Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

 

[Skylar]

Huh... I wonder how small that group of people actually is?

My experience says that the estimates of the size of that group are severely under-estimating its size, just as the estimates of the number of sexual deviants is grossly over-estimated.

Yeah, but your 'experience' is merely to ignore anything that contradicts you and then pretend it doesn't exist. And that batshit doesn't work well if accuracy is your goal. For example:

Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996.

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Gallup, one of the most respected public polling agencies in the world explicitly contradicts you. So you ignore it. But its not like support for gay marriage changes just because you pretend it doesn't exist.

Your willful ignorant is simply irrelevant to public opinion.

It sexual deviancy a sin? Of course, because deceitful, resting entirely in DELUSION... it's a lie, designed to be overcome, not embraced.

You don't objectively define morality anymore than you do marriage, Keys. All can do is share your subjective, relativistic personal opinion and ignore anything that contradicts you.

Ignore away. It really won't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

If 'says you' is the extent of my reply, you might have a point. Alas, there's all the portions you omitted that systematically dismantle your entire argument:

Says you, citing you. Reality demonstrates otherwise. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have children in order to get married or stay married. If procreation was the only valid basis of marriage then anyone who couldn't or wouldn't procreate couldn't marry or stay married.

Yet your made up 'procreation only' standard doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Eliminating procreation as the only valid basis of marriage. As a marriage is still valid even when no procreation exists or is possible.

Ignore as you will. Its not like the truck sized holes in your claims magically disappear because you omit them from any reply.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage Gallup, one of the most respected public polling agencies in the world explicitly contradicts you.

Yes, of course, when the people voted on it, they elected the vast majority of the legislators, who long debated and passed bills which officially recognized the natural standards of marriage, which define such as the Joining of One Man and One Woman and this in THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES... and those bills were signed into LAW... by THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

Now, your subjective needs are such that you NEED to conflate the desire for the ISSUE TO GO AWAY... with SUPPORT FOR NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

Now... go get Gallup to take a poll of LIKELY VOTERS... Not "people who are home in the middle of day."

And ask them if they support Middle School Teachers taking their kids on a field trip to a PORN SHOP! And explain to them that THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY... THEN count up your votes.

Here's the bottom line... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And everyone who is NOT Mentally Disordered, knows that.

 

[mdk]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

How incredibly dishonest and cowardly of you! You omit almost his entire post, ignoring everything that destroys your entire argument, and then act as of his argument was a mere "Nuh huh." What an asshole!

 

[Skylar]

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage Gallup, one of the most respected public polling agencies in the world explicitly contradicts you.

Yes, of course, when the people voted on it, they elected the vast majority of the legislators, who long debated and passed bills which officially recognized the natural standards of marriage, which define such as the Joining of One Man and One Woman and this in THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES... and those bills were signed into LAW... by THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

Public opinion has shifted since most of those votes. Since 2011, more people support gay marriage than oppose it.

Also since 2011, every state that has voted on same sex marriage has passed it.

With support for same sex marriage now approaching 2 to 1 over opposition.

Yet you ignore it all, pretending none of it exists. And in the process demonstrate for us just how objectively worthless your 'experience' is, as you merely ignore anything that doesn't agree with you. And then laughably pretend it doesn't exist.

If only reality worked that way.

 

[Skylar]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

How incredibly dishonest and cowardly of you! You omit almost his entire post, ignoring everything that destroys your entire argument, and then act as of his argument was a mere "Nuh huh." What an asshole!

What else can he do? His 'logic' isn't. His evidence is just his personal opinion.

When faced with a vastly superior argument, better logic and better evidence.......there's nothing he can do but ignore and run.

If his argument had merit...he wouldn't have had to do either.

 

[mdk]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

How incredibly dishonest and cowardly of you! You omit almost his entire post, ignoring everything that destroys your entire argument, and then act as of his argument was a mere "Nuh huh." What an asshole!

What else can he do? His 'logic' isn't. His evidence is just his personal opinion.

When faced with a vastly superior argument, better logic and better evidence.......there's nothing he can do but ignore and run.

If his argument had merit...he wouldn't have had to do either.

Which is rather comical considering he responds to every argument that destroys his with, "your concession is duly noted and accepted." You literally can't make this shit up at this point. lol

 

[Skylar]

Says you...

