Objective Standard of Marriage: Includes mono-gender: Defend it from Polygamy...

[xotoxi]

That didn't answer her question, dude.

He can't answer the question, plain and simple, he has to avoid it completely because there simply are none being taken away.

It's a well-documented fact that whites lost a whole bunch of rights when blacks were finally allowed to vote.

As men, our voting power dropped to 50% when "The Unmentionables" were given the right to vote.

 

[RodISHI]

As men, our voting power dropped to 50% when "The Unmentionables" were given the right to vote.

Your percentage figure is way to high.

 

[Article 15]

I guess we got the old "default concession" from Pubic.

 

[xotoxi]

I guess we got the old "default concession" from Pubic.

Pubes have been shaved.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards...

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

Uh oh... are you working from the erroneous position that the extent of human rights are enumerated in the bill of rights?

ROFLMNAO... Where'd you come up with that error?

Let's be clear... who ever 'taught' you that... misinformed you.

My point discussed the 'means' to exercise our right to establish and maintain sound cultural standards; this means is a function of one's right to one's life... which is the original, all encompassing right... the right on which all other rights rest and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life is no exception.

What's more, the right comes with a sacred responsibility... as it is the responsibility which sustains the right... its the element of the concept which preserves the right, thus provides the viability of and the validty within the very concept of rights.

And the responsibility remains constant for all rights... It is the responsibility to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the right of another to exercise their rights...

Where Homosexuals want to cohabitate, to join in committed relationships... we offer no contest; furthermore, we defend their right to do so.

The other element of this responsibility is to defend the means to exercise the right... and that is where we are now.

All that is left to be determined is the extent of the means which will be necessary to successfully defend it; sadly, the measure of that extent is not up to us... but to those who refuse to tend to their own responsibility.

 

[RodISHI]

I think you guys are cheering to soon. Fact is five or six against one does not make a concession. It is more like a pack of dogs jumping onto the pile. Sometimes it merely takes longer to address each dog individually.

 

[KittenKoder]

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards...

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

Uh oh... are you working from the erroneous position that the extent of human rights are enumerated in the bill of rights?

ROFLMNAO... Where'd you come up with that error?

Let's be clear... who ever 'taught' you that... misinformed you.

My point discussed the 'means' to exercise our right to establish and maintain sound cultural standards; this means is a function of one's right to one's life... which is the original, all encompassing right... the right on which all other rights rest and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life is no exception.

What's more, the right comes with a sacred responsibility... as it is the responsibility which sustains the right... its the element of the concept which preserves the right, thus provides the viability of and the validty within the very concept of rights.

And the responsibility remains constant for all rights... It is the responsibility to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the right of another to exercise their rights...

Where Homosexuals want to cohabitate, to join in committed relationships... we offer no contest; furthermore, we defend their right to do so.

The other element of this responsibility is to defend the means to exercise the right... and that is where we are now.

All that is left to be determined is the extent of the means which will be necessary to successfully defend it; sadly, the measure of that extent is not up to us... but to those who refuse to tend to their own responsibility.

You don't have the right to legislate morals ... nor do you have the right to oppress people who are different than you. So again, what rights are being taken away from you by allowing gay people to marry who they want?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

 

[KittenKoder]

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

You have stated no rights you lose because of allowing them to get married, so again, what rights are being lost? You made the point but did nothing to back it up. Back up your argument or fail again.

 

[Article 15]

Homosexuals can marry anyone who thay can talk into marrying them... as long as who ever that is, is an individual of the opposite gender.

Where Homosexuals demand that the standards of marriage should be lowered to accommodate them... they are attempting to render the means of the normal, to exercise their right to sustain immutable moral standards...

Which is bad enough... but made intolerable by the the raw deception on which their demands are set.

That didn't answer her question, dude.

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

Uh oh... are you working from the erroneous position that the extent of human rights are enumerated in the bill of rights?

ROFLMNAO... Where'd you come up with that error?

Let's be clear... who ever 'taught' you that... misinformed you.

My point discussed the 'means' to exercise our right to establish and maintain sound cultural standards; this means is a function of one's right to one's life... which is the original, all encompassing right... the right on which all other rights rest and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life is no exception.

