Revised: Objective proof of demonstrable harm ... Marriage/Same sex

[KittenKoder]

Well, I don't get to misty about HS Diplomas... I departed High School in the 11th grade...

But I don't use that as a means to rationalize failure.





LOL... so far you've not even addressed the argument...



And failed to mount a valid contest of even one of those ...



What myths have ya proven wrong Kitty? Just saying it doesn't make it so...

Now this will be the second time in this thread that you've made an accusation, been directly and unambiguously challenged to support it and failed to do so, preferring to ignore the challenge in hopes that no one notices...



Oh You GO GIRL! Ain't THAT the truth...

Of course, in my case I am not here to change your mind... My purpose is to prove that you and the comrades can't defend you most closely held 'feelings'... so that where an objective thord party comes along... IF THEY HAVE DOUBTS... you can prove to them that they should not have ANY doubts; that your entire ideology is dead wrong... and the normalization of Homosexuality is clearly no exception.

I have given several examples and points which were ignored simply because they didn't fit into the frame of his thinking.

Every point you've advanced has been addressed; they've been refuted and joined, where reason requires such, respectively.

Same old rhetoric ... nothing to add and no way to actually debate my points, so nothing but lame attempts at insults. When you post more of your "facts" again, let me know so I can shoot them down again and watch you squirm like this.

Now, all the "proof" you have shown to support this argument of yours is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and mistranslated facts interpreted in a failed attempt to support a non-issue.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nice... what is normal? Things that are natural? Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdowm, are animals all libs?

Those liberal animals aren't Americans, either. But the conservative animals are.

I'm just skimming this thread because, well, its a PI thread. But is the gist that pedophilia is linked to homosexuality and that's why homosexuality is wrong? Ergo, since most sexual crimes are heterosexual, heterosexuality is also wrong?

Well if 'skimming' is the best ya can do... its the best you can do...

Sadly, your best is grossly inadequate...

Pedophilia is directly linked to homosexuality... that's hardly contestable... and that more sexual crimes are committed by the majority than the minority shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone... with the operative word here, being "SHOULDN'T."

But that homosexuality is a sexual DIS-orientation, which is common to pedophilia, would indicate, as a function of common sense, that such is common to crimes associated to pedophilia.

Again... NAMBLA; the North American MAN/BOY Love Association, is an organization which is exclusive to homosexuals... and I'm not aware of a hetero-sexual equivilent. Perhaps you are... if so... post it and we'll discuss it.

Which is not to say that hetero-sexuals do not do stupid things... given that the baseline norm is for the male to be sexually aroused and to seek sexual gratification from the female... and given that the biological imperative is to do so with as high quality a specimen as one is able to to find and to convince that such is worthwhile... it serves reason that the young female will be more attractive to the male heterosexual than would the older female and vice versa.

But with that said, there are standards of behavior wherein, the delta in terms of age becomes unacceptable and thresholds where the minimum age provides that many young speciments are simply out of bounds...

But SUCH IS THE FREAKING POINT! AS A CULTURE, WE ESTABLISH STANDARDS UPON SOUND REASON AND HOLD TO THEM AND WE DO NOT CHANGE FROM THEM BECAUSE SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP FINDS THAT IT'S NOT FAIR THAT THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THAT STANDARD AND DEMAND THAT THE CULTURE CHANGE THE STANDARD TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR FRAGILE SELF ESTEEMS... AS SUCH DEFIES THE AFOREMENTIONED SOUND REASONS.

Is homosexuality a natural function of nature? Sure it is... AS NOTED BEFORE, SO IS CANNIBALISM, anyone advocating we change that standard? EBOLA... that's fairly common in nature... I don't see anyone standing up and defending EBOLA! If that is too 'EXTREME'... FINE...

YEAST INFECTIONS are a natural function of nature and I don't see anyone STANDING UP FOR THE NORMALIZATION OF YEAST INFECTIONS... as far as I can tell, Yeast infections are something which is to be avoided where possible and where such comes along through the natural process, those suffering such typically seek a remedy to RID THEMSELVES OF IT...

So while I believe that the individual Homosexual should be tolerated; that they should be treated as any other person is treated, within the scope of civil behavior; I do believe that it is reasonable to do so, without CELEBRATING THEIR FREAKING PROBLEM... by pretending that they don't have a PROBLEM... or by pretending that it's OK for them to have the problem and PROMOTING THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE PROBLEM. Like the yeast infection, which is perfectly NORMAL... it's only normal within the limits of reasonable personal hygene and it's decidely NOT Normal when one can smell you coming from two blocks DOWN WIND... As it stands right now.. the yeast infection analogue of homosexuality is the equivilent,in terms of the odor it si emitting, of the full scope of midwestern LIVESTOCK HERDS in the PEAK OF SUMMER...

"DAMN GIRLS! Either do something with that thing or take it to another planet!" And NO... we aren't changing the cultural standards of acceptable human hygene to accomodate your nasty ass...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, I don't get to misty about HS Diplomas... I departed High School in the 11th grade...

But I don't use that as a means to rationalize failure.





LOL... so far you've not even addressed the argument...



And failed to mount a valid contest of even one of those ...



What myths have ya proven wrong Kitty? Just saying it doesn't make it so...

Now this will be the second time in this thread that you've made an accusation, been directly and unambiguously challenged to support it and failed to do so, preferring to ignore the challenge in hopes that no one notices...



Oh You GO GIRL! Ain't THAT the truth...