Oh! Well, let me be the first to applaud that brilliant retort! What a profound grasp ... ROFLMNAO!

Sweet Mother ... that's hysterical. I had a whole routine ready and I just could LAND IT! DAM'!

"Says you..."

No doubt, we can't be far from the trotting out of the vaunted "Nuh HUH!" defense.

How incredibly dishonest and cowardly of you! You omit almost his entire post, ignoring everything that destroys your entire argument, and then act as of his argument was a mere "Nuh huh." What an asshole!

What else can he do? His 'logic' isn't. His evidence is just his personal opinion.

When faced with a vastly superior argument, better logic and better evidence.......there's nothing he can do but ignore and run.

If his argument had merit...he wouldn't have had to do either.

Which is rather comical considering he responds to every argument that destroys his with, "your concession is duly noted and accepted." You literally can't make this shit up at this point. lol

He's like the avatar of Relativism. A guy citing himself, using his own opinion as evidence, in the midst of giving concessions to himself while talking to himself.

Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

 

[g5000]

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage Gallup, one of the most respected public polling agencies in the world explicitly contradicts you.

Yes, of course, when the people voted on it, they elected the vast majority of the legislators, who long debated and passed bills which officially recognized the natural standards of marriage, which define such as the Joining of One Man and One Woman and this in THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES... and those bills were signed into LAW... by THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

Now, your subjective needs are such that you NEED to conflate the desire for the ISSUE TO GO AWAY... with SUPPORT FOR NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

Now... go get Gallup to take a poll of LIKELY VOTERS... Not "people who are home in the middle of day."

And ask them if they support Middle School Teachers taking their kids on a field trip to a PORN SHOP! And explain to them that THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY... THEN count up your votes.

Here's the bottom line... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And everyone who is NOT Mentally Disordered, knows that.

Hey, we get it. You believe the majority can vote away rights. Stick with that plan, sparky.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Record-High 60 of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage Gallup, one of the most respected public polling agencies in the world explicitly contradicts you.

Yes, of course, when the people voted on it, they elected the vast majority of the legislators, who long debated and passed bills which officially recognized the natural standards of marriage, which define such as the Joining of One Man and One Woman and this in THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STATES... and those bills were signed into LAW... by THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOVERNORS WHO WERE ALSO ELECTED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.

Now, your subjective needs are such that you NEED to conflate the desire for the ISSUE TO GO AWAY... with SUPPORT FOR NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY.

Now... go get Gallup to take a poll of LIKELY VOTERS... Not "people who are home in the middle of day."

And ask them if they support Middle School Teachers taking their kids on a field trip to a PORN SHOP! And explain to them that THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF NORMALIZING SEXUAL ABNORMALITY... THEN count up your votes.

Here's the bottom line... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And everyone who is NOT Mentally Disordered, knows that.

Hey, we get it. You believe the majority can vote away rights. Stick with that plan, sparky.

What you "get" is that you could not engage the argument, so you got some straw and created an argument which you felt more comfortable with.

I have never advocated prevented anyone from exercising any right.

First, there is no right to marry a person of the same gender. We know this because Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One woman. Note the two places which are respectively taken by the distinct genders.

Second, claiming a right is irrelevant if one cannot cite the responsibilities that are intrinsic to that right and NO RIGHT can exist where the exercise of that right, injures the means of another to exercise their own rights.

This is how we can know to an absolute certainty that there is no potential for a right to murder one's pre-born children. (As if common sense wasn't more than enough for that one.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...asshole!

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is ADORABLE!

FACT: There is nothing in that pile of drivel that I have not refuted at least a dozen times in a dozen different ways.

FYI: Regurgitating a refuted argument does not actually sustain it.

 

[mdk]

...asshole!

ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is ADORABLE!

FACT: There is nothing in that pile of drivel that I have not refuted at least a dozen times in a dozen different ways.

FYI: Regurgitating a refuted argument does not actually sustain it.

The sweet irony of your post is positively delicious. You're becoming more hysterical by the day and I am eating it up. Nom, nom, nom!

 

[bodecea]

Most homosexuals are liberals, they are helping themselves to their own rights as they should.

In other words, you just admitted that there's a homo agenda.

Of course there is...to get equal rights. Just like you have an agenda to get something you want.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

nom!

