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

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFL...

"The Delusion is great in this one..."

The Consession where you responded to an argument, failed to speak to any of the numerous points made in that argument, rejected the reference sources and all without a stated basis, beyond a slew of fallacious retorts which in no way serve relevance, your ideological stand or your crumbling self esteem.

But feel free to stroke that delusion Sis... 'cause you're selling it!

Of course it's not what you THINK you're selling but you're SELLIN' IT nonetheless...


Friends, the member here, feels that where she is unable to address the argument; fails to advance anything which speaks to any of the numerous points advanced in the argument and otherwise dissmisses the argument through any number of fallacious retorts... that the she has NOT Conceded....

When in fact a concession, in this context, is merely where a competitor gives something away or allows an opponent or 'the opposing team,' as it were, to gain something valuable, usually, a segment of the field, a goal, points... thus, in this case, where the opening argument is advanced; and the opposition fails to return through a sustainable contest, they have, in point of fact: CONCEDED, and quite by default; by having failed to advance a sustainable contesting point, thus their position remains static... or in this case... flat on it's rhetorical ass...

No position has been raised by ANY of those representing the opposition, which rises above the 'NUH HUH' defense...


So, at the end of the day, what ya have here is just more of the same obfuscation which comes as a result of nothing less than a stark lack of options.


Again, what this thread proves CONCLUSIVELY, is that not ONE of the members of the Cultural Subversion squad, who chronically advocate for the normalization of sexual deviancy, can defend such, nor could they if their lives depended upon it.

The entire advocacy of 'homosexual rights' is a JOKE, a long string of lies, myths, innuendo and absurdity... and this thread establishes THAT, as a FACT.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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... blah blah blah and MORE:

 

[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...

Deviancy is no more than straying from an accepted norm. I would guess you were searching for the word “perversion”, which homosexuality is not. Nor is homosexuality a “mental illness”

Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue. – APA

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.

Your opinion is duly noted, and lacks any supporting evidence. You have not provided one iota of supporting evidence for your contention that the effects of homosexuality on society, or even yourself, will be “calamitous to catastrophic”.

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

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.

Your definition aside, you have provided no evidence of demonstrable harm to individuals, communities or to society at large. Your is opinion does not constitute such evidence
.

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'...

See: “ Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

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...

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

See: "Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False Link"

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

The body of evidence shows that pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation. Their fixation is on children, their gender is irrelevant.

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.

If you wish to see the effect of religious doctrine given the full weight and authority of law, look no further than the tyranny and oppression of Inquisition. Equally oppressive was the Massachusetts Bay Colony under Puritan rule. More recently we can look to Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeni, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The reason religious doctrine is not suitable legal doctrine has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is the simple fact that religious doctrine, being rooted in divine revelation, has nothing to do with this human life, in this world. For our laws and morals to have ANY relevance and meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life, in this world.

 

[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 decidedly inclined to ignore this reasoning...

Deviancy is no more than straying from an accepted norm. I would guess you were searching for the word “perversion”, which homosexuality is not. Nor is homosexuality a “mental illness”

Ahh... "the accepted norm...' Not the biological baseline... not the biological design of the species.... Nuh huh... but what is said to be 'ACCEPTED'... and what 'SCIENCE" or what stands for science, tells her is 'accepted,' without regard to ANY OTHER BASIS IN REASONING...

The problem here of course is that this species of reasoning, now informs us that Homosexuality is "ACCEPTED"... thus Homosexuality is: 'NORMAL'... and in so doing, as least as far is this member is concerned... Homosexuality is the baseline equivalent to heterosexuality....

So who was it that asked "Who is pushing to Normalize Homosexuality?" as a means to dismiss the assertion in the OP, that such was even happening, let alone that such could render harm to the culture?

Thus this member has been indoctrinated to believe that sexuality itself has no standard... it simply "IS"... whatever stands for SCIENCE says it is... IF they say so... if they create a web-page... and write it down... this member believes IT!

The biological imperative, the function of gender is meaningless; gender is simply a skin/shirts thing, which can change without notice and has no real role in sexuality... whatever comes along, comes along and if 'science' says it's 'normal'; well then it's normal.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue. – APA

And THAT is why it's posted here... Either there are substantial and incontestable 'harmful effects...' from the normalization, or 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.

Your opinion is duly noted, and lacks any supporting evidence. You have not provided one iota of supporting evidence for your contention that the effects of homosexuality on society, or even yourself, will be “calamitous to catastrophic”.

ROFL... It's an opening statement... which as is customary, rests above the supporting evidence which resides below...