Of course, in my case I am not here to change your mind... My purpose is to prove that you and the comrades can't defend you most closely held 'feelings'... so that where an objective thord party comes along... IF THEY HAVE DOUBTS... you can prove to them that they should not have ANY doubts; that your entire ideology is dead wrong... and the normalization of Homosexuality is clearly no exception.

I have given several examples and points which were ignored simply because they didn't fit into the frame of his thinking.

Every point you've advanced has been addressed; they've been refuted and joined, where reason requires such, respectively.

Same old rhetoric ... nothing to add and no way to actually debate my points, so nothing but lame attempts at insults. When you post more of your "facts" again, let me know so I can shoot them down again and watch you squirm like this.

So you're conceding that you've no actual "myths" to advance in example... thus refuting your own argument and joining my contest that you're basically sull of shit.

Fair enough...

Now, all the "proof" you have shown to support this argument of yours is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and mistranslated facts interpreted in a failed attempt to support a non-issue.

WHAT PROOF ARE YA SPEAKING OF KITTY? BE SPECIFIC AND WHAT FACTS HAVE I "mistranslated"?


To the objective 3rd party who may come across this thread: Please just take note of how the opposition is LONG on baseless, unsubstantiated platitude based obfuscations and well short of well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument...

Where you're hoping to find information to help you determine which ideological path to follow... consider that our path requires one to understand the concepts and the principles on which the conceptual issues rest... theirs provides that you believe in nothing and hold to it at all cost and in the face of all reason which comes to contest it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, I don't get to misty about HS Diplomas... I departed High School in the 11th grade...

But I don't use that as a means to rationalize failure.





LOL... so far you've not even addressed the argument...



And failed to mount a valid contest of even one of those ...



What myths have ya proven wrong Kitty? Just saying it doesn't make it so...

Now this will be the second time in this thread that you've made an accusation, been directly and unambiguously challenged to support it and failed to do so, preferring to ignore the challenge in hopes that no one notices...



Oh You GO GIRL! Ain't THAT the truth...

Of course, in my case I am not here to change your mind... My purpose is to prove that you and the comrades can't defend you most closely held 'feelings'... so that where an objective thord party comes along... IF THEY HAVE DOUBTS... you can prove to them that they should not have ANY doubts; that your entire ideology is dead wrong... and the normalization of Homosexuality is clearly no exception.




Every point you've advanced has been addressed; they've been refuted and joined, where reason requires such, respectively.

Same old rhetoric ... nothing to add and no way to actually debate my points, so nothing but lame attempts at insults. When you post more of your "facts" again, let me know so I can shoot them down again and watch you squirm like this.

So you're conceding that you've no actual "myths" to advance in example... thus refuting your own argument and joining my contest that you're basically sull of shit.

Fair enough...

Now, all the "proof" you have shown to support this argument of yours is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and mistranslated facts interpreted in a failed attempt to support a non-issue.

WHAT PROOF ARE YA SPEAKING OF KITTY? BE SPECIFIC AND WHAT FACTS HAVE I "mistranslated"?


To the objective 3rd party who may come across this thread: Please just take note of how the opposition is LONG on baseless, unsubstantiated platitude based obfuscations and well short of well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument...

Where you're hoping to find information to help you determine which ideological path to follow... consider that our path requires one to understand the concepts and the principles on which the conceptual issues rest... theirs provides that you believe in nothing and hold to it at all cost and in the face of all reason which comes to contest it.

I am as objective as you can get, so yeah ... just calling the evidence I have found to support freedom and equality for all Americans, even those who are gay, myths does not make it so, but yours are, and they have been refuted many times over as well as shown to be. When you post a non-biased source, then perhaps there will be more to debate, but you have yet to. Try being logical for a change, perhaps you may just learn something.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Same old rhetoric ... nothing to add and no way to actually debate my points, so nothing but lame attempts at insults. When you post more of your "facts" again, let me know so I can shoot them down again and watch you squirm like this.

So you're conceding that you've no actual "myths" to advance in example... thus refuting your own argument and joining my contest that you're basically sull of shit.

Fair enough...

Now, all the "proof" you have shown to support this argument of yours is nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and mistranslated facts interpreted in a failed attempt to support a non-issue.

WHAT PROOF ARE YA SPEAKING OF KITTY? BE SPECIFIC AND WHAT FACTS HAVE I "mistranslated"?


To the objective 3rd party who may come across this thread: Please just take note of how the opposition is LONG on baseless, unsubstantiated platitude based obfuscations and well short of well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument...

Where you're hoping to find information to help you determine which ideological path to follow... consider that our path requires one to understand the concepts and the principles on which the conceptual issues rest... theirs provides that you believe in nothing and hold to it at all cost and in the face of all reason which comes to contest it.

I am as objective as you can get, so yeah ... just calling the evidence I have found to support freedom and equality for all Americans, even those who are gay, myths does not make it so, but yours are, and they have been refuted many times over as well as shown to be. When you post a non-biased source, then perhaps there will be more to debate, but you have yet to. Try being logical for a change, perhaps you may just learn something.

Golly... Reason requires that if you were in possession of these 'myths' and 'mistranslated facts', that you'd simply post them in expample in support of your now thrice failed assertion.

Freedom and equality have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the normalization of SEXUAL DEVIANCY to the detriment of the culture... One can respect the rights of the individual who keeps their private business private, but there is no such respect possible for those who project their private business into the midst of public discussion and who DEMAND AT THE TOP OF THEIR COLLECTIVE LUNGS THAT THE CULTURE SHOULD TURN ITSELF INSIDE-OUT TO ACCOMODATE THEIR NEED TO MAKE THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESS... TO SOOTHE THEIR UNDERSTANDABLY SAGGY SELF ESTEEM.

