No but it's as close as one can get without actually having sex in the street from what silhouette said isn't it? It's also being raunchy in front of children isn't it? Some things are just hard to defend, but people these day's will try to defend anything just about won't they?

Are the Mardi Gras parades gay only? No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

So... the sexually abnormal polygamists, lost in court?

Do TELL!

So you're saying that the US Federal Court has held that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One woman?

FASCINATING!

I wonder how that hasn't come up already? Seems like where the issue is OBJECTIVE RULES RELATING TO THE GOVERNANCE OF EVERYONE: EQUALLY... which is to say "LAW", that judicial conclusions regarding the COURTS DEFINING MARRIAGE TO PRECLUDE MORE THAN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, would have come up in a discussion whether TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN can 'BE MARRIED!'.

Surely... some one will look into that one.

The Mormons lost a religious argument. Polygamy is not abnormal; polygamy is historically a common form of marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with faith. We have the right to get married and religion has nothing to do with that.

It has plenty to do with it. Your 'right to marry' does in no way trump our religious freedom. Get that that thick head of yours. Refusing you service at a floral shop, a bakery, a photography studio or whatever else, does not stop you from marrying. Simply take your business elsewhere.

The courts are erroneously stating that the 14th Amendment only protects you in this matter. What about us? Why doesn't it apply to the religious as well? Oh well.

Why did the Mormons lose in court on the polygamy issue? Polygamy is/was integral to their religious beliefs.

Why didn't their religious belief trump those who opposed it?

So... the sexually abnormal polygamists, lost in court?

Do TELL!

So you're saying that the US Federal Court has held that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One woman?

FASCINATING!

I wonder how that hasn't come up already? Seems like where the issue is OBJECTIVE RULES RELATING TO THE GOVERNANCE OF EVERYONE: EQUALLY... which is to say "LAW", that judicial conclusions regarding the COURTS DEFINING MARRIAGE TO PRECLUDE MORE THAN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, would have come up in a discussion whether TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN can 'BE MARRIED!'.

Surely... some one will look into that one.

You're gettting a bit frantic. Calm down. Getting totally demolished in a debate isn't the end of world.

Now that you've conceded that our government can deny the right to religious practices, prove that polygamy is sexually abnormal.

 

[beagle9]

Hello Emily,

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

Neither of the times I went to Pride were there any gay sex in the parade. They keep that private.

As for keeping their sexual orientation a secret, no one is obligated to do that.

No but it's as close as one can get without actually having sex in the street from what silhouette said isn't it? It's also being raunchy in front of children isn't it? Some things are just hard to defend, but people these day's will try to defend anything just about won't they?

Are the Mardi Gras parades gay only? No.

There decadent and sinful in nature for the most part, but for some reason it appeals to a wilder side of the human being in which has that side pulling at them due to their exposures in life I guess. I have never been to something like that, but I've heard the stories. What people don't want, is for something like that to become more normalized all over the place (otherwise to spread like a wildfire), where as it begins to challenge the otherwise more suttle and much more better enviroment to raise the children in. Exposures to many things as is studied over time, can have adverse affects on the children's way of thinking and/or looking at life. This is where many people draw their lines in the sand on seeing many things expanding rapidly into the worlds in which they and their children reside in mostly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WOW~ So as expected, the point, truly is NOT debatable. Go figure, right?

Yes, reader... it IS as much of a blast being right ALL of the time, as it looks like it is.

So instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your reasoning, your pointless blunder of using fallacies of logic by pretending that you speak for 'medical science', your absurd presentation of your personal opinion as 'undebatable'...

......you run.

Run? LOL!

Reader, lets' review the assertion: Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder.

The above contributor is a professed homosexual... now in terms of sexual abnormality, that's a profound example of such... So the question becomes, is the above contributor; an Advocate of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality presenting any indication of Perverse Reasoning, reasoning which results from a disordered mind?

Understand, that "Homosexuality" is an act... it is the decision to take action resultant from an impulse... an impulse which is generated from the mental processes; "ideas" which are formed in the mind. False ideas which are presented as truth. False in that the mind says 'the person of the same gender is suitable and appropriate for consideration for sexual interaction... when the mind flickers a sexual component related to a person of the same gender, the disorder mind accepts the notion... while the ordered mind recognizes the impulse as errant, quickly rejecting it as false information.

The distinction between the ordered mind and the disordered mind, is that the ordered mind possess the means to know the truth, or to know when the what the mind is sending is wrong... .

It is the acceptance of false ideas as truth, which separates the disordered mind from the whole mind.

So the question becomes; quite simply: "Do we find any signs of those who have professed themselves as Sexually Abnormal, presenting symptoms of a mind which is representing falsity as truth? And we can determine that by simply looking at their public statements, to see if there is any evidence of claiming that which is false to be truth.

We know that just last night the contributor provided us with this glimpse, where she has repeatedly advised you, the Reader that Medical Science says that Homosexuality is normal sexuality.