It should be noted that the intellectual train-wreck you sourced from the pseudo-scientists of the APA didn't advance a scintilla of evidence... your fallacious appeal to their authority notwithstanding.

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

... 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 no-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.

Your definition aside, you have provided no evidence of demonstrable harm to individuals, communities or to society at large. Your is opinion does not constitute such evidence.

ROFL...

So ya just want to set the definition of harm aside, in the segment of the argument which is DEFINING THE MEANING OF HARM?

Well I can't say that I blame ya... as where Harm is defined... your contest is DOOMED!

But suffice it to say that this segment only seeks to define the NOUN which YOU USED... as the bedrock of your contest... thus it does not serve as 'evidence OF demonstrable harm...' only to define what the noun "HARM" means... so that the evidence which follows can be compared and contrasted against the concept.

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 significant percentage of the population simply coming to accept homosexuals as 'decent people'...

See: “ Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

You've already sourced that drivel... which FTR refutes the previously refuted assertions by you and the gals that Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation... but lets not get bogged down on re-beating that dead horse...

The bottom line is that what you sourced from the APA only confirms my argument... it simply projects the color of 'scientific authority,' to which you're appealing, through abject opinion; absent a SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE, which flies in the face of common sense.

Homosexuality is NOT normal... it can NEVER be normal; because, given that sexuality is a function of the promulgation of the species; if it ever DOES become normal, the SPECIES is DEAD.

Homosexuality is the ANTITHESIS of NORMAL... thus it is ABNORMAL... and where such is relevant to cognition, ABNORMAL CONTITUTES A DISORDER OF COGNITION... meaning that homosexuality can ONLY be defined as a MENTAL DISORDER; beyond that, such is the purest essense of sexual deviancy; at least where the BIOLOGICAL BASELINE OF GENDER SEXUALITY IS CRITICAL TO THE VIABILITY OF THE SPECIES is considered RELEVANT.

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

You are attempting to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia.

NOPE! I am SHOWING EVIDENCE THAT THE LEFT HAS LOWERED THE STANDARD OF ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR and the HARM TO THE CULTURE, WHICH IS SELF EVIDENT, from that reduction in the standard of public behavior... and this through the timeline of the past 40 years wherein the cultural behavior has deteriorated to the point where average people, cannot discern the simple distinction between DEVIANCY AND NORMALITY... where we have gone from clear delineations of prudent public behavior; and have now deteriorated to the point where every form of debauchery is now presently flooding over, what was ONCE, THAT VERY STANDARD.

This has been a tactic used against unpopular minorities for centuries…link them with the most vile behavior imaginable and keep trumpeting the lie until someone believes it. We saw this used in the Jim Crow South as white racists painted all blacks with the stereotype of black men being interested in little more than the rape of white women. The documented cases of black men and boys being beaten and lynched are numerous. The Nazis portrayed Jews as sub-humans who would sacrifice “Aryan” children in grotesque rituals. And history shows us what happened there.

Golly... so you're saying that pedophilia is one of 'the most vile behaviors imaginable?'

Huh... And this after you've demanded that pedophilia and homosexuality are wholly distinct...

Fascinatin'...

The founding of NAMBLA
In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged 8 to 15. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a "sex ring", and said that the arrest was only "the tip of the iceberg."[7] The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men.

Staff members of the homosexual newspaper Fag Rag believed the raid was politically motivated. They and others in Boston's gay community saw Byrne's round-up as an anti-gay witchhunt. On December 9 they organized the Boston-Boise Committee, a name intended as a reference to a similar situation that unfolded in Boise, Idaho in the 1950s. The group sponsored rallies, provided funds for the defendants, and tried to educate the public about the case by passing out fliers. It would also later produce NAMBLA.

District Attorney Garrett Byrne was defeated in his re-election bid. The new DA said that no man should fear prison for having sex with a teenager unless coercion was involved. All charges were dropped. The few who had already pled or been found guilty received only probation.[11]

On December 2, 1978, Tom Reeves of the Boston-Boise Committee convened a meeting called "Man/Boy Love and the Age of Consent." Approximately 150 interested people attended. At the meeting's conclusion, about thirty men and youths decided to form an organization which they called the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA for short.

That from the oracle of all "MODERATE" accepted knowledge: WIKIpedia... North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See: "Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False Link"

Yeah... I've read it, it's more psycho-babble which tries to project a pure distinction between homosexuality and homosexual molestation of children.

See: North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In that piece you'll note the orgins of NAMBLA are purely a function of nothing BUT HOMOSEXUALS, PROMOTED BY HOMOSEXUALS; DEFENDED BY HOMOSEXUALS... which continue to this day to be funded, promoted and supported by HOMOSEXUALS AND THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION... as well as various other advocacies for sexual psuedo-science.