Now the basis of your reticence and that of everyother 'centrist' whose come to avoid this argument, is that IF YOU REALLY TRIED TO ENGAGE IT, you'd simply have no choice but to admit that you're prior advocacy is dead wrong... and that is why your asserted myths remain in the ether and why your mis-translated facts, cannot be specified... because they're yours, they're all ya have and if you brought them out of the ether... they'd evaporate right before your rhetorical eyes and that is something which you're simply not prepared to face.

 

[Toro]

I'm giving odds on when everyone gets bored with this thread then leaves and PI declares himself the victor and starts board dancing.

Its 9:30pm ET. Here are the odds as of this time;

3 hours - 7:2
3 to 6 hours - 4:1
6 to 12 hours - 5:1
12 to 24 hours - 11:5
1 to 2 days - 10:11
2 to 4 days - 2:1
Beyond 4 days - 8:1

 

[Bullypulpit]

I'm giving odds on when everyone gets bored with this thread then leaves and PI declares himself the victor and starts board dancing.

Its 9:30pm ET. Here are the odds as of this time;

3 hours - 7:2
3 to 6 hours - 4:1
6 to 12 hours - 5:1
12 to 24 hours - 11:5
1 to 2 days - 10:11
2 to 4 days - 2:1
Beyond 4 days - 8:1

That is how it goes with PubliusIgnotus, PaleRider and their fellow travelers. Personally I'm done. They can revel in their own private circle-jerk for as long as they want.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So once again, it's a route... with the ideological left having Conceded this debate in finality...

The advocates of normalization of Homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy find themselves unable to address the argument at any level...

There is not a single post on this thread wherein the opposition has considered any of the numerous points made and where any reasonably objective individual comes to read this thread, their conclusion must be, on the wieght of the evidence presented by this discussion, that the advocacy of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy rests in the vacuous character of specious reasoning...

That the evidence is clear, indisputable with the conclusion open and objective, that the normalization of sexual deviancy, as demonstrated by the homosexual movement and the redefining of marriage, to be something other than a man and a woman, is harmful to the culture; and to THAT point the opposition is not only unable to mount an adequate defense, but they are unable to mount a defense of any kind; and what's more, they are unwilling to even try...

As they clearly realize that for them to try, is for them to fail...

And they are simply too heavily invested in this calamity to risk that; with the only reasonable answer as to why, being that they need an escape rationalization; so if they should ever, finally, be unable to escape the certaint, in their OWN MINDS, that such DID destroy the culture; they can claim that they simply didn't know... which is a lie, set to proof on the evidence of this very discussion.

 

[007]

So once again, it's a route... with the ideological left having Conceded this debate in finality...

The advocates of normalization of Homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy find themselves unable to address the argument at any level...

There is not a single post on this thread wherein the opposition has considered any of the numerous points made and where any reasonably objective individual comes to read this thread, their conclusion must be, on the wieght of the evidence presented by this discussion, that the advocacy of the normalization of Sexual Deviancy rests in the vacuous character of specious reasoning...

That the evidence is clear, indisputable with the conclusion open and objective, that the normalization of sexual deviancy, as demonstrated by the homosexual movement and the redefining of marriage, to be something other than a man and a woman, is harmful to the culture; and to THAT point the opposition is not only unable to mount an adequate defense, but they are unable to mount a defense of any kind; and what's more, they are unwilling to even try...

As they clearly realize that for them to try, is for them to fail...

And they are simply too heavily invested in this calamity to risk that; with the only reasonable answer as to why, being that they need an escape rationalization; so if they should ever, finally, be unable to escape the certaint, in their OWN MINDS, that such DID destroy the culture; they can claim that they simply didn't know... which is a lie, set to proof on the evidence of this very discussion.

Like I said long ago in this thread PI, the liberals in here would be trying to defend the indefensible. So now, after you've kicked ass and taken names, they realize that it's time to give a couple departing insults, which is much of what their argument has consisted of from the start, and tuck tail and run.

 

[007]

Violence is worse than homosexuality. I would rather perform a sex act on a man than die, and I think most people are with me. There is proof that violence kills, there isn't proof that homosexuality destroys society. I just think people should start saving one another instead of hurting them.

Yes, there is.... that little lie was disputed long ago....

Homosexuality is unhealthy.

A brief search of medical journals found:

The Archives of Internal Medicine, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis and less likely to present with primary syphilis than heterosexual men."

New England Journal of Medicine, "At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms."

Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine, "In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual."

New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."

The Journal of the American Medical Association, "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]."

American Journal of Medicine,"... heterosexual men in a sexually transmitted disease clinic have a substantially lower prevalence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity than do homosexual men."

The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases.

In addition, the rate of suicide attempts among homosexuals is three times higher than that of normal males.

The destructive nature of homosexuality

You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.

Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.

So lets see.... you want to first equate homosexuals with blacks, and then purport it's all my fault their lifestyle being destructive is my fault. My, my, my.... I've heard some spin in my life, but I think that takes the cake? How many beers have you had?

Well... in any case... you're irrationality is all but psychotic sounding. The destructiveness in a homos life starts the moment they act upon their unnatural urges. They know it's wrong and deviant yet they do it anyway. This battle is theirs and theirs alone to bear. They do have a choice. They could get help. If they're born that way, then it's a birth defect. Some people are just perverted and then chose it. NONE of this has ANYTHING to with ME. My cousin is bisexual, and he readily admits the turmoil that rages in his mind. He thinks it's wrong, and knows it's perverted. He's told me he's felt "DIRTY" after he's had sex with a man. He feels "sick." Not because he didn't like it, but because he knows it's WRONG, and has decided not to. So it's not MY FAULT he or ANY OTHER HOMO harms themselves. The darkness and sickness of the lifestyle permeates the mind of any homosexual that possess the capability to know right from wrong, and that's NOT MY FAULT. It's IN THEMSELVES. They HATE themselves for BEING queer. They WANT to be normal but can't. I pity them actually. I pity the ones that want to be cured, try, and find it a rough road to travel. But I pity the ones that just cave in to the unnatural urges even more.

