• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
When you use an orifice for something other than it's purpose in nature, that is unnatural and unnatural acts can lead to horrific natural consequences. Common Sense.
"Unnatural" is a wonderfully loaded word. Sometimes it means the same thing as "not found in nature or man-made", other times it means "immoral". Most people use the words interchangeably. And no, not all "unnatural acts" have horrific consequence -- building skyscrapers are "unnatural", but is not immoral, nor has particular bad consequences. Giving CPR to a victim of drowning is "unnatural", but can be appreciated as especially moral, more preferable than the alternative of "allowing nature to take its course" resulting in the death of the victim.

I guarantee you, more straight couples are having anal sex than gay couples, its not particularly immoral. And I guarantee you that gay couples are intimate with one another in ways outside of anal sex. People's sexual activity can and does affect their lives, leading to unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases -- consequences which are in no way unique to people of any one sexual orientation or another. But safe sexual practices seem to mitigate the horrific consequences.

There are some interesting cultural phenomena to consider as well. There's nothing in particular about one's gay or transgender status crave cigarettes more than the average person, but they have higher rates of smoking than other groups. LGBT are subject to cultural disapproval, making their lives more stressful. Compound that with the fact that safe spaces and communities for LGBT people consist predominately of bars, and you have a culture which puts undue pressure on LGBT people to smoke and drink.

Trans people, particularly transwomen, have it especially bad. Social costs are very high, many people struggle for approval with their parents, spouses, children, church, and careers; some people don't get that support, many suffer horrific levels of violence. About 40% of trans people will attempt suicide at least once in their lives. Financial costs are very high: about 35% of them are unemployed, 65% earn less than $15K/yr, a significant burden when transitioning costs about $75-100K out of pocket from start to finish. No surprise there are so many transgender prostitutes, what other choice do they have? Suicide? No surprise "pumping parties" are gaining mainstream media coverage, which can be very dangerous. No surprise people obtain hormones on the street without having an endocrinologist supervise their health. The situation is even worse for black and hispanic trans people. Trans people who have support from their families and communities live ordinary, healthy lives.

Cultural disapproval weighs down LGBT people in way that you could probably never relate. The health problems above are cultural phenomenon related to heterosexism, not a genital phenomenon. Social disapproval and discrimination against people in our community are harmful. Laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry attack gay couples and their children on the most emotionally personal level possible.

Your picture of "common sense" is false and oversimplified to the point of being completely useless. Perhaps you shouldn't be trying to speak authoritatively on a subject like LGBT health without having any actual perspective on the subject.

0 for 6. If facts were a stock market, short sellers would be making a killing by now.
 
Last edited:
Let me put it to you ABC Kindygarten simple:
When you use an orifice for something other than it's [sic] purpose in nature, that is unnatural and unnatural acts can lead to horrific natural consequences. Common Sense.

Any "purposes" you perceive in nature are merely your opinion. So this argument is just an exercise in question-begging. There is no such an entity as Mother Nature, so there is no such thing as an intent or purpose to nature.

What other "unnatural" acts are you in favor of making illegal? Living in houses, wearing clothing, writing poetry? What horrific consequences happened when humans acted "unnaturally" in giving up their hunter-gatherer economy and started living in fixed settlements and practiced farming?

Arsenic is all natural. Does that mean it's a good food?

[ETA: And how can you reason that having this discussion via this technology is "natural"?]

You might want to read about the argumentum ad naturam fallacy.

____
Meanwhile, Washington state just legalized gay marriage. I think I'll go buy me some apples today!
 
Last edited:
No such permission to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, nor permission to pervert the institution of Marriage exists in Art. III.
Now you are flat out lying. There is every right to yell fire in a crowded theater... when it is on fire.

And Art III gives every right to free women and anyone else from chattel slavery.

Now you are adding the claim that what happens in Nature is unnatural, so its about time that you quit demanding that other people prove and re-prove reality to you, and start offering up some proof to back up these whoppers you keep telling.

And quoting Jerry Kane isn't proof.
 
Last edited:
The Constitution does not empower any court to repeal the Laws of Nature nor the rights, privileges and immunities bestowed upon married couples, male and female, and their progeny as defined by thousands of years of custom and usage and the Laws of Nature as well.