All of which stem from Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male"... which came as a result of the Progressive march of Eugenics... Naturally you're ignorant of Kinsey and his body of work, wherein he 'studied' the affects of sex on minor children... through the illegal, immoral and otherwise uncomprehensible rape of hundreds of children; with one instance where he claims a 2 month old child was induced into orgams, with no discernable long term effects...

So if you truly BELIEVE... NOT "FEEL", but KNOW TO BE TRUE, that pedopilia is representative of 'the most vile behavior imaginable...," then you should know that the very drivel that your pushing is founded upon nothing less...

What's more, the APA you're citing, sponsored this:

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf

Wherein the authors conclude that adult/child sex does not show any long term harm to children and what's more, it is often found to be quite beneficial to some...

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

The body of evidence shows that pedophiles have no adult sexual orientation. Their fixation is on children, their gender is irrelevant.

ROFLMNAO... Sweet Mother... That's precious... delusion on parade...

WHAT 'body of evidence' is that?

You've cited no 'body of evidence' which even SUGGEST such is the case...

What's more is that the history of pedophilia in RIFE with homosexual persuing children for sexual gratification and the HISTORY of NAMBLA ALONE, establishes such as a certainty and refutes this notion that pedophilia is a distinct disorder, which never finds itself co-mingling with other sexual orientations... in it's ENTIRETY...

This is to say that there are precisely NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA... individuals who exhibit a 'normal' hetero-sexual-orientation, wherein they are members of an organization which is designed around the pursuit of adults to engage children for sexual gratification. As the very existance of such a trait determines that such individuals are ABNORMAL... thus they would be suffering a congtive ABNORMALITY... thus a MENTAL DISORDER... and a decidely distinct SEXUAL ORIENTATION FROM THAT OF THE BASELINE NORM... where one man, is aroused and seeks sexual gratification from one female...

It's really not a complex issue... nor anything approaching it. It only appears to BE complex, when one allows themselves to succumb to irrationality which serves to justify the normalization of perversion to stroke their faltering self esteem.

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.

If you wish to see the effect of religious doctrine given the full weight and authority of law, look no further than the tyranny and oppression of Inquisition. Equally oppressive was the Massachusetts Bay Colony under Puritan rule. More recently we can look to Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeni, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The reason religious doctrine is not suitable legal doctrine has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is the simple fact that religious doctrine, being rooted in divine revelation, has nothing to do with this human life, in this world. For our laws and morals to have ANY relevance and meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life, in this world.

ROFLMNAO...

Anyone see anything in what I've written here or anywhere else, call for a Theocracy?

Anyone see me espouse Religious DOCTRINE in this position?

Cite it... or withdraw the implication...

 

[KittenKoder]

If Wicrapedia is all you have, epic fail.

 

[Ravi]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

Ahh... yet another PROGRESSIVE coming to advocate that HUMANITY adopt the high moral standards which are common to the LOWER SPECIES of nature...

Where, we also find that CANNIBALISM is quite NATURAL... as is ass licking...

Which is just a little TOO on the nose...


Well DONE RAVI!

A BRILLIANT demonstation of the Regressive nature of the 'Progressives'...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If Wicrapedia is all you have, epic fail.

Oh my... a Centrists comes to denounce the Oracle of WIKIpedia...

Take note of this one Kitty... It's coming back to haunt you...

With that said... when I lament the use of WIKIpedia, I generally do so through a stated basis wherein I refute the CONCLUSION which is being advanced by the WIKI-idiocy...

In THIS case, it is simply citing a series of facts... which you seem to be contesting; yet you've bothered to only imply a contest; specifically having chosen to NOT cite any counter-facts, wherein on presumes you can show that NAMBLA was NOT founded in the Boston Homosexual Community as a result of prosecutions of a couple of dozen HOMOSEXUALS who had lured children, through drugs and alchohol, into the house where they engaged in 'loving consensual sex'; where upon they photographed them for the purposes of redistributing those photos to OTHER homosexuals...

This is my official, direct and unambiguous challenge to you, to cite such facts or withdraw your flaccid little contest, or concede by default that this impotent effort was just a knee-jerk reaction to education which contests your indoctrination.

FTR: Either way works for me...

 

[Ravi]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

Ahh... yet another PROGRESSIVE coming to advocate that HUMANITY adopt the high moral standards which are common to the LOWER SPECIES of nature...

Where, we also find that CANNIBALISM is quite NATURAL... as is ass licking...

Which is just a little TOO on the nose...


Well DONE RAVI!