So you need to come up with a new angle. That one isn't worth spit jackass. Get a clue punk.

 

[Nik]

Yes, there is.... that little lie was disputed long ago....

You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.

Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.

So lets see.... you want to first equate homosexuals with blacks, and then purport it's all my fault their lifestyle being destructive is my fault. My, my, my.... I've heard some spin in my life, but I think that takes the cake? How many beers have you had?

Well... in any case... you're irrationality is all but psychotic sounding. The destructiveness in a homos life starts the moment they act upon their unnatural urges. They know it's wrong and deviant yet they do it anyway. This battle is theirs and theirs alone to bear. They do have a choice. They could get help. If they're born that way, then it's a birth defect. Some people are just perverted and then chose it. NONE of this has ANYTHING to with ME. My cousin is bisexual, and he readily admits the turmoil that rages in his mind. He thinks it's wrong, and knows it's perverted. He's told me he's felt "DIRTY" after he's had sex with a man. He feels "sick." Not because he didn't like it, but because he knows it's WRONG, and has decided not to. So it's not MY FAULT he or ANY OTHER HOMO harms themselves. The darkness and sickness of the lifestyle permeates the mind of any homosexual that possess the capability to know right from wrong, and that's NOT MY FAULT. It's IN THEMSELVES. They HATE themselves for BEING queer. They WANT to be normal but can't. I pity them actually. I pity the ones that want to be cured, try, and find it a rough road to travel. But I pity the ones that just cave in to the unnatural urges even more.

So you need to come up with a new angle. That one isn't worth spit jackass. Get a clue punk.

Actually, many don't hate themselves for being gay. Those that do, hate themselves because of assholes like you. You know jack shit about homosexuality, and I feel sorry for anyone who is gay and has to put up with you in real life. God that must suck for them.

 

[007]

You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.

Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.

So lets see.... you want to first equate homosexuals with blacks, and then purport it's all my fault their lifestyle being destructive is my fault. My, my, my.... I've heard some spin in my life, but I think that takes the cake? How many beers have you had?

Well... in any case... you're irrationality is all but psychotic sounding. The destructiveness in a homos life starts the moment they act upon their unnatural urges. They know it's wrong and deviant yet they do it anyway. This battle is theirs and theirs alone to bear. They do have a choice. They could get help. If they're born that way, then it's a birth defect. Some people are just perverted and then chose it. NONE of this has ANYTHING to with ME. My cousin is bisexual, and he readily admits the turmoil that rages in his mind. He thinks it's wrong, and knows it's perverted. He's told me he's felt "DIRTY" after he's had sex with a man. He feels "sick." Not because he didn't like it, but because he knows it's WRONG, and has decided not to. So it's not MY FAULT he or ANY OTHER HOMO harms themselves. The darkness and sickness of the lifestyle permeates the mind of any homosexual that possess the capability to know right from wrong, and that's NOT MY FAULT. It's IN THEMSELVES. They HATE themselves for BEING queer. They WANT to be normal but can't. I pity them actually. I pity the ones that want to be cured, try, and find it a rough road to travel. But I pity the ones that just cave in to the unnatural urges even more.

So you need to come up with a new angle. That one isn't worth spit jackass. Get a clue punk.

Actually, many don't hate themselves for being gay. Those that do, hate themselves because of assholes like you. You know jack shit about homosexuality, and I feel sorry for anyone who is gay and has to put up with you in real life. God that must suck for them.

Sorry asshole, but you don't know a fuckin' thing what you're talking about. Some homos may not hate themselves, but that still has nothing to do with me. Hell it doesn't have anything to do with you either moron. But go ahead and repeat a stupid lie, you're just stupid enough to drink that kool aide. Monkey see, monkey do.

Use your head for something other than a hat rack ya halfwit.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So lets see.... you want to first equate homosexuals with blacks, and then purport it's all my fault their lifestyle being destructive is my fault. My, my, my.... I've heard some spin in my life, but I think that takes the cake? How many beers have you had?

Well... in any case... you're irrationality is all but psychotic sounding. The destructiveness in a homos life starts the moment they act upon their unnatural urges. They know it's wrong and deviant yet they do it anyway. This battle is theirs and theirs alone to bear. They do have a choice. They could get help. If they're born that way, then it's a birth defect. Some people are just perverted and then chose it. NONE of this has ANYTHING to with ME. My cousin is bisexual, and he readily admits the turmoil that rages in his mind. He thinks it's wrong, and knows it's perverted. He's told me he's felt "DIRTY" after he's had sex with a man. He feels "sick." Not because he didn't like it, but because he knows it's WRONG, and has decided not to. So it's not MY FAULT he or ANY OTHER HOMO harms themselves. The darkness and sickness of the lifestyle permeates the mind of any homosexual that possess the capability to know right from wrong, and that's NOT MY FAULT. It's IN THEMSELVES. They HATE themselves for BEING queer. They WANT to be normal but can't. I pity them actually. I pity the ones that want to be cured, try, and find it a rough road to travel. But I pity the ones that just cave in to the unnatural urges even more.

So you need to come up with a new angle. That one isn't worth spit jackass. Get a clue punk.