So your claim is that the Constitution is not empowered to grant women the privileges and immunities of citizenship? Because by thousands of years of custom and usage, married women were considered chattel, not citizens.

Is this really your argument?

(I'm ignoring your confusion of human laws with "laws of nature". They're two very different concepts.)

And back to your fundamental rejection of Article 3 of the Constitution: do you think there is any case involving a conflict of law that is beyond the judiciary power to resolve?
 
According to Wikipedia, there were several societies that practiced same-sex unions, including Ancient Greece and Rome, certain regions of China, and at various times in ancient Europe.
Thank you for that. I've totally swiped that as my "Fun fact" status on Facebook.
Fun fact: Same-sex marriage existed and was accepted in several parts of the ancient world until Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans outlawed the then-traditional definition of marriage to only include heterosexual marriage and ordered that any same-sex couples be executed in 342 AD.
 
Perhaps you should enlighten him. I'm not anti-gay, but I've never heard of same-sex marriage being normal in any culture prior to the 20th century.
Since the claim was that marriage has been exclusive to heterosexual couples 'traditionally', what does the 20th century have to do with it?
 
So your claim is that the Constitution is not empowered to grant women the privileges and immunities of citizenship? Because by thousands of years of custom and usage, married women were considered chattel, not citizens.
No need to distinguish between married and unmarried women. Unmarried women were still chattel, but of their fathers...not that they tended to remain unmarried very long.
 
Robert, "Common Sense" (especially when you proper noun capitalize it like that) is just another way of saying "This is merely my opinion based on that to which I am accustomed. I either will not or can not support my position." Saying "Common Sense" does not support what you are saying in any way. The sooner you learn that, the better.

As to your assertion, who is to say that anal sex is not merely another purpose for the anus? Other orifices server multiple purposes (see mouth). If people derive pleasure from it, is that not another purpose?

Challenge yourself by answering with a real argument instead of "Common Sense".


If he could do that he probably wouldn't be making those comments.
 
The funny thing about bigots like Robert Prey here, is that they make otherwise indifferent people like me support gays.

I really have no dog in this fight, but people like that who are just so blissfully unaware that they're being stupid just piss me off.
 
So your claim is that the Constitution is not empowered to grant women the privileges and immunities of citizenship? Because by thousands of years of custom and usage, married women were considered chattel, not citizens.

Is this really your argument?

(I'm ignoring your confusion of human laws with "laws of nature". They're two very different concepts.)

And back to your fundamental rejection of Article 3 of the Constitution: do you think there is any case involving a conflict of law that is beyond the judiciary power to resolve?

Let me answer that last one by referring to my recent re-viewing of the film, 'Judgement at Nurmemburg" I believe is the title with Spencer Tracy as Chief Judge and the attorney for the Nazi judges brilliantly played by Maxaimillion Shell. One of the strongest points he made for the rationale of the behavior of Judges sentencing some people to forced sterilization was (and I am paraphrasing) "The Judiciary does not Make Law! The role of the Judiciary is to enforce law!!"

And you, sir, should be right at home with that logic whether it concerns a law regarding forced sterilization, a law regarding a re-definition of marriage, or a law which states that the constitutional provision as to "no Thing but Gold and Silver Coin be made a tender" can mean paper or anything else the government so chooses.
That being the case, I'm sure, you as well would have been right at home and in the same corner of the judge on trial, Ernst Janning, played by Burt Lancaster. A good movie for all Deep Thinking Thinkers to view and ponder, especially American lawyers and judges who have chosen to check thieir brains and their consciences at the court room door.
 
Wouldn't the proper libertarian option be for the government to stop dealing with the matter altogether?
Why would a change of terminology as an attempt to defuse religious bigotry be "libertarian?"

Hm?

I thought libertarian government dealt with legal contracts or relations between citizens.
Take that away and you have a government that doesn't cast a shadow.
What does wikipedia say…

Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom,
individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights.
Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.


How's that suppose to work?



P.S. I may have found an anecdote for his poisonous thinking.

I'm A Christian, Unless You Are Gay
 
Any "purposes" you perceive in nature are merely your opinion. So this argument is just an exercise in question-begging. There is no such an entity as Mother Nature, so there is no such thing as an intent or purpose to nature.

