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

[Sleep47]

]

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.

You mean like what PI was doing with the APA?

 

[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?

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...

Post 124 where you dismissed sources as psycho babble. Then in a later post you defended wikipedia.

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.


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.

Like I said you fail to show cause and effect you've failed to prove that the "culture of sin" friends with benefits etc. was the result of attempts of 'normalizing homosexuals', or gay marriage.

 

[007]

]

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.

You mean like what PI was doing with the APA?

You mean this APA? The one that's been badgered and beaten by the homo crowd and caved?

American Psychiatric Association Cancels Forum on Homosexuality and Religion


staff reports,

'Open dialogue' will have to wait until next time.

Under pressure from a homosexual bishop and his friends, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has canceled a May 5 event in Washington, D.C., that promised “balanced discussion” on the origins and treatment of homosexuality.

The pro-homosexual speakers — Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual Episcopalian in New Hampshire, and Dr. David Scasta, past president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists — had sought “common ground and new perspectives” with two conservatives: Dr. Albert Mohler, president of South Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family board of directors; and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College.

"The APA program committee approved this six months ago," Throckmorton told The Washington Times. "But when gay activists learned about it, they felt my views on homosexuality are conservative and they didn't agree with them. So they threatened to protest."

According to a statement from the APA: "Misinformation and rhetoric surrounding this event had risen to a level that would hinder the kind of open dialogue and interaction that was originally anticipated."

CitizenLink: American Psychiatric Association Cancels Forum on Homosexuality and Religion

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

ROFL... I know PR... ain't it cool?

They're helpless... it's just one long 'NUH HUH!' defense...

LOL... ALWAYS IMPRESSIVE!

 

[Sleep47]

ZZZZ Let me know when you have a real argument

Let me know when you follow your own advice.

So you don't contest that you didn't have any actual arguments?

 

[007]

Like I said you fail to show cause and effect you've failed to prove that the "culture of sin" friends with benefits etc. was the result of attempts of 'normalizing homosexuals', or gay marriage.

Then why did I understand, completely, his argument and you didn't? Do I have a higher level of reading comprehension than you do? Or is it you just refuse to listen to anything that disproves your pathetic attempt at convincing people that moral decay is a good thing?

 

[007]

ZZZZ Let me know when you have a real argument

Let me know when you follow your own advice.

So you don't contest that you didn't have any actual arguments?

I contest that you're better at ignoring arguments than disputing them.

How about forwarding one of you own? Or do you want to admit you have NOTHING now?

 

[Sleep47]

Like I said you fail to show cause and effect you've failed to prove that the "culture of sin" friends with benefits etc. was the result of attempts of 'normalizing homosexuals', or gay marriage.

Then why did I understand, completely, his argument and you didn't? Do I have a higher level of reading comprehension than you do? Or is it you just refuse to listen to anything that disproves your pathetic attempt at convincing people that moral decay is a good thing?

I understand his argument I just fail to see objective proof for it.

 

[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.

ROFL... I know PR... ain't it cool?

They're helpless... it's just one long 'NUH HUH!' defense...

LOL... ALWAYS IMPRESSIVE!

Yup.... "Sleep47" sure got her board name right....

 

[007]

Like I said you fail to show cause and effect you've failed to prove that the "culture of sin" friends with benefits etc. was the result of attempts of 'normalizing homosexuals', or gay marriage.

Then why did I understand, completely, his argument and you didn't? Do I have a higher level of reading comprehension than you do? Or is it you just refuse to listen to anything that disproves your pathetic attempt at convincing people that moral decay is a good thing?

I understand his argument I just fail to see objective proof for it.

You don't fail to see it... you fail to admit it. But then that's expected. I've dealt with enough of you people already.

The information that PI made available is factual, complete, and indisputable, which is why you've done NOTHING but blow hot gas in return. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[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...

Post 124 where you dismissed sources as psycho babble. Then in a later post you defended wikipedia.

Oh you mean where I dismissed it as psycho-babble and advanced this position in direct support of that rejection?

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.

And I didn't defend WIKI... What's more I sourced WIKI because the left uses WIKI for >90% of all sources, in my experience; thus WIKI is a source which they have little room to reject, given their typical position and the member that lamented the WIKI-source will come to regret having done so...

And what's more... I stated in the simplest possible terms that the information I passed along from WIKI was simply imparting FACTS... it was not drawing conclusions; which is what the majority of people who fail via a WIKI-Source, fail FROM.

I then challenged the member to post countering facts, where she would show that NAMBLA was NOT founded upon the facts cited at WIKIpedia...

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.


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.