Actually, many don't hate themselves for being gay. Those that do, hate themselves because of assholes like you. You know jack shit about homosexuality, and I feel sorry for anyone who is gay and has to put up with you in real life. God that must suck for them.

Sorry asshole, but you don't know a fuckin' thing what you're talking about. Some homos may not hate themselves, but that still has nothing to do with me. Hell it doesn't have anything to do with you either moron. But go ahead and repeat a stupid lie, you're just stupid enough to drink that kool aide. Monkey see, monkey do.

Use your head for something other than a hat rack ya halfwit.

The continued fixation with homosexuality displayed by yourself and your playmate, PublicIdiot, would seem to indicate otherwise. Could it be that you and PI share more than ideology? I'm sure a psychologist would find you two to be fascinating case studies in repressed homosexuality.

 

[007]

Actually, many don't hate themselves for being gay. Those that do, hate themselves because of assholes like you. You know jack shit about homosexuality, and I feel sorry for anyone who is gay and has to put up with you in real life. God that must suck for them.

Sorry asshole, but you don't know a fuckin' thing what you're talking about. Some homos may not hate themselves, but that still has nothing to do with me. Hell it doesn't have anything to do with you either moron. But go ahead and repeat a stupid lie, you're just stupid enough to drink that kool aide. Monkey see, monkey do.

Use your head for something other than a hat rack ya halfwit.

The continued fixation with homosexuality displayed by yourself and your playmate, PublicIdiot, would seem to indicate otherwise. Could it be that you and PI share more than ideology? I'm sure a psychologist would find you two to be fascinating case studies in repressed homosexuality.

And here you are, going tit for tat. So include yourself in your pathetically ridiculous notion.

You used to come up with some more original stuff bull. What's wrong? You're really spewing some inane, lame shit nowadays. Drink yourself into a blind stupor too many times?

 

[Bullypulpit]

This exchange is from the Protection of Pedophile Act, thread... http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-heads-to-senate-committee-9.html#post1210286.

The Question posed projects that there is no demonstrable harm to be found in the normalization of Sexual Deviancy... the response shows otherwise... and what's more, those who are known to advocate for such, are decidely inclined to ignore this reasoning...

And THAT is why it's posted here... Either there are substantial and incontestable 'harmful effects...' from the normaization of there are not... And while I believe this position demonstrates that such is the case... It's clear to me, that these effects are more along the lines of calamitous to catastrophic...

But without regard to where you come to conclude they fall on that scale, surely we can agree that they exemplify the everpresent 'unintended consequences' which shadow every leftist consideration which finds its way into public policy.

I offer it here for your consideration and discussion...

...Until you can offer objective proof of demonstrable harm to individuals or communities by allowing same gender couples to marry, you have nothing ... Really.

Hmm... Oh that's a real show stopper... Demonstrable harm? Huh...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I wonder what that term could mean to a {the opposition}?
.
.
.
.
.
I know what it means to me... "demonstrable harm" says 'harm which can be demonstrated...'
.
.
.
.
.
Of course... the hazard here, is always in the noun...

In this case "HARM"... and what {the opposition} is willing to admit that word defines...

IF 'they were reasonable people'... this would be a non brainer... because 'harm' has a very clear and unambiguous meaning...

harm [haarm]
n
damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration

The problem comes in at the point where the secularist is not prepared to accept the definition of the nouns in THAT definition... as has been REPEATEDLY noted, in this and thousands of others... the left prefers to reinvent the meaning of such words, so as to use the revised meanings as a means to 'trim the edges' from the pieces of the rhetorical puzzle, to make it appear that the edges all fit right together...

In this case it's the element of the definition wherein the word 'harm' means to impart damage of injury through 'moral impairment or deterioration'...

Ya see kids, the whole argument against the normalization of the homo-sexual orientation... AKA: The 'Homo-Sexually Oriented Lifestyle'... is that such produces a lowering of the cultural standard of acceptable PUBLIC BEHAVIOR...

Which the advocates of homosexuality have ALWAYS REJECTED on its FACE.

We said, way back in the 1970s... "If we just accept homosexuals as 'decent people,' that will give the impression that Homosexuality itself is 'decent'... and such will subject the culture to ever wider acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle; where the impressionable will look at such as a viable alternative... inevitably such can only lead to the DEMAND that because homosexuals are considered and what will inevitably come to be known by future generations AS 'decent people', that this acceptance of homosexuality will IN AND OF ITSELF lead to the cultural understanding that HOMOSEXUALITY IS DECENT, thus normal, thus, FURTHER opening such up as a viable alternative; particularly for the young and impressionable youth, who will use it as a means of rebellion... until at some point, the fabric of the culture itself will begin to tear open a gulf which will provide that homosexuals will be seen as qualifying for Marriage... where the culture will have to redefine the scope of Marriage to include, NOT a MAN AND A WOMAN... but two men, or two women...

And they DEMANDED THAT SUCH "IS NONSENSE..." that ALL they were asking for is for homosexuals to be treated well; to not be beaten just because of their 'sexual orientation'... to not lose their jobs, to not be denied housing and credit...

"NO!" we said... it's absurd to believe that IF WE LOWER THE CULTURAL STANDARD THAT THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS SEt AGAINST THAT STANDARD WILL REACT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN TO REALIZE, A LOWER AVERAGE... And at some point, other deviants will begin to demand their 'equal rights'...