What's more, the right comes with a sacred responsibility... as it is the responsibility which sustains the right... its the element of the concept which preserves the right, thus provides the viability of and the validty within the very concept of rights.

And the responsibility remains constant for all rights... It is the responsibility to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the right of another to exercise their rights...

Where Homosexuals want to cohabitate, to join in committed relationships... we offer no contest; furthermore, we defend their right to do so.

The other element of this responsibility is to defend the means to exercise the right... and that is where we are now.

All that is left to be determined is the extent of the means which will be necessary to successfully defend it; sadly, the measure of that extent is not up to us... but to those who refuse to tend to their own responsibility.

You don't have the right to legislate morals ...

No? Now on what basis are ya resting that one upon? I think we're going to find that you're working from a well worn misnomer...

nor do you have the right to oppress people who are different than you.

I'm not oppressing anyone... If you feel that I am, simply post the argument wherein you can show reason and evidence that such is the case.

So again, what rights are being taken away from you by allowing gay people to marry who they want?

There is nothing stopping homosexuals from marrying anyone... as long as they meet the standards which are required for such.

 

[KittenKoder]

Uh oh... are you working from the erroneous position that the extent of human rights are enumerated in the bill of rights?

ROFLMNAO... Where'd you come up with that error?

Let's be clear... who ever 'taught' you that... misinformed you.

My point discussed the 'means' to exercise our right to establish and maintain sound cultural standards; this means is a function of one's right to one's life... which is the original, all encompassing right... the right on which all other rights rest and the right to pursue the fulfillment of that life is no exception.

What's more, the right comes with a sacred responsibility... as it is the responsibility which sustains the right... its the element of the concept which preserves the right, thus provides the viability of and the validty within the very concept of rights.

And the responsibility remains constant for all rights... It is the responsibility to not exercise one's right to the detriment of the right of another to exercise their rights...

Where Homosexuals want to cohabitate, to join in committed relationships... we offer no contest; furthermore, we defend their right to do so.

The other element of this responsibility is to defend the means to exercise the right... and that is where we are now.

All that is left to be determined is the extent of the means which will be necessary to successfully defend it; sadly, the measure of that extent is not up to us... but to those who refuse to tend to their own responsibility.

You don't have the right to legislate morals ...

No? Now on what basis are ya resting that one upon? I think we're going to find that you're working from a well worn misnomer...

nor do you have the right to oppress people who are different than you.

I'm not oppressing anyone... If you feel that I am, simply post the argument wherein you can show reason and evidence that such is the case.

So again, what rights are being taken away from you by allowing gay people to marry who they want?

There is nothing stopping homosexuals from marrying anyone... as long as they meet the standards which are required for such.

What rights are lost when allowing gay people to marry who they want? How does that really effect you directly? Why can't you answer that question instead of just tossing up your usual drivel?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That didn't answer her question, dude.

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

Did she?

I see you claiming that she did... which suggests that YOU KNOW of this clarification, yet you didn't bother to post it.

And while I doubt that any level of clarification can convert the false premise into a true premise and still maintain the deception which the premise needs to even be worthy of projection... If you'd like to post this elucidation, I'll happily give it my full consideration...

Our youngest has a concert tonight, so take this time to REALLY get a boil going... and I'll deal with it afterwards...

Of course if you feel that this provides a fleeting opportunity to declare victory... that's fine with me... as I'll just snatch back from the ether when I return... ethereal victories rarely take much effort to snatch... as there's so little substance to them.

Enjoy...

 

[KittenKoder]

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

Did she?

I see you claiming that she did... which suggests that YOU KNOW of this clarification, yet you didn't bother to post it.

And while I doubt that any level of clarification can convert the false premise into a true premise and still maintain the deception which the premise needs to even be worthy of projection... If you'd like to post this elucidation, I'll happily give it my full consideration...

Our youngest has a concert tonight, so take this time to REALLY get a boil going... and I'll deal with it afterwards...

Of course if you feel that this provides a fleeting opportunity to declare victory... that's fine with me... as I'll just snatch back from the ether when I return... ethereal victories rarely take much effort to snatch... as there's so little substance to them.