In truth, normal means simply that something conforms to the standard. The Human Sexuality Standard is established by the human physiological standard. Homosexuality, not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as far from that standard as is possible.

This is an axiomatic fact. The Human Species is designed with two complimenting genders, specifically designed for procreation, procreation is accomplished through the joining of one example of the male gender with one example of the female gender. One certainly does not require a doctoral level understanding of human physiology to recognize this otherwise indisputable fact, but it follows that possessing a deeper understanding of the specifics of human biology, would not set one privileged above anyone else of reason, with regard to understanding BASIC HUMAN ANATOMY and the purposes of the genitals relevant to the respective genders.

So... > is < the position so often brayed by the contributor, claiming that medical science 'disagrees' that behavior which deviates as far from the standard normality as is humanly possible, is abnormal.' truthful?

Does demanding that something that is so demonstrably false, to be truth... a sign of an ordered mind?

I'll leave it to you, the Reader who the contributor seeks to advise through such that 'perspective'... to determine if your interests and the interests of your children, you community and your nation are served through a perspective which holds that something so obviously false is absolute truth.

Would you want your children to use this form of reasoning as they make critical decisions, the consequences of which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives?

Think about it... its your decision and you don't need to share it with me; meaning that it's a private matter.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WOW~ So as expected, the point, truly is NOT debatable. Go figure, right?

Yes, reader... it IS as much of a blast being right ALL of the time, as it looks like it is.

So instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your reasoning, your pointless blunder of using fallacies of logic by pretending that you speak for 'medical science', your absurd presentation of your personal opinion as 'undebatable'...

......you run.

Run? LOL!

Reader, lets' review the assertion: Sexual Abnormality is a mental disorder.

The above contributor is a professed homosexual... now in terms of sexual abnormality, that's a profound example of such... So the question becomes, is the above contributor; an Advocate of Normalizing Sexual Abnormality presenting any indication of Perverse Reasoning, reasoning which results from a disordered mind?

Understand, that "Homosexuality" is an act... it is the decision to take action resultant from an impulse... an impulse which is generated from the mental processes; "ideas" which are formed in the mind. False ideas which are presented as truth. False in that the mind says 'the person of the same gender is suitable and appropriate for consideration for sexual interaction... when the mind flickers a sexual component related to a person of the same gender, the disorder mind accepts the notion... while the ordered mind recognizes the impulse as errant, quickly rejecting it as false information.

The distinction between the ordered mind and the disordered mind, is that the ordered mind possess the means to know the truth, or to know when the what the mind is sending is wrong... .

It is the acceptance of false ideas as truth, which separates the disordered mind from the whole mind.

So the question becomes; quite simply: "Do we find any signs of those who have professed themselves as Sexually Abnormal, presenting symptoms of a mind which is representing falsity as truth? And we can determine that by simply looking at their public statements, to see if there is any evidence of claiming that which is false to be truth.

We know that just last night the contributor provided us with this glimpse, where she has repeatedly advised you, the Reader that Medical Science says that Homosexuality is normal sexuality.

In truth, normal means simply that something conforms to the standard. The Human Sexuality Standard is established by the human physiological standard. Homosexuality, not only deviates from that standard, it deviates as far from that standard as is possible.

This is an axiomatic fact. The Human Species is designed with two complimenting genders, specifically designed for procreation, procreation is accomplished through the joining of one example of the male gender with one example of the female gender. One certainly does not require a doctoral level understanding of human physiology to recognize this otherwise indisputable fact, but it follows that possessing a deeper understanding of the specifics of human biology, would not set one privileged above anyone else of reason, with regard to understanding BASIC HUMAN ANATOMY and the purposes of the genitals relevant to the respective genders.

So... > is < the position so often brayed by the contributor, claiming that medical science 'disagrees' that behavior which deviates as far from the standard normality as is humanly possible, is abnormal.' truthful?

Does demanding that something that is so demonstrably false, to be truth... a sign of an ordered mind?

I'll leave it to you, the Reader who the contributor seeks to advise through such that 'perspective'... to determine if your interests and the interests of your children, you community and your nation are served through a perspective which holds that something so obviously false is absolute truth.

Would you want your children to use this form of reasoning as they make critical decisions, the consequences of which they will carry with them for the rest of their lives?

Think about it... its your decision and you don't need to share it with me; meaning that it's a private matter.

By your reasoning birth control is abnormal, which puts you even further out on the fringe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As a person of sound reason, I am indeed an authority on what is and is not perverse... Sadly, the only human beings who are not, are those who are saddled with a disordered mind, as such limits the scope of their reasoning to that which serves their own subjective, perverse needs.

But your not a person of sound reasoning....[sic]

Straw reasoning ...