All of these debates were taking place in the early to mid 1970s... And this was a debate that we frankly lost... the Apolitical who comprise: The Great Unwashed... succumbed to the idiocy of cultural subversion and simply grew weary of the chronic arguing and the slew of media reports designed to demonstrate the 'reasonable-ness of the homosexual advocacy... wherein homosexuals were being beaten due to their 'sexual orientation' eventually resulted a sifnificant percentage of the population simply coming to accept homosexuals as 'decent people'...

Shortly after that, a new acronym came on the scene... NAMBLA... The National Man/Boy LOVE Association... which is a group that formed directly out of the Boston 'Gay' community... where 'decent men who were simply oriented differently, 'sexually speaking,' were found practicing a LIFESTYLE, which required them to "LOVE" young boys; and were found taking photos of their "LOVING" those young boys and distributing them to other "decent men" of this "sexually oriented lifestyle" whose only crime is that they tended to focus their LOVE by seducing young boys in CONCENSUAL sexual relations...

Of course at that time, and to a lesser degree, even today, such remains taboo... but here we sit... having 'crossed the bridge into the 20th century' and behind us is the Presidency which blazed a trail of sexual freedom, which instilled in that generation of middle-schoolers, the hot new trend of giving blow jobs... Which was perfectly 'decent' because we had been told by the highest of secular moral authorities that such 'isn't sex'... and besides... it's FUN and exciting and it pisses off their parents...

Today, 'Freinds With Benefits' is a common phrase, used to describe the casual relationship where boys and girls pal about and when the lights go out, they just knock one off and no one's the worse for wear... after all, if the young lady conceives a child, she just takes a pill and kills it... or if she misses that, well she just pays the $600 bucks and has it crushed up and flushed into the clinic sink... NO BIG DEAL THERE! It's her RIGHT! And NO ONE can explain why these young kids are suffering 'low self esteem...' It's a real mystery... But SCIENCE is working on it... and there are MANY wonderful pharmaceuticals which can be used to lift those saggy esteems RIGHT ON UP!

And finally... we sit here today and gaze upon the cultural landscape to witness the now FIVE STATES which have redefined marriage to include the joining of two men or two women...

With the "TRIADS" in the wings, waiting to demand their RIGHTS... "TRIAD" of course are the friendly and all too 'decent' community of the 'polyamorous' {That's a SCIENTIFIC TERM, SO IT'S PERFECTLY VALID; meaning they're all decent people...} and similiar alternative lifestyle communities who are interested in decent, committed relationships of three or more people...

Triad Marriage

And finally… there’s the pending Bill which provides penalties comparable to CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for those citizens that assault a PEDOPHILE… Which is to say a Man or Women who joins with a child in a 'CONCENSUAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP'… In effect providing civil protections for such; making these ‘decent people’ a protected class of the citizenry…

So where someone asks for PROOF of 'Demonstrable Harm' to the culture, from the normalization of sexual deviancy... I'd say that covers it... at least where HARM is defined, AGAIN, as:

harm [haarm]
n
damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration

Now let the record reflect, that {The Opposition} will not accept that definition; which is taken from Webster's Collegiate 2009... as it speaks to the subjective element of moral impairment or deterioration... as that implies RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE; and given that {The Opposition} erroneously believes that 'RELIGION is NEVER SUITABLE FOR LAW '... 'cause, after all... the Constitution says so...'

Otherwise, that is what I like to call a kill shot... and except where people are not reasonable... it is accepted as such; and that is why they prefer to ignore this argument... as it establishes that their complicity is harmful and given their self image as an enlightened 'centrist', to allow such an awakening to enter their consciousness would require them to make a very difficult decision indeed... it would require they THINK and draw a line which establishes who they really are and when one wants to believe one is an American, one can't stand on the side of that line which they presently occupy and maintain that delusion.

Your opinion and some cut-and-paste from an online dictionary do not constitute evidence of demonstrable harm, either to your self or the community at large, resulting from permitting same gender couples to marry. But then, I've come to expect nothing else from you

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This exchange is from the Protection of Pedophile Act, thread... http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-heads-to-senate-committee-9.html#post1210286.

The Question posed projects that there is no demonstrable harm to be found in the normalization of Sexual Deviancy... the response shows otherwise... and what's more, those who are known to advocate for such, are decidely inclined to ignore this reasoning...

And THAT is why it's posted here... Either there are substantial and incontestable 'harmful effects...' from the normaization of there are not... And while I believe this position demonstrates that such is the case... It's clear to me, that these effects are more along the lines of calamitous to catastrophic...

But without regard to where you come to conclude they fall on that scale, surely we can agree that they exemplify the everpresent 'unintended consequences' which shadow every leftist consideration which finds its way into public policy.

I offer it here for your consideration and discussion...

...Until you can offer objective proof of demonstrable harm to individuals or communities by allowing same gender couples to marry, you have nothing ... Really.

Hmm... Oh that's a real show stopper... Demonstrable harm? Huh...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I wonder what that term could mean to a {the opposition}?
.
.
.
.
.
I know what it means to me... "demonstrable harm" says 'harm which can be demonstrated...'
.
.
.
.
.
Of course... the hazard here, is always in the noun...

In this case "HARM"... and what {the opposition} is willing to admit that word defines...

IF 'they were reasonable people'... this would be a non brainer... because 'harm' has a very clear and unambiguous meaning...

harm [haarm]
n
damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration

The problem comes in at the point where the secularist is not prepared to accept the definition of the nouns in THAT definition... as has been REPEATEDLY noted, in this and thousands of others... the left prefers to reinvent the meaning of such words, so as to use the revised meanings as a means to 'trim the edges' from the pieces of the rhetorical puzzle, to make it appear that the edges all fit right together...