Enjoy...

There you go again, ignoring all facts that disagree with you instead of actually thinking for yourself for a change.

 

[Article 15]

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

Did she?

I see you claiming that she did... which suggests that YOU KNOW of this clarification, yet you didn't bother to post it.

And while I doubt that any level of clarification can convert the false premise into a true premise and still maintain the deception which the premise needs to even be worthy of projection... If you'd like to post this elucidation, I'll happily give it my full consideration...

Our youngest has a concert tonight, so take this time to REALLY get a boil going... and I'll deal with it afterwards...

Of course if you feel that this provides a fleeting opportunity to declare victory... that's fine with me... as I'll just snatch back from the ether when I return... ethereal victories rarely take much effort to snatch... as there's so little substance to them.

Enjoy...

She posted the clarification at the same time I was posting that you didn't answer her question. It happens.

You still haven't stated what right is being taken away by allowing gay people to marry who they want.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That didn't answer her question, dude.

No? Are you sure?

Let's see now... she asked: "What rights are being taken aw2ay by allowing gays to marry?"

I responded by noting that homosexuals are free to marry... thus refuting the false premise she projected... I further explained that where Homosexuals demanded SPECIAL RIGHT to accomodate their SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES... that they were infringing on the right of NORMAN PEOPLE to set and sustain VALID, MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE Standards of behavior... and that such was being attempted through raw deception...

Looks like an aswer to me... and of the eminantly well reasoned variety...

Perhaps that is where the point escapes you... that it is framed within sound reason.

Now if that doesn't satisfy you, then perhaps you or one of the other ladies would explain what it is you're looking for.

You have stated no rights you lose because of allowing them to get married, so again, what rights are being lost? You made the point but did nothing to back it up. Back up your argument or fail again.

No... I didn'tmake the point...

I stated as I always state in such cases, that there is no means for someone to 'lose' rights... At least not where one individual is operating on the same authority as the next... and since, at least the best of my knowledge, the issue is sexual deviancy and the normalization thereof... there is no issue on the table where one entity is operating on a Right taking authority... thus, you're 'mistaken'...

Now I HAVE stated, that the decay of cultural standards, due to the popular consensus that it is somehow not FAIR to maintain standards which prevent the abnormal from being NORMALIZED, INFRINGES upon the rights of the NORMAL to maintain such standards... PARTICULARLY where that would-be consensus is founded in LIES AND MYTH and sustained through empty PLATITUDES...

For instance... I was flipping through the channels last night and there was some public authority from Leftist Mecca... somewhere near Berkely, who declared those who adhere to, or maintain membership in the Defense of Marriage organization are members of a "HATE GROUP..."

Now considering that this ENTIRE discussion, started over the bill set to be signed by The Lord of the Idiots, which STRENGTHENS the absurdity known as 'HATE CRIME' ... what you have in THAT statement is at equity with the Antisemitic hysteria of 1930s Germany...

It is the SAME strain of popular consensus, born of the same LIES, the SAME MYTHS and sustained through the same EMPTY PLATITUDES... as a matter of FACT, the ONLY distinction is 'THE SUBJECT.'

The purpose of such, is to COW individuals into submission, through this popular consensus backed up by federal authority and the police power.

The bottom line, is that you people are crazier than a shit-house RAT... you're fools who lack the means to reason and you're stuck in intellectual nuetral, over this ABSURD rationalization you're committed to regarding FAIRNESS... You can't even come to understand that ABNORMALITY IS NOT NORMALITY AND THAT A VIABLE CULTURE DOES NOT SET STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR... and this is because such must inevitably DESTROY THE CULTURE.

Now, FTR, where did you see me declare that I was losing rights?

And when you fail to show such, you can apologize for misrepresenting my position... or concede by default...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

Did she?

I see you claiming that she did... which suggests that YOU KNOW of this clarification, yet you didn't bother to post it.

And while I doubt that any level of clarification can convert the false premise into a true premise and still maintain the deception which the premise needs to even be worthy of projection... If you'd like to post this elucidation, I'll happily give it my full consideration...

Our youngest has a concert tonight, so take this time to REALLY get a boil going... and I'll deal with it afterwards...