Grassiass.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

UPDATE!

On the Total Failure of the Cult's Attempt to fulfill their Subjective Needs .​

Skylar has trotted out a NEW RESPONSE:

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage'

Let's review to recall how she got there:

So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.



With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .



Let's review:



Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.



They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".



To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...



For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the Reasoning is that of straw, ya say? Oh how fascinatin'... Let's test that:



Now the Reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?



Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?



Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.


Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.


Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'



The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.



The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

Now given that in Skylar's above cited would-be reality, requires that Humanity does NOT exist in nature... and the actual reality that in fact humanity DOES exist in nature... Skylar's only contest of the above irrefutable facts is refuted in undeniable terms. Leaving the whole of the argument, whole, which follows given that the facts are irrefutable.



Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:



Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.



And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entire Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Most homosexuals are liberals, they are helping themselves to their own rights as they should.

In other words, you just admitted that there's a homo agenda.

Of course there is...to get equal rights. Just like you have an agenda to get something you want.

There is no right for a homosexual to insert homosexuality into an institution which is designed exclusively around the human sexuality standard, from which Sexual Deviancy, of which Homosexuality is the MOST DEVIANT of deviancies... at least to the degree that the subjects remain: HUMAN, deviates... thus such is disqualified from participation.

I realize that you 'feel' that there is. You're simply wrong.

But you seem like a nice gal, so I'll walk you through this... letting you figure it out for yourself.

On what basis do you 'feel' you've a right to enter an institution and immediately begin turning it into something it is not?

 

[Skylar]

First, there is no right to marry a person of the same gender. We know this because Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One woman. Note the two places which are respectively taken by the distinct genders.

But you don't define anyone's rights. Nor do you get to define anyone else's marriage. So both of your assumptions go right out the window. "We know" no such thing. More accurately "you assume". And your assumptions define no one else's rights nor anyone else's marriage.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you citing yourself is objectively meaningless.

Second, claiming a right is irrelevant if one cannot cite the responsibilities that are intrinsic to that right and NO RIGHT can exist where the exercise of that right, injures the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Same sex marriage not only leaves you pristinely unharmed, its doesn't effect you in the slightest. A gay couple get married and.......nothing. You have all the same rights you did the day before they got married as you did the day after.

You don't seem to get how gloriously irrelevant you are to this entire process.

 

[Skylar]

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Marriage doesn't exist anywhere but within human society. There are no examples of it outside human society within nature. You've imagined it. Marriage is instead the product of human society, which invented it. And it is whatever the society that defines it says it is.

Sometimes it involves one person. Sometimes entire groups of people. Sometimes it life long. Sometimes its not. Sometimes its based on pair bonding. Sometimes its arranged. Sometimes it involves children. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes its a joining of equals. Sometimes there's an explicitly dominant and subordinate relationship.

And its all marriage. All based on the needs of the society that defines in. In our society, we define marriage.

And in 37 of 50 States, it includes same sex couples. Soon that will be 50 of 50 States. You disagree. It doesn't matter. As we don't base the definition of marriage on your beliefs or subjective assumptions. You're quite simply irrelevant.

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.


Are you coming to reject that fact?

Its irrelevant. As you assume that marriage is only about procreation. That's demonstrably false. As all the infertile and childless couples that are allowed to marry or remain married show us. If marriage were exclusively about procreation, then anyone who wouldn't or couldn't procreate wouldn't be allowed to marry or remain married.

Yet no one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to marry or stay married. And their marriages are as valid as any one else's. Eliminating procreation as the only possible basis of marriage. There is obviously a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. A marriage is just as valid even when procreation doesn't occur or is a physical impossibility.

Rendering your entire 'human physiology' argument moot.

 

[Skylar]

There is no right for a homosexual to insert homosexuality into an institution which is designed exclusively around the human sexuality standard, from which Sexual Deviancy, of which Homosexuality is the MOST DEVIANT of deviancies... at least to the degree that the subjects remain: HUMAN, deviates... thus such is disqualified from participation.

Says you. And you're irrelevant to this entire process logically, legally, and objectively. As all you're doing is offering us your personal opinion. Which has no relevance to anyone else's marriage, any definition of marriage, any law, nor any court ruling.

You citing you is objectively meaningless.

You can't get around that.