In this case it's the element of the definition wherein the word 'harm' means to impart damage of injury through 'moral impairment or deterioration'...

Ya see kids, the whole argument against the normalization of the homo-sexual orientation... AKA: The 'Homo-Sexually Oriented Lifestyle'... is that such produces a lowering of the cultural standard of acceptable PUBLIC BEHAVIOR...

Which the advocates of homosexuality have ALWAYS REJECTED on its FACE.

We said, way back in the 1970s... "If we just accept homosexuals as 'decent people,' that will give the impression that Homosexuality itself is 'decent'... and such will subject the culture to ever wider acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle; where the impressionable will look at such as a viable alternative... inevitably such can only lead to the DEMAND that because homosexuals are considered and what will inevitably come to be known by future generations AS 'decent people', that this acceptance of homosexuality will IN AND OF ITSELF lead to the cultural understanding that HOMOSEXUALITY IS DECENT, thus normal, thus, FURTHER opening such up as a viable alternative; particularly for the young and impressionable youth, who will use it as a means of rebellion... until at some point, the fabric of the culture itself will begin to tear open a gulf which will provide that homosexuals will be seen as qualifying for Marriage... where the culture will have to redefine the scope of Marriage to include, NOT a MAN AND A WOMAN... but two men, or two women...

And they DEMANDED THAT SUCH "IS NONSENSE..." that ALL they were asking for is for homosexuals to be treated well; to not be beaten just because of their 'sexual orientation'... to not lose their jobs, to not be denied housing and credit...

"NO!" we said... it's absurd to believe that IF WE LOWER THE CULTURAL STANDARD THAT THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS SEt AGAINST THAT STANDARD WILL REACT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN TO REALIZE, A LOWER AVERAGE... And at some point, other deviants will begin to demand their 'equal rights'...


All of these debates were taking place in the early to mid 1970s... And this was a debate that we frankly lost... the Apolitical who comprise: The Great Unwashed... succumbed to the idiocy of cultural subversion and simply grew weary of the chronic arguing and the slew of media reports designed to demonstrate the 'reasonable-ness of the homosexual advocacy... wherein homosexuals were being beaten due to their 'sexual orientation' eventually resulted a sifnificant percentage of the population simply coming to accept homosexuals as 'decent people'...

Shortly after that, a new acronym came on the scene... NAMBLA... The National Man/Boy LOVE Association... which is a group that formed directly out of the Boston 'Gay' community... where 'decent men who were simply oriented differently, 'sexually speaking,' were found practicing a LIFESTYLE, which required them to "LOVE" young boys; and were found taking photos of their "LOVING" those young boys and distributing them to other "decent men" of this "sexually oriented lifestyle" whose only crime is that they tended to focus their LOVE by seducing young boys in CONCENSUAL sexual relations...

Of course at that time, and to a lesser degree, even today, such remains taboo... but here we sit... having 'crossed the bridge into the 20th century' and behind us is the Presidency which blazed a trail of sexual freedom, which instilled in that generation of middle-schoolers, the hot new trend of giving blow jobs... Which was perfectly 'decent' because we had been told by the highest of secular moral authorities that such 'isn't sex'... and besides... it's FUN and exciting and it pisses off their parents...

Today, 'Freinds With Benefits' is a common phrase, used to describe the casual relationship where boys and girls pal about and when the lights go out, they just knock one off and no one's the worse for wear... after all, if the young lady conceives a child, she just takes a pill and kills it... or if she misses that, well she just pays the $600 bucks and has it crushed up and flushed into the clinic sink... NO BIG DEAL THERE! It's her RIGHT! And NO ONE can explain why these young kids are suffering 'low self esteem...' It's a real mystery... But SCIENCE is working on it... and there are MANY wonderful pharmaceuticals which can be used to lift those saggy esteems RIGHT ON UP!

And finally... we sit here today and gaze upon the cultural landscape to witness the now FIVE STATES which have redefined marriage to include the joining of two men or two women...

With the "TRIADS" in the wings, waiting to demand their RIGHTS... "TRIAD" of course are the friendly and all too 'decent' community of the 'polyamorous' {That's a SCIENTIFIC TERM, SO IT'S PERFECTLY VALID; meaning they're all decent people...} and similiar alternative lifestyle communities who are interested in decent, committed relationships of three or more people...

Triad Marriage

And finally… there’s the pending Bill which provides penalties comparable to CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for those citizens that assault a PEDOPHILE… Which is to say a Man or Women who joins with a child in a 'CONCENSUAL LOVING RELATIONSHIP'… In effect providing civil protections for such; making these ‘decent people’ a protected class of the citizenry…

So where someone asks for PROOF of 'Demonstrable Harm' to the culture, from the normalization of sexual deviancy... I'd say that covers it... at least where HARM is defined, AGAIN, as:

harm [haarm]
n
damage or injury: physical, mental, or moral impairment or deterioration

Now let the record reflect, that {The Opposition} will not accept that definition; which is taken from Webster's Collegiate 2009... as it speaks to the subjective element of moral impairment or deterioration... as that implies RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE; and given that {The Opposition} erroneously believes that 'RELIGION is NEVER SUITABLE FOR LAW '... 'cause, after all... the Constitution says so...'

Otherwise, that is what I like to call a kill shot... and except where people are not reasonable... it is accepted as such; and that is why they prefer to ignore this argument... as it establishes that their complicity is harmful and given their self image as an enlightened 'centrist', to allow such an awakening to enter their consciousness would require them to make a very difficult decision indeed... it would require they THINK and draw a line which establishes who they really are and when one wants to believe one is an American, one can't stand on the side of that line which they presently occupy and maintain that delusion.