A BRILLIANT demonstation of the Regressive nature of the 'Progressives'...

Cannibalism deprives someone of their right to live.

epic fail!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

Ahh... yet another PROGRESSIVE coming to advocate that HUMANITY adopt the high moral standards which are common to the LOWER SPECIES of nature...

Where, we also find that CANNIBALISM is quite NATURAL... as is ass licking...

Which is just a little TOO on the nose...


Well DONE RAVI!

A BRILLIANT demonstation of the Regressive nature of the 'Progressives'...

Cannibalism deprives someone of their right to live.

epic fail!

No shit... IF you kill them to eat them... BUT one could carve up a corpse... The Donner Party is a classic example of such... and that didn't go over too well; IN OUR CULTURE.

Yet it is perfectly natural... using your stated reasoning... in that 'it exists in nature."

Now I can understand that ya want to move the goal post here and shift relevance to accommodate you long discredited farce, but that's a NO NO!

So which is it? Are we standing on the higher reasoning of HUMANITY, as the standard; or the 'it exist in nature so it's cool' standard, regressing humanity to a lower stage of development?'

If we're going with the higher reasoning of HUMANITY; then normalizing sexual deviancy robs me and other's like me, of our right to set a cultural standard and to not be subjected to the harmful effects of such rampant public debauchery and other forms of cultural idiocy.

Now if you want to munch on the carpet, sis... that's your business... No one cares... Just keep it to yourself and your bestest good gal pal... but don't come ramming your 'lifestyle' into public demanding that the culture shift on its axis and redefine its nuclear elements, change the language to meaningless and lower all standards of public decency to minimums, just to accommodate your particular kink... as such is DESTRUCTIVE TO THE VIABILITY OF THAT CULTURE.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

Ahh... yet another PROGRESSIVE coming to advocate that HUMANITY adopt the high moral standards which are common to the LOWER SPECIES of nature...

Where, we also find that CANNIBALISM is quite NATURAL... as is ass licking...

Which is just a little TOO on the nose...


Well DONE RAVI!

A BRILLIANT demonstation of the Regressive nature of the 'Progressives'...

Unless our moral standards are rooted in the real consequences to the lives of those individuals they affect, in this world, they are useless. While I am uncertain as to the basis of your peculiar brand of morality I feel certain in saying that it has little to do with real consequences in this life or this world.

The only regressive here is you, but let's not forget your fellow traveler PallidRetard. Your shared stance is based on little more than religious doctrine and blind prejudice, hearkening back to an earlier time...like the Dark Ages in Europe...

Now, I eagerly await your evidence of "calamitous and catastrophic' consequences to individuals, communities and society as a whole in giving granting same gender couples the right to marry...A right it was never the government's to deny.

 

[Sleep47]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the perceived lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

 

[Toro]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

Welcome to USMB.

 

[Sleep47]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

Welcome to USMB.

thanks.

 

[007]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the perceived lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

And then you showed up and did nothing more than give your biased opinion on the thread which just happened to be void of anything to dispute PI's OP. How odd.

I've never been able to figure out why the progressives and the enlightened left would argue in FAVOR of immorality and unnatural characteristics when they're so obviously wrong. What is noticeable though is you feed off each others deviancy and perversion. But, we know what you're doing, and we know why you're mad. People such as PI and myself are your stumbling blocks. We represent what's decent. We represent what's right. We represent what's moral, natural, and also, the MAJORITY. Yes, WE are the majority. Thank God most people have the common sense to know right from wrong. Thank God most people don't buy this MORONIC idea that if DOGS lick each others ASSES, then HUMANS SHOULD TOO! How STUPID does one have to be to try and forward such an IDIOTIC idea? I would HATE to see what kind of a world we'd live in if a person that believes THAT crap actually got the power to make it so. People might as well take up residence in their TOILET!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I have to applaud Bullypulpit...he may be one of the few people here that actually reads PI's posts.

btw, Pubic, homosexuality is normal in nature. It may not be normal to you but that is irrelevant.

Ahh... yet another PROGRESSIVE coming to advocate that HUMANITY adopt the high moral standards which are common to the LOWER SPECIES of nature...

Where, we also find that CANNIBALISM is quite NATURAL... as is ass licking...

Which is just a little TOO on the nose...


Well DONE RAVI!

A BRILLIANT demonstation of the Regressive nature of the 'Progressives'...

Unless our moral standards are rooted in the real consequences to the lives of those individuals they affect, in this world, they are useless.

The point to that trainwreck is known only to you...

The entire point of my argument are the REAL CONSEQUENCES REALIZED BY THE DECLINE IN PUBLIC STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY...