What other "unnatural" acts are you in favor of making illegal? Living in houses, wearing clothing, writing poetry? What horrific consequences happened when humans acted "unnaturally" in giving up their hunter-gatherer economy and started living in fixed settlements and practiced farming?

Arsenic is all natural. Does that mean it's a good food?

[ETA: And how can you reason that having this discussion via this technology is "natural"?]

You might want to read about the argumentum ad naturam fallacy.

____
Meanwhile, Washington state just legalized gay marriage. I think I'll go buy me some apples today!

That Nature, Mother Nature or the God of Nature has willed that male and female be united for the propagation of the species, is self evident, and therefore not subject to irrational argument
 
"Unnatural" is a wonderfully loaded word. Sometimes it means the same thing as "not found in nature or man-made", other times it means "immoral". Most people use the words interchangeably. And no, not all "unnatural acts" have horrific consequence -- building skyscrapers are "unnatural", but is not immoral, nor has particular bad consequences. Giving CPR to a victim of drowning is "unnatural", but can be appreciated as especially moral, more preferable than the alternative of "allowing nature to take its course" resulting in the death of the victim.

I guarantee you, more straight couples are having anal sex than gay couples, its not particularly immoral. And I guarantee you that gay couples are intimate with one another in ways outside of anal sex. People's sexual activity can and does affect their lives, leading to unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases -- consequences which are in no way unique to people of any one sexual orientation or another. But safe sexual practices seem to mitigate the horrific consequences.

There are some interesting cultural phenomena to consider as well. There's nothing in particular about one's gay or transgender status crave cigarettes more than the average person, but they have higher rates of smoking than other groups. LGBT are subject to cultural disapproval, making their lives more stressful. Compound that with the fact that safe spaces and communities for LGBT people consist predominately of bars, and you have a culture which puts undue pressure on LGBT people to smoke and drink.

Trans people, particularly transwomen, have it especially bad. Social costs are very high, many people struggle for approval with their parents, spouses, children, church, and careers; some people don't get that support, many suffer horrific levels of violence. About 40% of trans people will attempt suicide at least once in their lives. Financial costs are very high: about 35% of them are unemployed, 65% earn less than $15K/yr, a significant burden when transitioning costs about $75-100K out of pocket from start to finish. No surprise there are so many transgender prostitutes, what other choice do they have? Suicide? No surprise "pumping parties" are gaining mainstream media coverage, which can be very dangerous. No surprise people obtain hormones on the street without having an endocrinologist supervise their health. The situation is even worse for black and hispanic trans people. Trans people who have support from their families and communities live ordinary, healthy lives.

Cultural disapproval weighs down LGBT people in way that you could probably never relate. The health problems above are cultural phenomenon related to heterosexism, not a genital phenomenon. Social disapproval and discrimination against people in our community are harmful. Laws that discriminate against gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry attack gay couples and their children on the most emotionally personal level possible.

Your picture of "common sense" is false and oversimplified to the point of being completely useless. Perhaps you shouldn't be trying to speak authoritatively on a subject like LGBT health without having any actual perspective on the subject.

0 for 6. If facts were a stock market, short sellers would be making a killing by now.

While one might agree with some of what you say, none of it is a rationale for same sex marriage.
 
That Nature, Mother Nature or the God of Nature has willed that male and female be united for the propagation of the species, is self evident, and therefore not subject to irrational argument

In your dong, you know you're wrong.




I've never seen anyone like Robert of the family Prey who was so far in the closet...
 
Robert, "Common Sense" (especially when you proper noun capitalize it like that) is just another way of saying "This is merely my opinion based on that to which I am accustomed. I either will not or can not support my position." Saying "Common Sense" does not support what you are saying in any way. The sooner you learn that, the better.

As to your assertion, who is to say that anal sex is not merely another purpose for the anus? Other orifices server multiple purposes (see mouth). If people derive pleasure from it, is that not another purpose?

Challenge yourself by answering with a real argument instead of "Common Sense".

If you throw out "common sense" then you might as well be in favor of marrying a horse.
 

Back
Top Bottom