Like I said you fail to show cause and effect you've failed to prove that the "culture of sin" friends with benefits etc. was the result of attempts of 'normalizing homosexuals', or gay marriage.

I showed the cause, I showed the effect... and I've offered my conclusions...

I'm not here to convince you sis, and that you disagree is your perogative... but what is NOT your perogative is to demand that I must convince you or my argument fails...

You've two choices... you can simply disagree and leave it at that; where you you advance no argument, conceding by default, for having failed to so do; or you can post a countering argument, wherein YOUR conclusions rest upon the supporting evidence in that argument...

My argument is on the table and at this point, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE NUMEROUS POINTS ADVANCED HAS BEEN SO MUCH AS CHALLENGED... beyond these 'NUH HUH' rants...

Best of luck to ya...

 

[Sleep47]

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.

You mean like what PI was doing with the APA?

You mean this APA? The one that's been badgered and beaten by the homo crowd and caved?

American Psychiatric Association Cancels Forum on Homosexuality and Religion


staff reports,

'Open dialogue' will have to wait until next time.

Under pressure from a homosexual bishop and his friends, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has canceled a May 5 event in Washington, D.C., that promised “balanced discussion” on the origins and treatment of homosexuality.

The pro-homosexual speakers — Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual Episcopalian in New Hampshire, and Dr. David Scasta, past president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists — had sought “common ground and new perspectives” with two conservatives: Dr. Albert Mohler, president of South Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family board of directors; and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College.

"The APA program committee approved this six months ago," Throckmorton told The Washington Times. "But when gay activists learned about it, they felt my views on homosexuality are conservative and they didn't agree with them. So they threatened to protest."

According to a statement from the APA: "Misinformation and rhetoric surrounding this event had risen to a level that would hinder the kind of open dialogue and interaction that was originally anticipated."

So you're saying the APA is biased and therefore nothing they put out should be regarded as true?

 

[Sleep47]

Ok Pi I've seen people claim that countless things we're going to cause *cue scary music* the downfall of western civilization and the coming of sexual debauchery that would make Sodom look like Sesame Street.

You claim we're all ready there or close, or something, I disagree but for the sake of argument what makes you think that your pet cause is actually a cause or the cause.

That is what I don't see objective proof of.

 

[007]

You mean like what PI was doing with the APA?

You mean this APA? The one that's been badgered and beaten by the homo crowd and caved?

American Psychiatric Association Cancels Forum on Homosexuality and Religion


staff reports,

'Open dialogue' will have to wait until next time.

Under pressure from a homosexual bishop and his friends, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has canceled a May 5 event in Washington, D.C., that promised “balanced discussion” on the origins and treatment of homosexuality.

The pro-homosexual speakers — Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual Episcopalian in New Hampshire, and Dr. David Scasta, past president of the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists — had sought “common ground and new perspectives” with two conservatives: Dr. Albert Mohler, president of South Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family board of directors; and Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology at Grove City College.

"The APA program committee approved this six months ago," Throckmorton told The Washington Times. "But when gay activists learned about it, they felt my views on homosexuality are conservative and they didn't agree with them. So they threatened to protest."

According to a statement from the APA: "Misinformation and rhetoric surrounding this event had risen to a level that would hinder the kind of open dialogue and interaction that was originally anticipated."

So you're saying the APA is biased and therefore nothing they put out should be regarded as true?

That's what I'm saying.... there are hundreds of such accounts to be found on the internet, right up to the same tactic is responsible for the APA saying that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental illness. They caved due to immense pressure from the homosexual crowd, who by the way had also infiltrated the APA.

Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling

By Wendy Cloyd
CitizenLink.com
February 23, 2007

CitizenLink: Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling

Task force will review "appropriate therapy practices."

Under pressure from homosexual activists, the American Psychological Association (APA) plans to re-examine its policy on therapy for gay men and women seeking change.

At least two homosexual groups--the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute (NGLTF) and PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbian and Gays)—want the APA to get tough on anyone who tries to help gays change.

The groups "came to us and said from their perspective issues related to reparative therapy are still very important issues that affect the well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people," Dr. Clinton W. Anderson, director of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns office at the APA, told CitizenLink. "They said, 'We think it would be a good idea if you took another look at it.' " The APA is inviting nominations for a five-member task force to consider the issue.

Anderson said he isn't sure if there will be a panel member appointed to represent homosexuals who have successfully sought change. "What we will do is look to see who is nominated," he said. "I believe that there will be a strong concern to have on the task force people with substantive expertise about the population you're talking about -- people who know the scientific and clinical literature very well; people who have both research and clinical understanding."

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, associate professor of psychology and fellow for psychology and public policy at Grove City College, said the APA is responding to pressure, not science.