To what 'real consequences' are YOU referring?

While I am uncertain as to the basis of your peculiar brand of morality I feel certain in saying that it has little to do with real consequences in this life or this world.

I see... yet you can't find the intellectual honesty to even cite an example of 'real consequences'... despite your emphatic certainty... how positively clever.

My 'peculiar morality' simply requires that where standards are at minimum, those who use those standards as a guide by which to measure their public behavior, will behave somewhere just south of what the standard requires.

The only regressive here is you, but let's not forget your fellow traveler PallidRetard. Your shared stance is based on little more than religious doctrine and blind prejudice, hearkening back to an earlier time...like the Dark Ages in Europe...

ROFLMNAO...

And this is based upon what precisely?

Now, I eagerly await your evidence of "calamitous and catastrophic' consequences to individuals, communities and society as a whole in giving granting same gender couples the right to marry...A right it was never the government's to deny.

Sure... that's not a problem: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rable-harm-marriage-same-sex.html#post1212227

In that link you'll find the argument wherein a timeline is measured against a rapidly falling moral standard; wherein the harmful ramifications of those crumbling standards are noted... the time frame is just post the free-love age of the 1960s, through to the present where the Homosexuality has been declared to be normal, marriage is being refined to include two people of the same gender; with polygomists stepping up to Re-redefine it to include three or more people and Congress is pass legislation which tacitly promote pedophiles to a protected class...

An argument against which no valid contest has yet to be advanced, so take a look at it and see what you can come up with...

My guess is you'll have you ass handed to you.

 

[Sleep47]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the perceived lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

And then you showed up and did nothing more than give your biased opinion on the thread which just happened to be void of anything to dispute PI's OP. How odd.

PI said he had objective proof and so far he hasn't proven jack. I'm just pointing that out.

I've never been able to figure out why the progressives and the enlightened left would argue in FAVOR of immorality and unnatural characteristics when they're so obviously wrong. What is noticeable though is you feed off each others deviancy and perversion.

ZZZZ Let me know when you have a real argument instead of baseless attacks.

But, we know what you're doing, and we know why you're mad. People such as PI and myself are your stumbling blocks. We represent what's decent. We represent what's right. We represent what's moral, natural, and also,

You represent the people who won't put up facts to help their argument.

the MAJORITY. Yes, WE are the majority.

Which when trying to prove you're right is completely irrelevant. Although it's funny you're not even trying to convince me that PI's assertions were right but are instead content to just sling around pointless rhetoric.

Thank God most people have the common sense to know right from wrong. Thank God most people don't buy this MORONIC idea that if DOGS lick each others ASSES, then HUMANS SHOULD TOO!

ZZZ once again please let me know when you have a real argument and not straw men and masturbatory "we're good and pure and right and you're evil"

 

[007]

Sure... that's not a problem: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rable-harm-marriage-same-sex.html#post1212227

In that link you'll find the argument wherein a timeline is measured against a rapidly falling moral standard; wherein the harmful ramifications of those crumbling standards are noted... the time frame is just post the free-love age of the 1960s, through to the present where the Homosexuality has been declared to be normal, marriage is being refined to include two people of the same gender; with polygomists stepping up to Re-redefine it to include three or more people and Congress is pass legislation which tacitly promote pedophiles to a protected class...

An argument against which no valid contest has yet to be advanced, so take a look at it and see what you can come up with...

My guess is you'll have you ass handed to you.

PI, he won't even read a word of it. He'll just come back in here and claim the link is biased and nothing in the article is true. He does it all the time. You could tell him the color of his eyes and he wouldn't believe you, because simply, he doesn't want to.

 

[007]

ZZZZ Let me know when you have a real argument

Let me know when you follow your own advice.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok so let me get this straight PI attacked the API as a source, without sourcing any counter-facts than threw a fit when someone attacked wikipedia as a source and didn't cite any counter sources?

He did?

Where did PI attack a source and fail to offer a reasoned counter argument?

Be specific... at least to the degree that your intellectual limitations provide...

Also he didn't show any cause and effect between the perceived lowering of standards and his long 'our culture's going to turn to debauchery' rant that sounds like something repeated every 30 years whenever there's a new scapegoat. How odd.

Yeah... he did...

Ya know... I see that you're new here; or that you're at least pretending to be new... so let me help ya out.

One thing we do here, is we actually read the argument... assuming you're not a leftists.

So read this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...rable-harm-marriage-same-sex.html#post1212227

THEN... (once you've actually read it) you can either adhere to all the points, some of the points, none of the points AND... assuming you've the intellectual means... you can post a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument wherein you provide your reasoning for whatever it is ya decide.