Your opinion and some cut-and-paste from an online dictionary do not constitute evidence of demonstrable harm, either to your self or the community at large, resulting from permitting same gender couples to marry. But then, I've come to expect nothing else from you

Wellll... Actually, that is precisely what it does...

Now you're rejection of the dictionary reference will require you, if you intend for your position to be taken seriously; to provide a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, wherein you can show that this immutable reference (CD version: Webster's Collegiate 2009) is in error... stating the reasoning which would define 'harm' in other terms and leave the word retaining some semblance of the concept which you're clearly desperate to imply, through its use, in your assertion.

Ya see, you want to disregard the full scope of the argument, and simply dismiss the numerous points, reject the long established reference which enjoys world renowned acceptance as a reference source for the defining traits and meanings of 'words', along with the etymological roots of those words... and just make the blind assertion denying the credibility of the reference source and the points of reason which are founded upon it...

Now that's hardly a position which bespeaks the lofty intellectual stature of someone of your ideological underpinnings... You people are suppose to be the intellectual LIGHT... Don't you watch PBS or Charlie Rose?

So butch up sis; and get to producing a well reasoned intellectually sound contest, or cement the CONCESSION you advanced ABOVE.

Now understand... EITHER WAY works for me...

 

[Bullypulpit]

Wellll... Actually, that is precisely what it does...

Now you're rejection of the dictionary reference will require you, if you intend for your position to be taken seriously; to provide a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, wherein you can show that this immutable reference (CD version: Webster's Collegiate 2009) is in error... stating the reasoning which would define 'harm' in other terms and leave the word retaining some semblance of the concept which you're clearly desperate to imply, through its use, in your assertion.

Ya see, you want to disregard the full scope of the argument, and simply dismiss the numerous points, reject the long established reference which enjoys world renowned acceptance as a reference source for the defining traits and meanings of 'words', along with the etymological roots of those words... and just make the blind assertion denying the credibility of the reference source and the points of reason which are founded upon it...

Now that's hardly a position which bespeaks the lofty intellectual stature of someone of your ideological underpinnings... You people are suppose to be the intellectual LIGHT... Don't you watch PBS or Charlie Rose?

So butch up sis; and get to producing a well reasoned intellectually sound contest, or cement the CONCESSION you advanced ABOVE.

Now understand... EITHER WAY works for me...

What concession? The only concession I would make is that you are an idiot who is generally unfit for human company, thus your only social contact is limited to forums such as this. Now leave the growups alone why doncha? Go back to your "Hustler" magazines and self-abuse.

 

[Toro]

So butch up sis; and get to producing a well reasoned intellectually sound contest, or cement the CONCESSION you advanced ABOVE.

PI believes that he has extracted concessions from another poster. For all of those who bet on "1 to 2 days" above at quoted odds of 10:11, it should be noted that this is not an official board dance. An official PI board dance is when PI mistakenly believes that another poster has abandoned debate and conceded defeat when instead the poster has chosen not to respond out of sheer boredom or upon the realization the utter pointlessness of it all, and PI proclaims himself the victor, usually accompanied by cheering in capital letters. It also should be noted that the debate has not yet been abandoned as Bullypulpit has yet to become bored or exasperated enough to throw his hands up in the air and leave. Therefore, bets made last night on 1-2 days will not be paid out.

New odds on the time when everyone else abandons this thread for the reasons stated above and PI declares himself winner and begins a board dance as of 1:30pm ET.

Within 3 hours - 8:1
3 to 6 hours - 6:1
6 to 12 hours - 5:2
12 to 24 hours - 10:7
1 to 2 days - 5:6
2 to 4 days - 3:2
Beyond 4 days - 4:1

 

[Bullypulpit]

So butch up sis; and get to producing a well reasoned intellectually sound contest, or cement the CONCESSION you advanced ABOVE.

PI believes that he has extracted concessions from another poster. For all of those who bet on "1 to 2 days" above at quoted odds of 10:11, it should be noted that this is not an official board dance. An official PI board dance is when PI mistakenly believes that another poster has abandoned debate and conceded defeat when instead the poster has chosen not to respond out of sheer boredom or upon the realization the utter pointlessness of it all, and PI proclaims himself the victor, usually accompanied by cheering in capital letters. It also should be noted that the debate has not yet been abandoned as Bullypulpit has yet to become bored or exasperated enough to throw his hands up in the air and leave. Therefore, bets made last night on 1-2 days will not be paid out.

New odds on the time when everyone else abandons this thread for the reasons stated above and PI declares himself winner and begins a board dance as of 1:30pm ET.

Within 3 hours - 8:1
3 to 6 hours - 6:1
6 to 12 hours - 5:2
12 to 24 hours - 10:7
1 to 2 days - 5:6
2 to 4 days - 3:2
Beyond 4 days - 4:1

What are the odds on my drawing this out just to watch PublicIdiot keep spewing forth his BS until even he runs out?

 

[Toro]

What are the odds on my drawing this out just to watch PublicIdiot keep spewing forth his BS until even he runs out?

1,000:1

The maximum odds set by the house are 1,000:1. Above this level, probabilities become insignificant.

The house does careful and extensive analytical research before setting odds. Through our extensive due diligence, we have come to the conclusion that the volume of BS that PI can spew out is endless. Thus, the odds of anyone outlasting PI is infinitesimally small. In fact, that house has concluded that the only way anyone can outlast PI's BS is if PI gets hit by a car or is involved in some accident which precludes his participation at USMB. Under such circumstances, according to the gaming laws of Commonwealth of Aruba, the house is relieved of its obligation to pay out on such a wager.