"The reasons they recommended it was for political reasons, not for scientific reasons," he said. "They didn't refer to new research, or new studies -- they referred to new policy statements from other groups."

The APA already stands against therapies that treat homosexuality as a mental illness, Throckmorton said. If the group yields to demands from PFLAG and NGLTF and comes out against reparative therapy, discontented gays will have fewer options.

"What we're talking about is the right of clients who are unhappy with their feeling (of same-sex attraction)," he said. "Those people have the right to seek therapy to help them live the way they want to live -- the way they value."

Gay Pressure Threatens Counseling, by Wendy Cloyd, CitizenLink.com, February 23, 2007

 

[007]

Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal

 

[Sleep47]

"He'll just come back in here and claim the link is biased and nothing in the article is true"

"So you're saying the APA is biased and therefore nothing they put out should be regarded as true?"
"That's what I'm saying"

Do you have non-biased source saying the APA has been heavily infiltrated by gay activists, it'd help the credibility of it tremendously because source are from a right wing anti-gay lobby.

I mean it could be true but I'm not going to trust any lobbying group to give me an accurate protrayal.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ok Pi I've seen people claim that countless things we're going to cause *cue scary music* the downfall of western civilization and the coming of sexual debauchery that would make Sodom look like Sesame Street.

You claim we're all ready there or close, or something, I disagree but for the sake of argument what makes you think that your pet cause is actually a cause or the cause.

That is what I don't see objective proof of.

Ok, so you're incapable of advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in contest of that which you CLEARLY would otherwise like to contest.

GOOD NEWS KIDS...

Another advocate with the AUDACITY to HOPE for CHANGE is amongst us!

Praise the Saints... FRESH MEAT!

Should you stumble across an argument, sis... be sure to get back to us.

 

[Ravi]

Ok Pi I've seen people claim that countless things we're going to cause *cue scary music* the downfall of western civilization and the coming of sexual debauchery that would make Sodom look like Sesame Street.

You claim we're all ready there or close, or something, I disagree but for the sake of argument what makes you think that your pet cause is actually a cause or the cause.

That is what I don't see objective proof of.

Ok, so you're incapable of advancing a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument in contest of that which you CLEARLY would otherwise like to contest.

GOOD NEWS KIDS...

Another advocate with the AUDACITY to HOPE for CHANGE is amongst us!

Praise the Saints... FRESH MEAT!

Should you stumble across an argument, sis... be sure to get back to us.

I didn't think you could do it either. In fact none of us did.

Let it be noted that Pubic has conceded defeat by admitting his inability to provide objective proof of his assertion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

"He'll just come back in here and claim the link is biased and nothing in the article is true"

"So you're saying the APA is biased and therefore nothing they put out should be regarded as true?"
"That's what I'm saying"

Do you have non-biased source saying the APA has been heavily infiltrated by gay activists, it'd help the credibility of it tremendously because source are from a right wing anti-gay lobby.

I mean it could be true but I'm not going to trust any lobbying group to give me an accurate protrayal.

I do... and its the BEST ONE OF ALL! Common freakin' SENSE.

I've already explained the absurdity of the APA position which what's-her-face posted...

Now if you have a counter-argument to that... POST IT.

The APA says that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, that it's not an abnormal sexual orientation... this despite Homosexuality being 180 degrees oppossed to the biological imperative; which can be defined in NO OTHER TERMS than abnormality...

Now PUHLEASE... go BACK to the APA... DIG around and find the BASIS in reasoning wherein they LAY OUT A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT which explains how an orientation which is in direct opposition to the NORM, is NOT ABNORMAL...

Or concede by default, when ya fail... as where you do NOT find such an objective scientific basis; you're left with NO OTHER POTENTIAL REALITY than the conclusions are SUBJECTIVE and subjective in defiance of SOUND REASON!

 

[Bullypulpit]

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...

That you fail to understand the point indicates a certain shallowness to your self proclaimed intellectual superiority.

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...

The "decline in public standards" by what objective measure?

To what 'real consequences' are YOU referring?

Physical, monetary or psychological harm.

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...

And this is based upon what precisely?

What is the basis of those standards? Deontological...? Theological...? Absolutist...? What, exactly serves as the foundation for your moral standards?

ROFLMNAO...

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.

Your "timeline", as you call it, is nothing more than a string of unsupported assertions...Opinions, in other words...with a link to an unrelated web page having something to do with triad marriages. Polyandry/Polygamy are not at issue here. Unless you're attempting to deflect the debate from its current course...A course which leaves you looking like a bigger buffoon than you already do.

Your ass is handed to you. Would you prefer it served hot?...Or cold?