Of course if you feel that this provides a fleeting opportunity to declare victory... that's fine with me... as I'll just snatch back from the ether when I return... ethereal victories rarely take much effort to snatch... as there's so little substance to them.

Enjoy...

She posted the clarification at the same time I was posting that you didn't answer her question. It happens.

You still haven't stated what right is being taken away by allowing gay people to marry who they want.

Yeah I saw that... and it's been handled... we're currently waiting on her to find the courage to apologize for misrepresenting my position... I caution you, not to hold your beath, as it is certain to lead to serious injury and very possibly... DEATH.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

She further clarified it after your silly technicality answer.

Face it, you have no real answer just your usual smoke and mirrors.

Did she?

I see you claiming that she did... which suggests that YOU KNOW of this clarification, yet you didn't bother to post it.

And while I doubt that any level of clarification can convert the false premise into a true premise and still maintain the deception which the premise needs to even be worthy of projection... If you'd like to post this elucidation, I'll happily give it my full consideration...

Our youngest has a concert tonight, so take this time to REALLY get a boil going... and I'll deal with it afterwards...

Of course if you feel that this provides a fleeting opportunity to declare victory... that's fine with me... as I'll just snatch back from the ether when I return... ethereal victories rarely take much effort to snatch... as there's so little substance to them.

Enjoy...

There you go again, ignoring all facts that disagree with you instead of actually thinking for yourself for a change.

ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD! Now THAT'S PRECIOUS... and with SUCH conviction... it's as if you actually BELIEVE IT!

LOL... Funny stuff.

 

[Ravi]

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards...

The Right of Sound Cultural Standards.

Which amendment is that?

In other words, Pubic believes that rights should be withheld from people that offend him.

This is a guy that claims to be an uber-Patriot...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Let us demand a few more rights so we can impress our ideals into someone else's lives. Heck let us get together to go lobby congress so we can make those that we are taking the rights away from pay for it while we are at it. If it is all about money and power to control other peoples thoughts no doubt the average family needs their share to. Obviously by the looks of what is going on in DC and some of the states the average family is missing that "special" representation.

I cannot fathom what you are babbling about.

Ya can't fathom? Well now... whatta shame... what must life me in the absence of the means to fathom... but such is the nature of left-think...

What rights are being taken away from "those that we are taking the rights away from?" Your right to not be offended?

Well, no valid right can be taken away from anyone, by another of equitable power.

What IS being taken from us, is the means to establish and maintain sound cultural standards... Specifically wherein certain idiots use the color of science; thus the inherent authority of science, which is derived by the objective nature of true science... but in actuality is the subjective nature of pseudo-science... in particular the pseudo-science which pretends to 'study' sexuality...

Such is a machine which perpetuates myth, lies and colors such in empty platitudes, which portray the deception of reasonless conclusions of the vacuous variety, for the purposes of stripping the American culture of its VALUES...

It's rather frustrating...

We're a civilized people, who tend towards enduring the burden until it becomes unbearable... the long pause, wherein our endurance is being tested, tends to lead those who would rob us of our means to exercise our rights, into a false sense of security... in which they erroneously conclude that there is no point at which we will rise up... and inevitably, demand what we know is right, in terms from which there is negotiation; and through a level of determination, which they've no means to comprehend.

Such has proven to be a cultural ending mistake, in the past; for those who have failed to recognize the nature of our metal and the permenance of the bed-rock on which our we and principles are founded...

Let me just throw this out there. How about this concept:

No right is maintained except at the expense of another. If this were not true, there would be no need for "rights." The concept of rights exist at the edge of a political divide. That is, politics is the art and science of determining who gets what and how in the division of scarce resources. A right is claimed, by some or all, against the contestant for that same space that the right subsumes.

In the instant case, if gay people wish to maintain a right to same sex marriage, the new right (for it must be a new right if it does not currently exist) is created in the space currently occupied by societies current conception of marriage. Therefore, the new right to marry burdens the current right to marry. While it does not take it away, it modifies marriage and what it means to be married to some extent.

Whether the burden on the current concept of marriage is too great, is the question we are discussing.