That you consider gays to be 'perverse' and 'despised' and 'loathed' and 'abhorred'

Yet another argument fabricated from intellectual straw, as I've not made such an argument; thus your perspective is an axiomatic disqualification from consideration by reasonable people. So once again you yield from the standing points, therein conceding to the points from which you sought to deflect.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(The Reader should understand that my argument is that homosexual behavior, not only deviates from the human physiological standard, which establishes human physiological normality, homosexual behavior deviates as FAR FROM THAT STANDARD as is humanly possible. What's more the demand that such deviancy is in alignment with the standard is FALSE. And where a person advances that which they know to be false, they're known as a LIAR... .

Of course, the contributor would have you believe that they do not 'know' that Homosexuality deviates from the human physiological design... which sadly, > if < that is truly her understanding, she suffers from an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by reality and the evidence common to rational argument; presenting her as being symptomatic of mental disorder.)

Homosexuality doesn't deviate from any 'design'. That's why heterosexuals are apt to perform every sex act homosexuals do.

 

[Syriusly]

Hello Emily,

1. For the law to allow even perverse beliefs to exist in private is not promoting them in public.

Emily, we're not talking about private behavior. Neither are we talking about governing private behavior... banning or establishing policy which restricts it.

We're talking about PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROMOTES BEHAVIOR WHICH PROFOUNDLY DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD; meaning that the policy promotes DEVIANCY...

The 'right to privacy' is sustained ONLY through the responsibility to keep that which they claim to be rightfully private: PRIVATE.

And their sexual activity is private. If you ever catch a lesbian couple 69ing in the lobby of the local Applebees, feel free to call the police.

Otherwise, your argument is fundamentally broken. As the behavior you insist remain private is private.

No one that I know of has ever criticized behavior of which they are ignorant... OKA: Behavior which takes place out of their view; AKA: Private behavior.

You just moved your goal posts. Now insisting that private means secret. And those aren't the same thing. There's an enormous difference between talking about sexual preference, and performing sexual acts in public.

You're equating the two. Your logic is again abysmal.

That which I criticize is that which was PUBLISHED... which is to say that which was set for discussion in a PUBLIC venue.

Where such is set for discussion in a public venue, such is subject to being discussed; discussion often provides for consideration of that with which one disagrees... . And where issues of a public nature are up for consideration and where such does not find opposition, the reasonable conclusion is that such is accepted by those who have had the issue set before them and which failed to find a contest.

Feel free to 'oppose' gays and lesbians. But your personal opinions don't effect their rights and privileges under the law. I completely support the idea of opposing what I consider wrong in public discourse.

When, for example, I run into individuals like yourself that insist that gays need to 'sit down and shut the **** up' lest a war be waged against them that will 'make hate crimes look like Sunday Brunch', I vocally oppose such sentiment. And vocally support the protection of the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians.

And as the support of gay marriage outpacing opposition by 12 to 19 points demonstrates.......the arguments of people who agree with me is clearly more persuasive and compelling then the sentiments of people like yourself.

And what do we know about the cult and its abuse of the false PERCEPTION of approval? "37 of 50 States already approve of Gay-Marriage" ... . It's not true... but because events provide for the advancement of that rationalization, they have no problem falsely promoting such.

The perception isn't false. Its the law. And its 100% accurate. In 37 of 50 states, marriage includes same sex couples. You can deny this is happening. But your denial doesn't actually change anything. As the world continues to spin even when you close your eyes.

Better yet, gay marriage carries with it the support of the majority of the public. Both in real numbers and in comparison to opposition. So we have both practical and popular majorities on the issue.

You'll see how real that gets in June.

Aren't gay pride parades public, and make use of public lands and/or streets? In parades aren't they celebrating something? What are they celebrating? This isn't being very private wouldn't you say?

Neither of the times I went to Pride were there any gay sex in the parade. They keep that private.

As for keeping their sexual orientation a secret, no one is obligated to do that.

No but it's as close as one can get without actually having sex in the street from what silhouette said isn't it? It's also being raunchy in front of children isn't it? Some things are just hard to defend, but people these day's will try to defend anything just about won't they?

Silhouette is both delusional and a liar. You are an idiot if you take anything she says at face value. Neither your or she has ever been to a Pride Parade- I have been to about 5.

My favorite part of the Pride Parade is when the Parents and family of GLBT proudly march in support of their children. San Francisco Pride Parade is the most fun parade in the City- followed by Carnivale- which has just as much naked skin showing as the Pride Parade.

I even showed Carnival photo's here on the boards, and Silhouette automatically assumed that they were Pride photo's- nope just almost naked revellers strutting their stuff.

What was your point again?

 

[Syriusly]

WOW~ So as expected, the point, truly is NOT debatable. Go figure, right?

Yes, reader... it IS as much of a blast being right ALL of the time, as it looks like it is.

So instead of shoring up the truck sized holes in your reasoning, your pointless blunder of using fallacies of logic by pretending that you speak for 'medical science', your absurd presentation of your personal opinion as 'undebatable'...

......you run.

Run? LOL!.

I am shocked that anyone wastes their time with any of Keye's delusional ramblings.

He is a bigot and has proven unable to write a coherent post.

Which is why I rarely read more than a line or two of anything he posts.